January 30th, 2014

Kansas Cops Continue to Embarrass Themselves as they Harass Teen with Camera 242

By Carlos Miller

 

Kansas Capitol Police Sergeant Terry Golightley figured he could easily intimidate Addison Mikkelson from video recording in the state capitol earlier today, even though there is no law against it.

But the 17-year-old Topeka resident did an impressive job of not falling for any of it.

Mikkelson, who was arrested last month by Topeka police for jaywalking while trying to record them in public, had shown up to the capitol to inquire why capitol police did not arrest anybody for jaywalking during the previous day’s Kansas Day ceremonies, which was commemorating the day the state was admitted into the union.

But Golightley was more concerned with him video recording the security checkpoints.

First, Golightley did the usual tactic of invading Mikkelson’s personal space, forcing him to walk backwards, then accusing him of crashing into a lady a day earlier, almost knocking her over.

Mikkelson insisted he did not do that, but Golightley ensured him he had it on camera, but didn’t offer to show Mikkelson when he asked to see it.

Then Mikkelson asked him why he did not arrest the jaywalkers from the previous day, but Golightley claimed he had not been outside that day.

But Mikkelson informed him he has video proof that he was standing outside that day, watching the jaywalkers but doing nothing about it.

Golightley then kept telling him he was not allowed to record the security checkpoint, but was allowed to record everything else in the capitol, mostly “things of interest.”

When Mikkelson said the checkpoint interests him, Golightley pulled out the terrorist card.

“If the security interests you, then maybe we should talk to you about some terrorist stuff,” he said.

“I’m interested in seeing how you interact with people,” Mikkelson responded.

When Golightley realized the terrorist card wasn’t going to work, he resorted to the old “need to have their permission” tactic, referring to the general public that has no expectation of privacy entering the capitol.

Golightley informed Mikkelson that he could be sued by people who end up on his online videos, but that an only happen if he uses their image for commercial use, which is not the case here.

When Mikkelson shot that tactic down, Golightley then accused him of stalking the general public by recording them, but that was also a lie because the Kansas stalking statute states that a “specific person” must be the victim, not the general public.

Finally, Golightley had no choice but to resort to the old “I don’t want the camera in my face” as he moved into him, putting his face into the camera.

“You’re the one walking up to me, you can back up anytime and won’t have a camera in your face,” Mikkelson responded, standing his ground with his camera.

Finally, when all tactics failed, Golightley ordered him out of the building.

“You’re a corrupt officer, you know that?” Mikkelson said. “You should take that badge off and stomp on it, that’s what you should do, because you do not deserve that badge.”

Mikkelson, who plans to major in criminal justice as he starts college this year, wanted to be a cop at one point, but he’s now disgusted by what he’s been seeing since his first arrest last month.

He not only had a second incident with an officer from the Kansas Highway Patrol because of his camera, which oversees the Kansas Capitol Police, he says they now follow him when he leaves his house.

But he never leaves home without a camera, so hopefully they’ll be smart enough to leave him alone. Especially now that the local media is paying attention.

He is scheduled for a hearing on his jaywalking charge in March.

Call Kansas Capitol Police at (785) 296-3420.

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Voice-Of-Concern

    Way to go Addison!

    Mikkelson.. not so much

    • Kristen

      LOL. Addison Mikkelson is the name of the young man doing the video. Terry Golightley is the cop.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        D’oh! Thanks

        • officer twunt

          The fact that this cop’s name is Golightly: priceless.

  • Tijuana Joe

    Do I need “the public’s permission” to view this Video?

    • Difdi

      You are the public. Give yourself permission and it’ll be fine.

      Just don’t view it before giving yourself permission, or you might miraculously become a terrorist or something.

      • TheFlashingScotsman

        ^ WIN!

  • Rick Hiltz

    what people should be doing is finding out if intimidation is a crime I know its covered in the Criminal code of Canada under section 423 as is threats under section 464 so people who film should research this to see if in fact they are an offense and arm themselves with that knowledge when they are confronted . It also helps to know that any building funded by tax payer dollaars is in fact owned by the people and as an owner they can not tresspass you from it

    • Jamesdiamond

      Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that “would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities” fear of injury or harm. It is not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened.

      Criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury. “Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury…physical or mental damage…act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person. A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize other.

      “Intimidation” is the name of a criminal offense in several US states.

      • Difdi

        There’s also coercion (though some states call it other things) — the use or threat of force, including arrest or legal consequences, to coerce someone to do something that they do not want to do and are not legally obligated to do…or to coerce someone to refrain from doing something they have a legal right to do.

        In many states, simply being armed (even if the victim never sees the weapon) while committing coercion turns a misdemeanor offense into a felony offense. In most states, being visibly armed while coercing someone is considered a threat.

        • Jamesdiamond

          Find the laws is easy, finding a court that will charge and then prosecute a cop, now there is a trick i’d really like to see.

          • pinbalwyz

            That’s what jury trials are for. Sue the bastards! It’s not going to change until more people do. Hand wringing doesn’t have much staying power. Monetary judgments and injunctions DO!
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Jamesdiamond

            Before you have a jury trial though, you have to find a prosecutor that is willing to prosecute the cop.

          • doc justice

            I think you are right about criminal charges. However, there is 42usc1983, which gives you standing to sue in federal court for civil rights violation. If they take you equipment there is also 42usc2000aa.

          • pinbalwyz

            There’s also civil relief. Folks should know that 42USC 1983 relief isn’t only available in federal court. State courts also have the authority to enforce federal law, in this instance. Even more important is the threshold for being able to sustain such a lawsuit. The federal courts interpret Rule 12(b)(6) very broadly while Washington State courts interpret it very narrowly–i.e. A federal court will dismiss a civil complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) upon a properly brought motion if the judge determines it’s not LIKELY or PROBABLE the lawsuit will succeed while Washington State courts will allow it to run its course under Rule 12(b)(6) if it is reasonably POSSIBLE the lawsuit will succeed.

            Accordingly, complaining litigants should give serious thought to pursuing their remedies for violation of civil rights in State court…at least in Washington State, while defendants might want to file a timely motion to remove (30 day or less from proper original service) from State court (if that’s where the complaint was filed) to federal court.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I would recommend a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive citizens of adequate amounts of tinfoil.

    • n4zhg

      KS 21-3831 et seq might cover it.

    • pinbalwyz

      Close, but no banana, Rick. You can be trespassed in the states with just cause such as disrupting the function of the facility, being there illegally (such as after hours) or where the general public has no right of access. Federal case law mandates a citizen be given WRITTEN trespass notice when being banned/removed from a public/government building–especially where it involves fundamental liberty interests of the citizen, such as a library or courthouse. The notice MUST contain an outline of established procedures for the citizen to appeal the trespass.

      It is galling that so much public property and public facilities belonging to the people is treated as these badge monsters’ private fiefdom where arbitrary whim reigns under the glare of their own defective lights.
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

    • American Patriot

      Most NAZI COPS have NO clue as to the fact that it is ONLY the people that ‘own’ government, as government is only a creation of the people, and as such, not allowed or capable of ‘owning’ anything. ALL we have, is the PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE!
      I don’t need a law o sue a ignorant NAZI, if they follow me and confront me for no legitimate reason, THEY are STALKING ME!
      I will sue that cop then his department, but I would FOCUS my efforts on the NAZI COP!
      I wonder if they would like being sued every day, file a small claims suit, followed by a criminal suit, and another and so on….
      My suit would demand he is UNFIT to wear the uniform, as his actions and demeanor PROVE this fact clearly, and he has personality issues when dealing with the public, whom PAYS his salary. I guess my attorney could also submit demands he be psychologically analyzed and detained for such an evaluation, to judge his mental state.
      But, if you hate the public recording you in public venues, it is time to QUIT your job and find something better suited to your ‘hermit’ requirements.
      Which can also be used to DISQUALIFY you from public interactions, by your very act, you display ANTI-SOCIAL behaviors, and must be fired.

      • Rick Hiltz

        stalking or following is a form of intimidation

  • Juan Nightstand

    “You’re a corrupt officer. You should take of that badge and stomp on it.” Outstanding. I hope you don’t mind if I use that line. Thank you very much for posting this.

    • Josef Roesler

      Except this is not corruption. Ignorance maybe, and surely not corruption at it’s best.

      corruption – lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

      So you really shouldn’t use that line. Since you’d be wrong, and make yourself look as stupid as the cop.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        I’d say Golightley showed an impressive lack of integrity in the video.

        • Josef Roesler

          Maybe so if you honestly think he knows what he’s talking about. But the most likely reason is that he is just ignorant of the job he is doing.

          • Kerfuffulator

            LOL
            Did you use enough pronouns there?

          • Josef Roesler

            I used enough to make two sentences.

          • Kerfuffulator

            But not enough sentences to make coherent point
            Try again

          • Josef Roesler

            Aren’t you clever. Point was plenty coherent. Maybe your comprehension is what’s lacking. Thanks for the insults.

          • Kerfuffulator

            Actually, you failed to convey you meaning. Sure it sounds good in your head, as you are using your own reference points. However, it is really not at all clear what you intended to say.

            I’m not surprised that you hear criticism as insults, that way you never have to improve. If you don’t like getting feedback on poorly worded entries, do a better job of clearly communicating.

          • Josef Roesler

            Sure thing. Calling someone incoherent because you are the pronoun police is not insulting anyone. My meaning was conveyed fine.

          • CanuckAmuck

            Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

            At least that’s what cops like to say.

          • Josef Roesler

            Nobody said ignorance was an excuse.

      • Bob_Striffler

        Your a dick! What the hell do you mean it’s not corruption! You’re an idiot too! Are you incapable of seeing just how widespread this abuse is! You call other people idiots on this site because you are a cop and used to hiding behind something, whether it be your uniform or a key pad! Dumbass! Piss-off!

        • Josef Roesler

          What I mean by “it’s not corruption” is that it does not fit the definition of corruption. Are you incapable of understanding what a word means? Take your meds please.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          You are is shown as “you’re”, not “your.”

          • Guest

            Punctuation such as the “,” should be inside the quotation marks. Not outside them.

            See how annoying and pretentious it is when people do this to you? Maybe you’ll stop doing it to others.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Actually, it is a style choice, much the same as the Oxford comma. Look it up, you’ll find that more and more are moving to the British style as more logical. I believe Slate had an article on this very issue.

            Nice try though. Thanks for playing.

          • Guest

            So you wanted to make the “style choice” of using the British style for the first half of the sentence?

            “you’re”,

            But then you wanted to switch to the American style two words later?

            “your.”

            “Nice try though. Thanks for playing.”

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, obviously you are not any swifter than Bob.

            The British style, which is increasingly used in America by those who think logically, is that the punctuation mark does not go inside the quote unless it was part of the quote. The American style was not due to logic, but typesetting requirements, in much the same way that two spaces was the rule after a period.

            You are = you’re and your=possessive is the same in both the British and American styles.

            I’ll hold my next lesson here tomorrow, on the Oxford comma.

            Thanks for playing.

          • Guest

            You misunderstood why I pointed out your writing of “you’re” and “your.”

            I was pointing out that in the fist quotation you put the punctuation, the comma, outside the quote marks (British style). In the second quotation you put the punctuation, the period, inside the quote marks (American style). In neither case was the punctuation part of the quote itself. Do you want to claim that it was your intention, and not a mistake, to use the two different styles in the same sentence?

            For someone who writes about being logical so much, it doesn’t really appear to be your strong suit.

          • Rail Car Fan

            “ExCop-LawStudent”…

            You forgot your “Nice try though”. You’re slipping up.

            Rail Car Fan

          • Rail Car Fan

            There he goes. I wondered how long it would be before “ExCop-LawStudent” would end one of his comments with…

            “Nice try though. Thanks for playing.”

            At least he’s consistent in some things.

            Rail Car Fan

        • pinbalwyz

          *sigh* :(

      • pinbalwyz

        Corruption and incompetence are distinctions without a meaningful difference in public officials!–even though they’re as common as rain.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • Josef Roesler

          I don’t think so, just because someone is stupid doesn’t make them corrupt.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef, I understand your natural interest in the moral distinction, but the practical difference in the real world is nil. For example, if you’re sitting on death row for a murder you’re innocent (both factually and legally) of, does it REALLY make a difference (a meaningful one) whether it’s because the judge was corrupt…or incompetent??–given that the end result in either case will be the same?

            When our public officials are incompetent, it has the same impact on the public as if they are corrupt. Neither should be tolerated. Too often, it is BOTH.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            There is an extremely practical difference in the two that you don’t want to recognize. Ignorance can be fixed. Corruption cannot. If all you want to do is yell about cops being corrupt, you are on the right forum.

          • Kerfuffulator

            Ass

            (For your score sheet, that actually is an insult)

          • Josef Roesler

            Stalker.

          • tionico

            while both have similar results, yes, ignorance can be fixed, and so can corruption, typically by being dealt with according to the law. Whether by ignorance or corruption, the harm is often the same. Ignorance CAN be prosecuted as negligence… while this cop MAY be ignorant, as a LEO wearing the badge, gun, government issued costume infers a certain level of comptetence and professionalism, his lack of knowldge (ignorance) is the direct result of his lack of applying himself to his profession. An engineer, ignorant of the protocols for calcuating the load bearing capacity of a given structural component, is nontheless liable professionally for the consequences ensuing the collapse of the building

            due to his ignorance/incompetence. Were he also the contractor and realised a higher profit by installing the deficient component, costing him less but billed the higher price to the owner, corruption could also be charged. Professiona ignorance, as demonstrated by this cop, is negligence, and actionable. ANd that particularly so as this cop’s ignorance/negligence can lead to an unjustified arrest on an innocent.

          • Josef Roesler

            Your cop and train conductor analogy is incorrect. Your engineer is failing something he was trained to do. Your officer is failing something he probably wasn’t trained in. I say probably because in 24 years of seeing cadets come out of POST police academies, I have never see one educated about photographers.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef, that’s debatable. Studied indifference probably can’t be fixed, and in the example of the innocent on death row, might come a little late. I’ve seen the incompetence/indifference of judges (the most charitable explanation) up close. The injustice that results provides small comfort or hope under your theory. Criminal law holds those guilty of gross negligence accountable, even if they didn’t intend the resulting injury. Judges/LEO’s should be held to the same standard. An officer’s oath of office isn’t mooted by his incompetence. The principle of ignorance of the law is no excuse is a well established one. If a LEO/public official cannot take this kind of scrutiny/heat, they should be ushered out of the kitchen.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            Criminal law holds those guilty of gross negligence accountable, even if they didn’t intend the resulting injury, only if they were properly trained. Now, if you (2nd person plural) want to actually DO something on this website in stead of inciting hatred and violence to cops, why not do a PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST and find out if this cop in this video has ever been trained about photographers? If he has, he’s negligent. If he hasn’t, his department is negligent and he’s just stupid. I can pretty much guarantee that will not happen because Jeff gray does not live in this cop’s state.

          • pinbalwyz

            Cops who abuse their position are ‘hated’ for a justifiable reason. I don’t agree with the standard you reference. Gross negligence is when a person does something reckless (e.g. shooting an arrow straight up in the air) that they knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN would/could result in injury to others or themselves. It’s not dependent on whether the one responsible was trained as an archer, or whatever. If I fire a bullet across a busy highway while shooting at a deer and it strikes a motorist, I’m liable for gross negligence at the very least, possibly criminal negligence whether I’ve ever received training in handling firearms or not. Ignorance does not relieve a LEO from complying with the law and refraining from violating the civil rights of citizens. The courts have so held innumerable times.

            That’s the deal LEO’s sign onto when they take their oath. Stupid/ignorant people go to jail every day.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            Well, my standard is what is used in court. Maybe this is why you guys can’t understand why cops are left off easy so often. And if they were never trained in what’s legal in photography, then how can you say they should have known?

            Most of these videos involve a cop who thinks he knows what he’s talking about, but he doesn’t because he was never trained in it and he doesn’t frequent cop hating websites to find out why.

            Your examples are citing extreme examples of things that are generally common knowledge. You don’t need firearms training to know that accidentally killing someone is illegal. The PINAC thing is relatively new in the police world and I am telling you, they are NOT being trained in it. So they cannot have an expectation of knowledge of the way it works. The courts have held this innumerable times as well.

            So you can either bash cops on a cop hating website, or you can do something proactive about it and maybe see results.

          • pinbalwyz

            If your argument were accepted at face value (it isn’t), cops would be free to commit virtually any violation of civil rights they chose by merely claiming ignorance or poor training. A sworn peace officer (sworn to uphold the law) is presumed, in law, to know the law and are liable if they violate civil rights regardless of whether they’ve been adequately trained in them or not. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear. The young photographer repeatedly advises the officer he’s WRONG when the LEO dissembles. Perhaps some here ‘hate’ cops. I don’t. I consider the competent honest ones to be a vital part of our community. I do, however, ‘hate’ incompetence whether I find it in LEO’s, judges, or public officials. And, I’m not shy about saying so. It’s as much a threat to the public as a serial killer…maybe more so.

            I’ve heard so many litigants argue, “But, I didn’t know,” to no avail. The police have qualified immunity so long as their actions are REASONABLE. Violating a citizens civil rights as shown in the video clip here, is NOT reasonable and divests a LEO of qualified immunity from personal liability in the bargain for violating a person’s fundamental liberty interests. This is a standard we are ALL held to. If I violate Washington State law by refusing to serve a person of color in my bar, protestations I didn’t know it was unlawful/criminal to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity/race will avail me not.

            We all have a duty to become reasonably familiar with the law so we can abide by it. A LEO has a heightened duty to do so, not less! The right to photograph isn’t a malum prohibita principle–it’s based on a NATURAL right, i.e. to see, to hear, to sense, to speak, and to DOCUMENT it! In short, it’s common sense. All people have a profound distaste for injustice and abuse of authority. Those who engage in such abuse should not be surprised at the low esteem in which their countrymen hold them.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            You don’t have to accept my argument if you don’t want to but it is factual. You keep citing examples of things every schoolchild knows not to do and comparing it to a cop who doesn’t know that it is legal to walk up to TSA and film their proceedings (as long as you do not film the monitors). Do you know why the cop thinks it’s illegal? Because they have had, what, 12 years now of intimidation by the federal government telling them (wrongly) how to do their jobs.

            Photography of sensitive areas is illegal as far as most cops know nowadays because they are not being trained otherwise. Then they start, incorrectly, generalizing that to other areas and you have a nation of cops who have no idea what the law is on photography any more. I am not going to pretend that cops are expected to have the same level of knowledge of the law as a lawyer. They are not. Their level of expected knowledge is closer to “right and wrong” than it is to that of “lawyer.”

            I CAN guarantee you that if I were charged with a crime that I was NOT taught about in the police academy, I would not be convicted. (This is where you want to cite an example of how you can’t murder people.) Of course that’s not what I’m talking about. A PROPER example would be something like improper use of a baton causing serious bodily injury because I hit someone in the head with it. If my department just gave me a baton and said defend yourself with this, I could legally smash an attacker in the brain bucket with it and claim ignorance in court. But because we are taught not to strike the head, if we do so, we cannot claim ignorance and are responsible for the injury, both criminally and civilly.

            And if you’re honest with yourself, most of the general public has the same misconception about photography that the cops have. You can blame the media and Hollywood for that as well. So don’t expect cops to know something that the general public doesn’t know when they are not taught any different. Nobody in their right mind uses that bullshit line “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Not cops, not civilians. It is stupid to think anyone can know every law.

            “January 1st 2010 saw 40,627 new laws on the books in the USA and its overseas territories and protectorates.”
            http://www.searchamelia.com/land-of-40627-laws-and-regulations-more
            So if ignorance of the law is no excuse, YOU are required to know the 40,627 new laws passed in 2010. Do you? Of course you do not. So don’t pretend a cop should either.

            On a side note, for the curious out there, we can get away with hitting you in the brain bucket if it was not intentional. If I am trying to strike you in the shoulder or forearm and you stick your big meaty head in the way of my strike while you are attacking me, that is not my fault. That is the law and I am not going to argue that further since this is not the topic.

          • G

            Cops love to hit people in the head because it is the fastest way to take a person down. Cops thinks that they know the law and/or they think that they are lawyers but they get mad when they run into some ordinary citizen like Addison who actually knows the law. Cops should know the laws like in 2010, etc.; otherwise, they can’t whine and cry about getting their butts sue in court. Cops like to have it both ways

          • Josef Roesler

            Why would you reply to something you haven’t read? Please recite for me the 40,627 laws passed in 2010 that you might be subject to. You know, you always say, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse!” So what’s your excuse? Or do you just prefer to foment hate?

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Repeating your fallacious arguments does not make them any better

          • Josef Roesler

            responding to them doesn’t either.

          • G

            Why would you reply to something you have not read yourself? Why don’t you recite all those laws if you think you are a good cop as you claim to be? Or what is your excuse for not knowing them and do you prefer to forment hate? Lawyers and their support staff have to keep up with the laws so why can’t you cops do so?

          • Josef Roesler

            The fact that you just made another stupid ass comment like that shows that you haven’t read anything I said and you are just here to agitate.

            Maybe because we are not lawyers…I foment hate? Show me one place in anything I ever wrote where I “claimed to be such a good cop.” I did not claim any such thing. You are a liar. You are making things up because you have nothing relevant to say and you cannot stand to hear anyone say anything constructive about police.

            Stop trying to bait me with your lies and deceit.

          • G

            You are the one making stupid ass comments and you have not read anything that people are trying to tell you and you are here just to agitate.

            You are the one calling people hateful. Show me one place that I foment hate. You are the liar like most cops are and making things up because you have nothing relevant to say and you can not stand to hear anyone say anything that is critical of the police.

            Stop your baiting of other people with lies and deceit.

          • Josef Roesler

            Brilliant

          • G

            Thank you.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef, it may feel burdensome, but we are, indeed, legally obligated to comply with ALL of those thousands of laws, yes! “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” is not just an empty phrase, though you argue it is. You will be sued/prosecuted for violating the law whether you’re untutored or not. It is NO DEFENSE to plead ignorance of it. “Oops!” is not a defense.

            The use of ‘excessive’ force (police brutality) is multi-layered and textured in law. Police brutality exists in law, which holds the perpetrator liable, whether they were trained in the boundaries of where that lies or not. A LEO who violates a citizen’s civil rights/fundamental liberty interests does so WITHOUT lawful authority and IS personally liable for the resulting injury/damages. Police have a heightened duty to comply with ALL the laws they’re sworn to uphold, not just the ones they casually admit to knowing about. ALL citizens have a duty to comply with ALL those laws. A LEO is no less bound to comply with those laws than any citizen–in fact, they have a heightened responsibility to do so.

            You suggest that photography is something ‘new’, beyond the ken of LEO’s, yet it has been around for 150 years. The 1st Amendment guarantees have been around longer than that. It’s enshrined in our Constitution (which a LEO swears to uphold) and is written in plain English. That oath MEANS something, and woe betides the LEO that believes otherwise. Incompetence is virtually equivalent to corruption in practical terms. A cop had better be certain they’re not violating a citizen’s civil rights before they start throwing their weight around and bullying their community, neighbors, homeless, youth, and the poor. “I didn’t know the gun was loaded,” or “It seemed like a good idea at the time,” excuses from Cop101 are wearing pretty thin with the public in the age of instant internet transparency and video footage on Youtube. The jig is up. If a cop can’t be professional and competent, it’s time for them to turn in their shield while they still have assets that aren’t forfeited in a civil judgment against them.

            As to criminal prosecution of LEO’s, the public is well aware of the incestuous relationship between prosecutors and the police. But, that won’t necessarily get the officer off before a jury of his peers in a civil suit because too many people have seen too much video of blatant police dishonesty, dissembling, abuse, and brutality. That dog will no longer hunt, Josef.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            1. Wait, first cops are wrong if they use the phrase, now I’m wrong for saying they shouldn’t be using the phrase. Nice catch-22.

            2. You may well be sued. You may well win if you followed your training, or lack thereof.

            3. I never said cops don’t have a duty to uphold all laws. But on a side note, what they do have is discretion. I don’t have to make an arrest for every violation I see. And as much as you people think cops write reports in their favor all the time, I also have the discretion to write a report in your favor as well if I feel like using some “common sense.” I do it frequently.

            4. I suggested nothing of the kind about photography being new, nor the 1st Amendment. What is true is that people filming crime scenes is relatively new. So on one hand you people bash cops because they are stupid sometimes (because of their pay), yet you expect them to have the education of a law professor. Catch-22 again. Maybe they should put themselves through law school at their own expense to retain their cop salary?

            5. I really don’t know what your point is. Since we agree with each other that cops shouldn’t be hassling people over photography, Except that I have an interest in getting them properly educated. You have an interest in berating and suing them. The thing is with these forums, you all want the cops educated by tomorrow or executed in the streets by the next day. That kind of thinking doesn’t solve anything.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,
            1. Yes, LEO’s are in la la land if they think ignorance of the law or their duty to uphold it serves as a shield/defense against liability for violating a citizen’s civil rights.

            2. Yes, your argument that a cop may rely on their lack of training against personal liability for violating the law and/or civil rights of a citizen is specious. AND, while a copy may, indeed, rely on a court order, even an erroneous one, erroneous training has never been held by the courts as a defense against personal liability for violating the law or a person’s civil rights. A LEO had better know what they’re doing before they begin arresting people if they don’t want to be left twisting slowly in the wind.

            3. As to police ‘discretion’, Josef, I once had a conversation with a the Sheriff (at that time) in Jefferson County. His name was Pete Piccini who rose through the ranks of the Sheriff’s dept. after retiring from the Navy. I had a lot of respect for Pete because in this very rural county, he concentrated on putting people in jail who badly needed to be there. Pete was no martinet. I once asked him, as I lobbied for more police ‘discretion’ in enforcing the law, “Why don’t you direct your deputies to exercise some discretion in enforcing some of these laws that do more harm than good?” “Because,” he answered, “that’s how a good cop gets in trouble!”

            I thought about his answer for a long time over many years and decided he was right. But, at the same time, a cop who doesn’t know what the law is will get into trouble even sooner. Discretion too soon gives way to arbitrary whim, bias, prejudice, and corruption. Like reporters, cops must do their duty COMPETENTLY without fear nor favor. Your argument about ‘discretion’ in how you may write reports is a damning admission.

            The folks in NYC have a saying about cops, Josef. You know what it is? “Never trust a cop–you can never tell when they might go straight!”

            4. At one point in one of your responses, you pointed out the degree of ignorance in the general public about photography rights. I agree with you because I’ve experienced the problem multiple times. But, police should at least have the level of understanding when it comes to the law as the average person. Too often, they do not. That’s unacceptable. If you hire on as a chef, you’d better know how to cook. You hire on as a cop, you’d better know something about the law or learn PDQ. Anything less is dereliction of duty. Whining about the pay doesn’t change a thing. I’m often underpaid when the work I bargained for when accepting accepting a client proves to be too much. I do NOT lessen the quality of my work or my duty to come up to speed in serving that client. LEO’s have a duty to serve and protect the public as well as honor their oath regardless of their pay scale.

            5. Actually, I also believe education is more effective than enforcement. I try (sometimes with success) to tutor LEO’s whenever possible. Unfortunately, many have a terminal case of testosterone poisoning and refuse to learn/listen. For them, lawsuits get their attention. Until more folks begin to prove the public is not a paper tiger by filing actual lawsuits against the corrupt or incompetent (or both!) police, nothing will change. Their pocketbook is the most sensitive part of their anatomy. Do not be intimidated. Rather, be accurate, document, gather the names and contact info of witnesses, learn how to file (and serve) a civil complaint, and SUE THE BASTARDS!

            This will give you maximum bang for your buck and the attention of their superiors for the simple reason that the police do not have unlimited budgets. A LEO who costs his department $ because of lawsuits isn’t likely to have good future career prospects. Read the LEO oriented blogs. LOTS of discussion is had regarding lawsuits and disciplinary action. It gets their attention. Verbal fencing, whining, and online posting of grievances gathers their laughs and derision. There are many paralegal and citizen litigants who will help you come up to speed until you know what you’re doing in court. We, as taxpayers, fund these courts, and for a reason. USE THEM!
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            1. Your agenda keeps you from listening.

            2. Why do you twist everything I say?

            3. What’s damning about helping people who don’t need to be jacked up? I get the impression you want me to be ruthless.

            4. I agree with you. And the average person doesn’t have a clue about photog rights. Good point. As for pay, there was no whining; I’ve asked you several times and you evade, but if your employer hired you to do a thing without telling you how to do the thing or what the thing was, how would you train yourself to do the thing? Still no answer. You are clearly superior to all police officers, yet you cannot or will not answer the question.

            5. I have no problem getting rid of stupid cops who won’t learn. Why do you keep arguing with me over something I have said repeatedly?

            6. You’re so excitable.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,
            1. I believe I’m listening and understanding what you’re arguing just fine. Apparently, you don’t like it being scrutinized. However, that’s OK. It’s the greater readership that may learn from the exchange. I certainly hope so.

            2. See #1.

            3. I never used the term or encouraged anyone to be ‘ruthless’. I challenged your notion of police ‘discretion’ as you defined it including license to nuance or spin your official reports as the slippery road to Hell which we all know is paved with good intentions. Speaking of listening, did you read the story of what Sheriff Pete Piccini had to say about cops who start using ‘discretion’? He said, “That’s how a good cop gets into trouble.”

            What I’ve argued is cops should enforce the law as it’s written. Naturally, they have to KNOW the d@mn law (or READ it) to do so!…at least justly. But, you argue a cop’s ignorance of the law relieves them of responsibility of complying with it. I’ve simply called BS on that argument.

            How would I ‘train’ myself to fill the job an employer hired me to do, you ask? Well, if it were a critical job, like a doctor, dentist, nurse, CPA, lawyer or many other professions, it’d be sued for malpractice and barred from practicing if I couldn’t perform up to the standards of the community. In Washington State, the legislature is considering expanding the role/authority of a board to ‘decertify’ LEO’s who can’t cut the mustard. Naturally, the police unions/guild are opposed, but citizens are wildly in favor of the law. Like I said before, if the LEO can’t perform the job professionally and competently, if they can’t stand the heat/scrutiny, then they need to be removed from the kitchen. If there’s not enough $ in the salary to make it worth their while, go find another profession. Police work isn’t pizza delivery. Police must either get with it or get out! The public should take no prisoners.

            This is doubly important because without it, we get what I suspect already exists: a low grade civil war across the nation in the streets.

            In law enforcement, there is NO substitute for excellence, professionalism, honesty, integrity, competency. LEO’s should war their shields with pride, not weak excuses about how they didn’t get adequate training.

            4. Unfortunately, Ben Franklin’s concerns are as valid today as they were in his day: There is corruption in the public as well as in government. There is incompetency/ignorance (especially about photography rights) among the public as well as LEO’s. However, the layman doesn’t carry a badge, a gun, wear a uniform, and have a license to kill. Therefore, it’s easy to understand incompetency/corruption among LEO’s is more pernicious.

            Josef, you know what?–as a paralegal, I *DID* do (and continue to) my homework in most of my training through countless hours of unpaid study and developing competency in my field. I, too, don’t believe I get paid nearly enough for all those unpaid hours. But, as a professional, I *NEVER* stop learning and studying as it is my duty to do so to serve my clients. LEO’s are supposed to be serving the public. They have a duty to stay current on the law. There are many classes and alternative opportunities for them to do so including online courses.

            5. Because you’ve characterized my criticisms targeting incompetent LEO’s as ‘hateful’ and argued they’re not liable for their illegal acts so long as they’re poorly trained. I totally reject such an argument.

            6. I prefer the term, ‘passionate’. I’m passionate about human and civil rights–inalienable rights, really. I love America and detest those who would pervert it. I’m grateful for hard working LEO’s who are competent, honest, and don’t believe in brutalizing members of the community, or bullying them. I’ve walked up to some of these courageous officers to shake their hand and thank them. They genuinely make me feel safer on the street–as they should. I want people to become more active in getting the ones who don’t measure up removed or decertified. I believe in our system of laws and the court process. I’m convinced the best way to remove the bad apples in law enforcement is through the courts and who we elect as our county sheriff and prosecuting attorney and judges.

            Finally, I’m utterly convinced we must encourage one another toward these ends and using the outlined strategies while we search for common cause, unity, and solidarity.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            1. You people really have no clue what to do with honesty, do you? I’m not being scrutinized. If you twist anything I’ve said to mean something else, that’s on you. I’ve said nothing more than some cops are stupid, some are dirty, and some are simply ignorant and need proper training. I really don’t know what it is you think you are catching me at.

            2. You twist everything I say because of number one. Understood.

            3. See number two because once again you have twisted what I said. You will find no record of me suggesting anything untrue be written in a report. Police reports contain opinion as well as fact. I frequently have to charge people with illegal carrying of a weapon at my job as an airport cop because the TSA requires it of my department. TSA likes to be in charge of things and my superiors acquiesce. I have never once had a person who I thought knowingly brought a gun through the screening area, but they did it nonetheless. That is an automatic $10,000 civil fine in addition to the criminal charge. I believe the TSA has no legal authority to impose such fines, but there is nothing I can do about it. But what I can do in my criminal report is make it very clear how the person made a mistake when they unknowingly left their weapon in the bag they use for other purposes than travelling. See, that’s the subject’s words, not mine, but I am allowed to write what they said in my report. As well as my opinion as to their intent. I do what I can to alleviate their criminal charges. Bullshit charges. Tehre’s no slippery slope there. I have never lied on a report or said anything other than what I believe to be the truth.

            “NO substitute for excellence” You can’t have excellence without proper departmental training. I do not subscribe to your self-training requirements.

            4. I didn’t ask you if you trained yourself in what you knew to be your job, I asked you if you trained yourself in things you did not know you needed to know. You still refuse to answer that. I’ll give you another chance, since you know my job better than me and I’m not capable of knowing what secret thing I need training in, please tell me what class I need. Thanks.

            5. I don’t think I said you were hateful. And see number 4. You can’t hold me accountable for something I don’t know about. Now, if you’d like to tell me what I am deficient in, then I will have no excuse.

            6. I’m certainly as passionate as you are on exactly the same subject. Do you think I would subject myself to the abuse of a cop hating website if I wasn’t? As much as you don’t like it, these cops are doing what they are told, or are too stupid to understand what they were told, or are just flat out criminals with badges. As I’ve said before, you can fix ignorance and stupidity to an extent, you can’t fix corruption. Stupid and ignorant is not corrupt.

            The kind of encouragement I usually see at this site consists of “fuck the police” and “die fucking pigs.” That doesn’t help either side. It does nothing but make things worse. The proper form of encouragement is Jeff Gray doing what he did in front of a panel. And when it was obviously a panel full of liars, doing it again in front of their bosses.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef, a thorough reading of your State and federal Constitution would be a good place for ALL LEO’s to start! Another asset would be to work on critical reasoning skills. Few LEO’s have them.

            Your contention that ignorance is an excuse LEO’s may rely on is belied by the fact I’ve met a number of very knowledgeable LEO’s who attended the same academies as some of the duller knives in the drawer. The sharp ones took initiative, either before or after their training. I have great respect for them and competence in general. 4 months of training to be a LEO is laughable. But, in many cases, that’s all it takes to be given a uniform, a badge, a gun, and a license to kill. We CANNOT tolerate armed badge monsters in our midst who believe so long as they are stupid or ill trained, the courts/juries will excuse them. With apologies to George Gershwin, IT AIN’T NECESSARILY SO.

            It stands to reason that in a nation of laws where citizens are compelled to abide by ALL of them, regardless of how ignorant/untutored they may be, the same principle applies to LEO’s. LEO’s are charged with enforcing the law, not ignoring it. Civil rights and 1st Amendment guarantees are part of our laws in the U.S. Cops are mandated to enforce those laws. The right to photograph is one of them.

            People, in general, are more tolerant of fools than perhaps they should be. But, their irritation mushrooms into anger when an ignorant fool with a badge and a gun begins to throw his/her weight around while studiously/insistently remaining ignorant. Your defense of these bullies or their ignorance is annoying at best. It’s really the bullying that highlights the ignorance that gets the public up in arms. It’s bad enough when we have ignorant bullies with guns, badges, and a license to kill–but when you add their penchant for violence and lying under oath on the witness stand or in their reports, the public gets agitated to the point of considering direct action or revolution.

            I, for one, do NOT want to see civil war in the streets of America. I believe we may already be there, in principle. Incompetent LEO’s are a threat to everyone, including the most law abiding of Americans for this reason. They invite hostility, hatred of authority (oppression breeds resistance), and retaliatory violence. Some very decent LEO’s have paid with their lives as a result. Either be part of the solution or get out of the way because if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Incompetent/corrupt LEO’s are part of the problem. Gratuitously violent and/or bullying LEO’s are part of the problem. Obtuse, lazy, ignorant, self serving LEO’s w/lame excuses ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            I didn’t say that ignorance is an excuse LEO’s may rely on, I said lack of training is the reason some of them are doing these things and in many cases, courts will side with them if they haven’t been trained properly. You’ve stated you think cops should train themselves at their own expense, but in the end, it’s a job and like any job, you rely on your employer to train you to do what is required. I can tell you I personally wouldn’t know most of what I do about the Constitution if I hadn’t been a Criminal Justice major in college. But I got my degree before I became a cop and if I had to rely on my own finances to educate myself as a cop, it wouldn’t have happened. If you’re expecting cops to train themselves, at their own expense, you’re jousting with windmills.

            I haven’t defended any bullies. I really wish you’d pay attention to who I’m talking about. My concern is with the uneducated, not the corrupt. Said that a bunch of times. Just because they’re uneducated, does not make them bullies. Being corrupt makes them bullies. We’ve got about 30 people in our department and I can think of one in the whole group who should be fired because they don’t belong there due to their attitude. The rest include about 25 that really could use some education and if they do something stupid, it’s for that reason, not because they are corrupt. They literally do not know any better. I have had the photog conversation and the open carry conversation (my personal beef) with most of them and almost all of them are unaware of the proper response to both situations. This includes ALL of my administration on the open carry. Still can’t convince them they have no right to ID someone because of an open carry complaint. Lack of training. Like I said, there’s only one asshole in my department.

            But who am I to tell them anything, I only spent 4 years studying the Constitution. And PINAC never once came up. If I hadn’t learned about here, I still wouldn’t know it’s an issue.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,

            The courts don’t require corruption or malevolent intent to hold a LEO personally liable for violating a citizen’s civil rights: (ignorance under color of law is sufficient)

            “To maintain an action under (42 USC) 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the

            defendants intended to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully,

            purposely, or in furtherance of a conspiracy… it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation…

            was the natural consequences of Defendants acting under the color of law…” Ethridge v Rhodos,

            DC Ohio 268 F Sup 83(1967), Whirl v. Kern, CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968) Ury v. Santee,

            DC Ill,(1969)

            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            Wow, that had nothing at all to do with what I just said…

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,
            It had everything to do with what you’ve said and this thread. Moreover, it states the courts’ view, not just mine.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • G

            How often do cops write report that is in someone’s favor? When you look at Occupy Wall Street, knocking down reporters at the RNC a few years ago, etc., I bet you those reporters and those protestors had no police reports that were written in their favor.

          • Josef Roesler

            So what’s your point? How is that relevant to what I said? Is it your job here to bitch and complain or do you just do it for free?

          • G

            You have not answer the question about cops writing reports in someone favor? Your job here seems to defend cops at all cost and bitch and complain about someone who makes a critical analysis of police work and you do it for free.

          • Josef Roesler

            You seem really desperate to bait me back into your trolling, so I’ll answer your question about cops writing reports in someone favor. You asked how often do cops write report that is in someone’s favor?
            I don’t know.

            Happy now? I mean this was 4 days ago and I’m sure you’ve been very anxious all this time waiting for that answer to a question you must have thought was really really important that you had to ask it twice. So there you go, you can rest now, I’ve answered you. Troll on.

          • G

            You seem really desperate yourself to bait everyone else back into your trolling and seem anxious all the time for waiting for an answer from everyone even when they already given you the facts and want to argue with people even more. Troll on yourself.

          • Josef Roesler

            You asked a question. I answered it. Troll on.

          • G

            No you did not answer it and many people answer your questions but their answers are not what you are looking for. Troll on yourself.

          • G

            If cops are not trained, then blame their supervisors and the police chief. Furthermore, these guys/gals need to show the initiative in teaching themselves about things like what is legal in photography. If they are not going to do it, it shows that they are lazy and have no interest in improving themselves as individuals and as professionals..

          • Josef Roesler

            Why would they make the effort to teach themselves something they don’t know they need to know? Really silly, don’t you think?

          • pinbalwyz

            Because it’s their @ss if they don’t!
            Why should the public be responsible for the remedial education of a LEO who took an oath to uphold ALL of the laws–this includes the U.S. Constitution. If they haven’t read it, that’s no excuse. If they have, they should know better. Most LEO’s must be able to read to be hired else how could they issue citations or fill out arrest reports?
            Any LEO who relies on studied indifference/ignorance as a legal strategy/defense is a fool.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            So how often do you do something you don’t know you are supposed to do? Show me lots of examples of that. That sounds very interesting.

          • pinbalwyz

            Save the moralizing for Sunday School. The discussion is what are the legal requirements for LEO’s in the performance of their duty to uphold ALL the laws in this country.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            It appears you are the one doing all the moralizing. You bash cops, I work for change in their behavior. The discussion actually is about how you expect a person you feel severely inferior to yourself being able to do something that you yourself cannot do. You’re making these judgement about human beings who should be able to perform supernatural feats, so I only ask if your excellence can do them as well.

          • pinbalwyz

            Huh? I’m not a cop–never have been. Once (in another lifetime) I briefly entertained the idea but decided I’d rather devote my life to other pursuits than rousting homeless drunks. Some LEO’s *do* manage to be positive influences in their communities. I’m not competing with them, per se. However, as to doing as well, yes, I comply with the laws and try to help those who have difficulty understanding them or negotiating the court process.

            I fully support COMPETENT honest cops who don’t feel brutality is their manifest destiny.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            Some of your responses are just irrational. I didn’t accuse you of being a cop. Hard to respond to that kind of thing. Are you trying to say only cops moralize??? I’m at a loss here. No idea what you’re going on about. I fully support COMPETENT honest cops who don’t feel brutality is their manifest destiny as well. You seem to keep repeating my sentiments back to me.

            All I asked for was if you can perform the supernatural feats you expect of your inferiors. Why is that so difficult to answer?

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef, I believe I stated my position credibly and articulately. I did not introduce loaded terms like ‘your inferiors’ (a thinly veiled ad hominem attack), or ‘supernatural feats’ (a logical fallacy known as reducto ad absurdum).

            If you’re at “a loss” with respect to understanding my point, I’m confident other readers are not. Yes, you support competent honest cops. But you also pillow throw for incompetent poorly trained ones. I don’t. You accept the right shoe but refuse to accept its mate.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            You’re telling me others on this forum will understand what you meant by, “Huh? I’m not a cop–never have been.” when I never said anything to make you respond that way? I guess that’s cause I’m just a stupid, uneducated cop then, because it makes absolutely no sense.

            I think I see where you mistakenly thought I was saying you should do what a cop does, but that is not what I said. I said you can’t perform the supernatural feat of knowing what training you don’t have but need and have never been told about. You don’t have to be a cop for that. You could be a paralegal and somehow supernaturally know that you have to learn X without having ever been told about X.

            But they must be your inferiors if you expect of them something you would not personally do yourself.

            No, I want them trained properly, an action that you seem to disagree with. I want their bosses trained properly as well. You don’t agree with that as well. You just want them all sued.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef, every serious reasonably intelligent professional comes to recognize areas they need to learn more about in the day to day course of their work. All professions require continuous efforts to update one’s knowledge in one’s chosen field. Law and civil rights is intrinsically part of a LEO’s chosen field. Some professions (e.g. lawyers, judges, nurses, etc.) have mandatory requirements for continuing education classes in that profession. If LEO’s don’t have such requirements, they should. But, I’ve seen some examples of where a young rookie or reserve officer just graduated from the police academy and was given erroneous information. For instance, I entered into a discussion with one such who began to tell me how “technically” it was illegal for me to film a band playing under a gazebo in a public park without their permission. Mind you, we’re not talking for commercial purposes, but as a reporter. The young officer insisted he was correct when I told him he was WRONG on this point because that’s what his instructor had told him only weeks before. I asked what his instructor’s name was, explaining I wanted to have a little chat with that incompetent tutor. He never gave it to me. When I contacted the chief of police the next day to complain about the lack of adequate training and how the city was liable for it, I learned (later) the rookie had been re-educated. If that young man (and I told him as much) EVER attempted to arrest me for filming in a public park at a public event, I would have sued the pants off him AND PREVAILED!

            As a side note, this dialog came about as a result of the local librarian’s ignorance on the same topic, no less. She attempted to have me trespassed from the public library for videotaping a barbershop quartet singing for the public at what had been advertised as open to the public. The librarian had her husband deliberately hold their grandchild on his shoulder in front of my camera to block my view, even after I politely indicated he was doing so. The performers themselves were pleased to give me their names and info for attribution when I told them after the performance I was reporting on it. The librarian called the cops. My wife was impatient (but fortunately there as a witness) to go home as I began to get in the vehicle. But I excused myself (she graciously waited) to go speak with the rookie cop when I saw him pull into the parking lot. The time I took to do so eventually helped educate the young LEO despite the erroneous information his instructor had provided. That instructor, IMO, should be fired. The rookie should as well if, in the future, he fails to take the correct information to heart. There are many LEO’s that need to be fired because they are DELIBERATELY obtuse in the face of facts and correct warnings from citizens. I typically include a statement with my efforts to enlighten them which says my explanation is also intended to serve notice. I then usually explain that I’m recording the conversation in case there’s an dispute about what was said or the nature of that ‘notice’.

            On one occasion, in front of the prosecutor and a room with several attorneys listening to me depose a courthouse security LEO, I asked the pregnant question of whether he would arrest me for, example, photographing a child in the courthouse hallway. “Yes,” he announced. “You’d better be very sure of yourself and I advise you to check with the prosecutor before you do,” I cautioned in response. My tone was unmistakable. I’d set a trap with many officials and attorneys present and he’d stepped into it.

            In fact, I’m now flagged by security whenever I enter that courthouse now. But, they also check with the prosecutor whenever they try to intimidate or bully me. When I refuse to be intimidated, they now check with the prosecutor and invariably back off. They now know that I’m ALWAYS recording them and I now take my own advice by bringing a witness with me as well.

            Unfortunately, that’s what it now takes because too many LEO’s would rather KONTROL you/the situation than LISTEN or exercise some critical reasoning capacity. They’re comfortable remaining ignorant so long as you allow them to do so. Take them out of their comfort zone–SUE THE BASTARDS!
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            If you’ve seen some examples of where a young rookie or reserve officer just graduated from the police academy and was given erroneous information, then why are you blaming the cops? How are they supposed to know they were trained badly?

            And knowing they are being trained improperly, you still only have a problem with the cop even though you find the same lack of knowledge in the librarian/public.

            What makes you think a cop should take legal advice from you when he was trained differently? Would you like him to abandon all his proper training as well when a crackhead tells him how the law works? He is not being DELIBERATELY obtuse, he is just doing the only thing he knows to be correct. I can understand how you would be frustrated by this, but you can’t blame the cop for not knowing he was trained wrong. Cops have assholes telling them how to do their job all day every day and you think you’re the one they should suddenly decide to start listening to? Not likely. I agree that you would expect him to check into it after his incident is over, but you expect him to second guess everything he’s been taught during an incident. And even if he checked into it at the time, he’s likely to get an uneducated answer from his supervisor. I know I would.

            I don’t have any issue with your courthouse story, if that’s how they are after being corrected by the DA, then obviously, they are wrong.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,
            BECAUSE IT’S THE LAW!–just like LEO’s cite/arrest people who violate the law regardless of how poorly educated/ignorant the suspect may be. The same principle applies to cops though many think they’re above the law in practical terms for the specious reasons you list. Ignorance of the law doesn’t absolve you (or LEO’s) of the duty to comply with it. In fact, LEO’s have a heightened duty to do so. An incompetent cook in the kitchen gets burned just the same no matter how ignorant or ill trained they are. If cops can’t take that kind of heat/scrutiny, they should get out of the kitchen.

            I can’t begin to tell you how many suspects get arrested for trivial domestic violence complaints because of their ignorance of the law. About 1/3 of the county jail is full of them. Perhaps another third are there for drug related offenses and a good percentage of the remainder for the inability to pay probation fees, court fines, restitution, etc.–i.e. for being poor, or for violating a ‘no contact’ order arising out of court proceedings like some of the most petty ‘civil harassment’ complaints you’d never want to see.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            Wow, you sure know how to start talking about a completely different subject than what we were talking about…

          • Josef Roesler

            Wow, you sure know how to start talking about something completely different than we were talking about…You addressed absolutely nothing I said in two different posts and went off on a whole other tangent.

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,
            That’s because I believe I made my case and I’m sticking to it. Redundancy doesn’t improve it.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • pinbalwyz

            A LEO may/may not choose to acknowledge my notice to them they’re violating the law/civil rights, but they do so at their own peril. Most won’t even attempt to exercise any critical reasoning when so notified. Others are marvelously competent and surprise me despite my right to expect such competency. They should, at a minimum, check with their supervisor immediately when notified they’re standing on quicksand. A fool ignores such warnings and quickly gets swallowed up.

            Sure, consider the source. But, I’m not a crackhead. Neither was the young photographer in the video. The youth sounded credible and knowledgeable to me. That the LEO refused to listen speaks volumes about attitudes in the profession as well as competency or the lack thereof.

            Police don’t simply ignore crackheads/drunks, they ignore ALL citizens who attempt to enlighten them. That’s a problem–especially given their incompetence.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Josef Roesler

            Maybe the LEO refused to listen because his training said otherwise. Or maybe he was an asshole. Who knows? Sue the bastards I guess. How’s that working for you?

          • pinbalwyz

            Josef,
            Actually, pretty well. In fact, I’ve *never* lost a case…at least where I represented myself–which I do in every instance now. The ONLY cases I’ve lost are when I was represented by an attorney.

            Most of my life I bought into the standard aphorism, “A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.” Attorney’s simply LOVE that homily. Several years ago I learned of a statistic I’ve been kicking myself ever since for not having run across earlier. More and more folks are representing themselves, pro se, in court today, both criminally and civilly. Many (if not most) judges HATE pro se litigants and barely conceal it. Nevertheless, the percentage of pro se litigants who prevail is higher than those represented by attorneys! Yeah, that’s right. The untutored great unwashed actually have a higher success rate representing themselves than the oh so clever law degree bearing attorneys.

            The Spanish have a saying: “It’s better to be a mouse in a cat’s mouth than a client in the hands of an attorney.”

            Thus, I encourage citizens to represent themselves, as is their right. The study gave no explanation of why this is so and didn’t break the numbers down to how many were civil or criminal or how serious the criminal charges were. HOWEVER, despite the lack of such explanatory numbers, the results DO raise some very interesting questions/conclusions. They are:

            If pro se litigants have a higher percentage of success than those represented by an attorney, that means having an attorney IS WORSE THAN HAVING NO ATTORNEY AT ALL…at least statistically.

            Let’s put it slightly differently so even the least of us can grasp what I’m saying:

            You go to the doctor because you’ve a severe pain that won’t go away. After examining you and getting some lab results back, you go in for the diagnosis. The doctor has some bad news for you. He says you’ve got cancer…worse, it’s a type that can easily be fatal. You’re totally freaked and bummed. AH…but the doc has some ‘good’ news. He tells you he has this pill you can take that may CURE your cancer. Naturally (cough, cough) it’s a very EXPENSIVE pill! (Are you following this and connecting the dots yet?)

            He asks if you’d like to buy the pill. After all, you want to LIVE don’t you? (Or stay out of jail, in the parallel analogy) But, your mama didn’t raise any fools. You tell the doc you need to calm down and think about it for a bit. You go home, do your research, study the internet, talk to experts, and find the drug in question has been studied extensively in laboratory tests. The results?–those who take the pill had a LOWER survival rate than those who did not!<