if you all haven't scene or heard. there was an incident with some police officers back here in Milwaukee. they beat a many badly. they all put on trial, and found not guilty. \n\none of the problems in the case was that many of the officers who testified lied. some where afraid to testifie because they had been harrassed, and asked to lie. \n\nthe officers who feared testifing said, they had a code of silents. if they said anything, they'de be punished for it.\n\nthis has gone one for years. it took this trial to show that this kind of action goes on like this. \n\nanyone know why such thing is out there?
130898
For a really eye opening different perspective, read an issue of Men's health from about 6 months ago. they did an article called Blue Juice or something like that where they investigated the rampant steroid abuse of police officers. They even gave tips on how not to be a victim of police rage...it was really interesting.
311736
Oddly, there are some really good answers here.  I usually have to wade through all the donut cracks and Patriot Act garbage to see anything worth reading.\n\nHowever, the question leaves something to be desired.\n\nYou've said you hate to generalize, but that's exactly what you done, and you've done it on a grand scale.  On what do you base your hypothesis that cops get annoyed when people exercise their rights?  Talking about the Los Angeles Police Department alone, there's right around 10,000 cops there.  Your question makes it sound like you've witnessed an awful lot of them get annoyed when people exercise their rights...and that's just Los Angeles.  I'm assuming you don't know, and haven't watched, even 0.01% of the law enforcement officers in this country do their jobs and yet your question assumes cops get annoyed when people exercise their rights, that "almost all" law enforcement officers want people to know as little as possible about their rights, and that "every" time people exercise their rights, the police are "always" there ready to violate them.\n\nSounds to me like you have an agenda.\n\nHaving said that, I'm sure some cops do get annoyed, that they do it for the reasons others have mentioned here, and probably for other reasons as well.  Some cops are jerks...and so are some lawyers, some dentists, some plumbers, some senators and some housewives.  As a group, though, we take an awful lot of precautions in the hiring practices for people who are given the authority they are...something few other career fields do.  \n\nPersonally, I am one of the exceptions you say "may" exist.  I dealt with a 16 year old kid recently who adamantly refused to allow me to search his car.  I was very impressed with the way he communicated his wishes to me and his exercise of his right to be free from unreasonable search - and I told him so.  Then I searched his car, because it reeked of marijuana (which, as it turned out, is because marijuana was in it).  And no, he didn't get a ticket...the weed was destroyed, I thanked him for his time, and he drove away somewhat surprised.  I know I am not alone in my profession when it comes to my respect for people exercising their rights.\n\nAnd having said that, I have two last comments:\n\nI have been annoyed by people who *thought* they were exercising their rights.  People who stand there and demand to have a lawyer before they decide which chemical test to take (no such right in California), people who demand to see a search warrant that allows me to search a vehicle (don't need one, in 99% of cases), people who think they know the laws of arrest ("you can't arrest me, you didn't see me do it") when very often we don't have to actually witness a crime to make an arrest.  I don't mind people asking, and I will bend over backwards to answer and educate them, but this holier-than-thou, I'll-have-your-badge, I-know-the-law-better-than-you, and of course, I-know-my-rights-and-you-can't-do-that attitude does get annoying after a while.  \n\nI don't make enough money to go around violating someone's rights because I couldn't afford the punishment if I did...I don't know a single cop who does.  I know there are certainly some idiots out there who have, but if you consider the total number of police officers in this country, and the relative scarcity of news related to this topic, I hope you'll see that perhaps you aren't giving the profession a fair shake.  Sure...when we screw up we do it BIG...but we really don't do it as often as you're making it sound.  \n\nSorry for the length...it's a subject I could talk about for quite a while.
483462
Since almost all police officers are tested on a regular but random basis,  I could not see a officer doing it knowning he will be tested.\n\nNow it may be his friends use it, or his son uses it, and he was in a room with it ( you get about as much in the room)\nThis to me would be a more believable story and he is merley covering for someone
583781
The poster above still just is'nt getting it\nSince when was reporting an actual infraction of the law a smear campaign?  The man was caught with an illegal documented perscription, end of story, THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  Now if some people choose to smear him that is their own perogative, but simply stating a fact is simply stating a fact
343766
I think its up to the department to make sure that their officers are not rude to the public. I hate to say this but I think that the power of the job goes to some officers head. I feel that some need more training in public relations. An officer can remain calm and still be forceful if he has to.
518189
It is a shame. Uncover policemen who admit to having at least 2 drinks overhear what may have been a joke until investigation is complete we do not know. If anyone outside of a strip club in bad neighborhood wearing regular clothes pointed a gun at me, I would try to get away from gunmen. I doubt I would ever see the badge. The 2nd officer is my only problem, the police said he shot 31 times which means he stopped, reloaded & started to shoot again. I am waiting for results of investigation but so far the police explanation sounds bad for them.\nWe must allow the police to defend itself but not to continue shooting a groom or anyone else. Drinking on job whether uncover or not in unacceptable. I am a white 51 yr old woman, so no it is not a race or gender issue issue for me.
60489
I've known a couple. Some I understand are very sucsessful so I don't think it has anything to do with sanity, it's more of a behavioral problem. They just have a total lack of respect or regard for anything or anyone. One that I knew robbed his neighbor, got arrested, bailed out by his uncle, then stole his uncle's car and wallet while he slept and after he was arrested again a day later he tried to say he just escaped from his kidnappers. I'm not kidding, this really happened. No fear of the consequences for his actions no matter what they were. Oh, and to top it off the guy tried to lie about who he was when the police had his ID. That may be the loudest alarm of all, LIES. Even when they know you know they are lying, they will still look you in the eye and lie some more. They just do not care. Lucky for me the only ties I had was that I knew who they were. The ones that are good at it are hard to pick out, but they always trip up and expose themselfs for who and what they really are. Today a word that might be used to describe one would be "Player".
480779
I've never heard anyone say that the death penalty was racist; I've heard and I agree that there APPEAR to be undertones of racism in its application when more Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately on death row for the same offenses that Whites often get 25-to-Life Imprisonment or Life Imprisonment terms for.  I can't make a generalization or blanket statement but it's most curious how unforgiving White juries are toward Blacks and Latinos (some who are also mentally deficient), and the harshness with which they're judged and sentenced, many times with the flimisiest possible evidence.\n\nAnd when minority members have their convictions overturned by higher courts, the circumstances too often involve exculpatory evidence that was hidden by overzealous prosecutors and/or police officers who deemed the accused guilty and chose to see to it that he/she be condemend.  Or eye-witnesses that were not notified or called upon to testify for the suspect and the DA and/or the police never made this known to the defense team.   Or, now with DNA evidence, some prosecutors STILL fight to have the new exculpatory evidence barred from being presented to the courts!  Gee, I wonder why...?
461327
In a recent courtroom drama, accused murderer Jack Merridew was almost attacked by fellow defendant Ralph Grant following his statement in the investigation surrounding the deaths on the island. (Nether) boys are in custody.\n\n(the) courtroom environment that had begun in silence erupted into a flurry of activity when Mr. Merridew provided details into the deaths of some of the boys which provoked an outburst by Mr. Grant. He got up from his seating screaming, “You’re such a liar!” His lawyer, Will Hayden, tried to calm him down. Mr. Grant flew out of his chair in a rage and could hardly be stopped. Running to the stand, intending to attack Mr. Merridew but being restrained by the police in time. \n\nsounds great to me! A worthy =)
342429
The anwsers to this question are both predictable and a joke!!\n\nLast time I checked it didn't take 50 bullets to stop a moving car.\nBesides the most obvious thing that all the "Pro cop" anwsers are completing ignoring is that this guy had no drugs in his possession and no weapon on his person...These cops were all in plain clothes and made no attempt to identify themselves to the guy driving...If a bunch of guys who I had no idea of who they were tried stopping me I may act in a similiar fashion (Probably not...But who knows!!)  \n\nNo the one guy anwsered this right...This guy was shot 50 times and killed because he was black and overzealous cops who'd never been in a situtation like that (as stated right from the NYPD) overreacted...It's a joke!! And the punch line is they'll all get away with it.... I hope N.Y. has an L.A. type riot on it's horizon!!
540555
Thats a very good question. I think, this being a sensitive issue in many places and with the ACLU and LULAC filing law suits everytime an American city even thinks about taking action, that many local police department have been instructed by higher ups not to get involved.
365913
I don't know the story but, the only thing we can do is offer support to our law enforcement officers.  Many people feel as you do but their voices are unheard.  If someone tries to run over an officer, his or her hands must not be tied by PC.  Whoever a crimminal is, should be handled as such reguardless of background or income.
589055
Let me see if I can make this plain and simple enough for you to wrap your head around it.\n\nSay a group of eight policemen came to your house, pulled your grandfather from his bed, dragged him outside and shot him to death.  Your grandfather, a good man who never did so much as spit on the sidewalk has been brutally murdered.\n\nAn investigation reveals the eight policemen murdered your grandfather and tried to cover it up. The proof is more than sufficient to arrest them and charge them, and they were booked and jailed.\n\nNow, do you want them to be immediately released back into the community, or held?\n\nDid that help?
556479
f_chuck...\n My rights are being violated, as a New Orleans citizen.\nYour rights as an American period!\nwhat color they are wearing doesn’t mater ,what matters is the fact that we are staring down the barrel of automatic rifles, illegal stops and searches, and the overall military presence in the city.\n I listen to my police scanner, I hear what they are doing and saying, I travel all over the greater New Orleans area, everyday.\n \n and pam....you should Google a little before you comment!\nthis is not the first place the National guard has done this, Knoxville, New Mexico, all over. \n \nA few months ago, during Katrina (when the police ran like sissies) maybe their presence was a little more understood, overboard considering the rescue crews but somewhat understood.\n\nSo the same guns that protect our boarder, are the same guns pointed at our kids in New Orleans...\n\nAs far as the Mayor goes, I kinda agree as most politicians are just a pawn in the over all bigger, more sinister plan. He does still make decisions that affect me directly.\n\nJust to answer the question you’re asking now! No, I’m not a criminal, I’m a white female law abiding citizen that wouldn’t violate a single law. It's not just the stereo types being affected by the new police state, it's anyone with chrome wheels, on the streets after dark, anyone that stands out in any way.\n\n I guess if 60% of New Orleans wasn’t still destroyed almost a year later, more New Orleans citizens would have the internet and ability to comment on this sad situation.
376635
My response would be it sounds like corruption, which is universal to all governments, there are similar incidents I can think of here in the USA and my own state, I'm not proud of it of course. At some point you have to decide what is the most important to you, if you will do yourself more harm than good by pursuing this. I hate to say give in, but they play by different rules there, you could be subjected to police harassment as a result, and I can honestly say I'm very glad I don't live there. You had better stay in touch with human rights groups like "Amnesty International" just in case bad things do happen. All I can suggest is try and have copies of all evidence hidden in a save place the police can't confiscate them, and watch your back.
627893
It is because poor people are easy targets for police. \n\n If there is a video tape,  then as long as the incident in question is captured on tape, then no matter what the other police officers say happened, the video tape does not lie.  \n\nThere may be an issue if part of the incident happened off-tape,  then the police officer(s) may say, that something happened before the tape was on, or after it was off,  and accuse a suspect of a crime without having any video tape to prove or disprove their allegations.\n\n At that point, it becomes a credibility issue and poor people are more likely to not have on their side, "indicators" of trustworthiness.  For example, they may not have a full-time job.  They may not have access to other law-abiding and respected citizens in the community that can vouch for their truthfulness and character.  They may have a criminal record or drug history.  \n\nAnd, even putting all that aside:  if the "poor" person testifies on his/her own behalf,  many times poverty is a result of lack of education.  Often a person who lacks education may not be able to express himself or herself very effectively.  The person may be nervous, speak grammatically incorrect, etc.\n\n And, when you have a career police officer -- used to testifying -- against a poor person, who may be a poor communicator, the jury will often side with the police officer.  \n\nThe police know this and this bias works it way through the system in who police decide whom to enforce laws against and in how they treat suspects.
398065
It's not too unusual for a details of an investigation to change slightly. Remember, most of the Officers are coming into a situation blind, they don't know what happened, they don't know who is involved and the biggest thing is they don't know who is honest or a lying puke. The initial investigation is what the players tell the Police. As evidence proves (or disproves) the sworn testamonies of witness's, Offenders, etc. the story can be entirely different that what was sworn to in the beginning. I always say, "Ignorance is blind"- If you REALLY want to see what happens in a full police investigation, take a good Criminal investigations course at your local community college. DON"T go what you see on TV! It's mostly Bull except shows like "Cold Case files, but even then, remember, it takes years to wrap up an investigation, Not 1/2 hour.