NYPD Officer Takes Cash From Man During Stop-And-Frisk; Pepper Sprays Him When He Asks To Have It Returned
from the oh,-these-aren't-weapons,-these-are-ANSWERS dept
Here's a very short clip involving the seizure of funds by police and pepper spray as the answer to all questions.In a video obtained by the New York Times, an unnamed officer forces 35-year-old Lamard Joye against a fence surrounding a Coney Island basketball court and removes what appears to be a handful of cash from Joye's pocket at the six-second mark.Joye was not arrested and has yet to receive his money back. He claims Officer William Montemarano took $1300 from him during this "stop-and-frisk."
"You see this? You see this?" Joye says, before demanding his money back. The officer replies, "You're gonna mouth off?" and begins to discharge pepper spray into Joye's face.
Joye's sister also gets pepper sprayed after asking the officer to state his name.
The NYPD has issued a statement in defense of Officer Montemarano.
Following accusations that a New York City police officer stole $1,300 in cash from a Brooklyn man during a stop-and-frisk, the department said all the man had was $62, which has been vouchered.Apparently it's OK to take money from uncharged individuals during stop-and-frisks as long as it's: a) not very much money, and b) it's vouchered at the station.
“No one stole $1,300,” Deputy Commissioner Stephen Davis told the New York Daily News Thursday.
What went unaddressed was the officer's use of pepper spray to shut up both Joye and his sister, who were both asking for the return of the money taken by Montemarano.
Between the asset seizure and the low-level brutality, there's not much about this that's all that surprising. Small abuses of power like these happen every single day. The only thing that's changed is the likelihood that someone will record the incident.
Gothamist's coverage of the story adds this very enlightening comment, presumably left by a fellow cop at Thee Rant, a forum frequented by law enforcement officers.
I know this cop and he is a solid guy with (if not) 20 years, very close to it.[One possible reason? Officer Montemurano was recently named in a police brutality lawsuit alleging that he and another officer beat an arrestee with their nightsticks and kicked him in the throat. The city settled for $25,000.]
It is possible that he has even more than 20 years.
I cannot fathom why he is still running around on Patrol. Truly unf u c k i n g believable.
From an OBJECTIVE point of view and NOT KNOWING WHY the cops were called to this scene, I do not know WHY he would remove a wad of money from someone's pocket.[Which seems to have been confirmed by the NYPD statement, but doesn't explain why money is being taken from someone who wasn't arrested.]
MONEY is not contraband and UNLESS you are collaring someone for robbery, GL or narcotics sales and are going to voucher the money as proceeds of a crime, you have no business WHATSOEVER removing money from a mope's pocket.
I repeat, you have no business taking money out of some mope's pocket because he is a loud mouth involved in a large dispute, which is what this situation appears to be.
That said, I would bet my house that this officer returned the money or vouchered it - he did NOT steal this money.
Spritzing the crowd with mace a la DI Bologna* is the cherry on top of the Sundae. In the current climate, that is going to be a problem.*Refresher link for Deputy Inspector Bologna's love of pepper spray.
I must say, the daily videos and the daily wholesale suspensions and modifications of MOS have left me exasperated.
It is as if the cops are completely OBLIVIOUS.
Do they read newspapers, do they ever watch TV, do they speak to other cops, do they ever see the Finest spitting out these 'change of duty' statuses?
It would appear that they do not.
It would appear that they are blissfully ignorant of what is going on in the world around them.
It appears that the PBA says and does nothing to raise their awareness that there is an anti-cop feeding frenzy in progress.
I am bewildered as to how this all continues.....
This forum member makes a point that very few within the law enforcement community will ever raise. It's no longer business as usual out there. People are watching.
It's as if a majority of law enforcement agencies view the current "anti-cop feeding frenzy" as some sort of a fad -- something they can just muscle through without changing officer behavior, altering their training or even holding those caught in the act accountable for their misconduct.
Everyone has a camera these days. Anyone with a cell phone also has a recording device. YouTube gives everyone a platform to lift local incidents into the worldwide consciousness.
It's not just the ubiquity of cameras, though. It's the interconnectedness the internet provides. Brutality or misconduct lawsuits filed in small towns used to only be covered in local papers. Now, even the smallest of local news websites can be swept into basic searches for information.
And yet, the pace of these incidents doesn't seem to be slowing. Officers are still acting as though their worst behavior is still largely unobserved. They're not learning from the past mistakes of countless others. Even those who have been "burned" previously continue to act as though they can abuse their power to harass and intimidate people. Just read through the numerous postings at Photography Is Not A Crime. Many of the posts deal with the same law enforcement entities and the same accountability activists, and yet, there's no indication that policy changes or previous bad press have had any deterrent effect on the officers involved.
As the forum comment points out, there's no apparent sense of self-awareness evident in officers like Montemarano. He notes that the PBA (Patrolmen's Benevolent Association) isn't doing anything to help officers be more aware of public perception. I don't know why he's surprised by this. The PBA, like many other police unions, is one of the first entities to protest any changes in policy meant to address police misconduct, and actively fights additional accountability efforts like the use of body cameras. These unions are also instrumental in returning fired cops to their former positions, showing that even when local PDs finally make an effort to shed the worst in their ranks, their efforts can often be undone by entities that put an officer's employment well ahead of the public interest and the police department itself.
It's not that there aren't any positive signs. It's that there are so few, compared to the amount of citizen documentation piling up. This isn't some temporary change in public perception. It's ongoing, and it's not going to get any better if law enforcement officers remain insulated from accountability and wholly oblivious to the implications of their actions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: money, nypd, pepper spray, stealing, stop and frisk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Easily explained
They remain 'oblivious' to it for the simple reason that it doesn't matter. Sure they got recorded macing someone for talking back, or beating someone, or robbing someone. What happens when that recording goes public?
Nothing.
They aren't fired, they aren't shifted to a desk-job to account for their inability to act like an adult around other people, any 'investigation' inevitably clears them, and if that doesn't work their union will almost always fight to get their job back, no matter what they were charged with.
They don't care because even when people record their abuses of authority and criminal actions, they are never held accountable for them.
Once they see their own paychecks docked, their own pensions reduced to pay out settlement funds...
Once they start getting fired or demoted for their actions...
Once they are held accountable and charged with the crimes they commit under the 'authority' of their badge...
Only then then will care, but not a second before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily explained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easily explained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easily explained
Do you think the Crown wanted the Colonies to rebel? Look what happened. Do you think the feds wanted the Bundy Ranch people to fight back? Look what happened. Do you think they want the Ferguson mobs to keep going? Look at what is happening.
NO they don't hope that we fight back (except a crazy few), they WANT us to keep rolling over just as you suggested acting like its bad if we fight back.
This is the mentality of a bully! Recognize it for what it is... you must have Stockholm syndrome and possibly have traded in your bravery for a cowards card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easily explained
Or in other words looks like the cops are trying to pour more fuel on the fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easily explained
Its a rather circular argument obviously, but the additional civilian disobedience and retaliation helps explain the rationalization presented by police forces for their militarization and use of excessive force.
If the assaulted public was to go meekly into the camera light, there would be no public perception of a "need" for massive police budgets and the purchase of tanks and armored personnel carriers.
Television alone cannot hope to fully reprogram the public via its continual use of the public-as-terrorist police show plots and the silly notion that police officers are always hunted down by the people they put in prison, seeking revenge when they "get out".
Sometimes you just have to get out there and break a few heads until someone in the general public-under-assault, actually reacts badly enough to make the headlines process workable.
By abusing the public during the normal course of events, police are able to enlarge the event in the direction of civil disobedience and thus manufacture the evidence needed to prove the necessity of their "arming up" and increasing budget size.
Of course, for those of you who think this is all just happening because of coincidence and bad luck, combined with better equipped and more evil bad guys, and who believe that such institutions as the police force can never become corrupt or self serving, I suppose this explanation will appear to be just another tin-foil hat brain-fart. :)
C'est la vie eh!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easily explained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily explained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easily explained
" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Police bands which have repressed them from another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily explained
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2014/10/10/TPD-officer-found-guilty-of-stealing-1-49-popcorn.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easily explained
"Steal a little and you're a thief. Steal a lot and you're either the government or a Hero."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anybody who works in any non-government job is held accountable for serious mistakes that conflict with the primary nature of the job. Work at a bank and make a mistake that costs the bank a million bucks and you will be fired. Work a restaurant and make a mistake that sickens a bunch of customers and you will be fired. But if you work as a cop and break the law and subvert justice and brutalize members of the public and you will be shuffled around and protected.
The only solution is to start rolling back the web of legal privilege and protection that cops have been granted. First step would be to ban police unions.
But none of this will happen because, for every one of us online who is outraged about things like this, there are 10 suburban voters who are happy to have the cops beating on "thugs" and "criminals" (which are their codewords for minorities).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since you say things like this without proof or evidence, you automatically make anyone who didn't already agree with you disagree a bit more.
In fact the above statement is not the least bit true. It looks like you are trying to start a class war between people that live in the cities and everyone else.
Maybe you are just a troll, but the rest of your post makes me think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, Ferguson is a sensitive subject, so it brings out the trolls. They know a lot of people will react, so they post the most offensive thing they can think of.
Now, there is no doubt there are still people in the suburbs (and everywhere else for that matter) that think all minorities are thugs and criminals and should be arrested by the police. There is little doubt that that describes most, if not all, of the Ferguson police department. But there is no reason to alienate all of the people that don't think the color of your skin determines how hard the police should hit you.
America is well on its way to becoming a police state. Most of the people that read this blog think that's a bad thing. If the present course of the country is to be changed, people that want change need to be inclusive. Otherwise they risk causing people who would otherwise support change to fight it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not in the financial sector! Then you get bailouts and golden parachutes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it *used* to be, that -for the most part- the kop riots, head-cracking, and nasty, brutish behavior was reserved for either minorities, DFH's, or scumbag criminals the silent majority would not object to getting the skulls cracked...
2. *now* ? it's getting to the point where even your 'white privilege' won't protect you from kops on the rampage... obviously, when it was mostly minorities, not much outrage; now that it could be ANY of us jacked up by roid-raging kops for NO REASON, the outrage is multiplying...
3. Empire really does not care if you are black or white, it only wants compliance and sacrifice for Empire...
4. also, in spite of the anon cow below you, you ARE correct that quite often 'thugs', etc are terms that are used to signify, well, *you know*, *not* the right sort of people... kops (as well as other subcultures) have their own 'code' words for minorities, etc they come to despise and blame for their own shit worldview...
Empire must fall...
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all
3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well here's one of the problems right here. Those who have been "burned" previously still have the power to abuse, harass and intimidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, I also blame this on the anti-police sentiment that has been artificially created by morons running around everywhere, creating a nuisance of themselves, by taking every opportunity to find an excuse to record everyone and everybody.
What's sad is that everyone waves the first amendment around like some baton and Americans have worn it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, I also blame this on the anti-police sentiment that has been artificially created by morons running around everywhere, creating a nuisance of themselves, by taking every opportunity to find an excuse to record everyone and everybody.
The public has been forced into trying to keep track of what the police do, because the police themselves have shown no interest in doing so.
As well, if something come to trial, or similar, and a person has to depend on what they claim happened, versus what a cop claimed happened as their sole evidence? If that's all they have, they are going to lose, even if they are completely honest, and the cop is lying through his/her teeth. Taking a video is an attempt to balance the scales a bit, by introducing verifiable evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claim vs Counterclaim
He claims it's been 1300. Cops claims it's 62. Cop's right of course, of why would anyone doubt a cop's word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Claim vs Counterclaim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Claim vs Counterclaim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Claim vs Counterclaim
Experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So now corrupt police == police and they have the feds to thank for it. In the minds of many of the public, the police are now guilty until proven innocent. Just like the police would like us to believe of everyone they arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the politicians approach to following the law, the only crime is getting caught breaking it, and the response to being caught is to make it harder for people to catch them breaking the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The article linked said it was the man's birthday. It is entirely possible that the $1300 was a gift. Not likely, but it is possible. Would be hard to show a receipt for a gift.
The stash of money shown in the clip appears to be all bills, nicely kept together, which he is slipping into his back pocket. Possible it was a collection of 5's and 1's, but I am not sure why anyone would stack 5's and 1's in such a nice bundle.
It is likely the police removed $62 from him, but it is equally likely, without proper accountability, that it was $1300.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article said they were responding to a report of a man with a gun. So frisking the guy is reasonable. But the cash is obviously not a gun. The officer really has no business taking it no matter how much is there. And the use of pepper spray is not defensible in that situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly. Taking any money from anyone shouldn't be done unless the money is evidence for Drugs, Larceny, or Robbery (and even then, only if it is evidence.) Putting the money in your back pocket should never happen (or even keeping it in you hand.) The money should not have been removed until it could be placed in an evidence bag or under the control of several officers who could account for the collection and control of the evidence.
The article said they were responding to a report of a man with a gun. So frisking the guy is reasonable. But the cash is obviously not a gun. The officer really has no business taking it no matter how much is there. And the use of pepper spray is not defensible in that situation.
I read that too. The gun call would be grounds for a terry pat-down, in any city in the US. A terry pat-down does not involve the removal of any non-weapon items, and the officer can only remove an item to determine if it is a weapon. Stop and frisk apparently goes further than a terry pat-down, but even then, you are right, there is absolutely no reason why the money was seized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There isn't a scrap of evidence that proves the cop isn't a serial thief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's hilariously ignorant of you to think that all of a sudden a small group of people are running around looking for or provoking police abuse for the express purpose of recording it. Like the police, you seem oddly unaware of the fact (mentioned in the article even!) that these days nearly everyone is carrying a smartphone that just happens to have the ability to record video and audio, and upload it immediately to the internet. There is no "artificially created anti-police sentiment", it's a genuine response to the fact that actions that have probably been common for a very long time are now far more likely to be recorded, simply because of that fact that most people can record anything they see and decide should be shared with others. This is not a temporary thing, it's the new norm and cops and their supporters had damn well better get used to it.
"What's sad is that everyone waves the first amendment around like some baton and Americans have worn it out."
Who made made a First Amendment argument here? What's that got to do with holding abusive cops to account?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I get the feeling he is on of those people that believe we should trust a cops word over any other evidence be it a witness or video simply because cops are infaliable in his eyes.
It is quite sad how many people like that there are. That blindly view the police as gods that are never wrong, never lie and never misbehave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The cop should be behind bars (General population too, none of this protective custody special prison for dirty cops) for aggravated assault, use of a weapon in the commission of a crime and theft of property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." Yes? That what we're all told. What's wrong with recording things that are happening in public places? If I record you and you're doing something heroic, shouldn't you thank me for noticing it? You could get a commendation!
What's sad is that everyone waves the first amendment around like some baton and Americans have worn it out.
Do you even bother to think before spouting !@#$ like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's sad is that so many unintelligent, unenlightened, unthoughtful people don't grasp that the First Amendment -- and the entire rest of the Constitution -- are what makes the USA, the USA. They're more important than anything else we have -- which is why, not coincidentally, the Uniform Oath of Military Service is focused on defending the Constitution, not on the flag, not on obedience to superior officers, not on protecting one's fellow soldiers, not on defending civilians, not on holding positions, but on the Constitution.
Police officers should know this too: they are public servants, and as such, they are required -- if necessary -- to die for the Constitution. That means respecting the First Amendment (and all the rest of it) even if it means putting themselves in danger, even if it means being verbally abused, even if it means being killed. Their lives are unimportant and expendable: the Constitution is not.
Yes, that's a lot to ask: but nobody made them sign up to be police officers. I don't think it's asking too much of people in whom enormous power is vested that they also assume the responsibility that goes with it. If they don't like the package deal, they can always resign and go do something else -- but as long as they wear a badge, they don't get to have one with the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True, which makes it his word against the cop's. Given how quick many cops are to steal money from "suspects", there is no reason to assume the cop is any more honest than this guy.
"I also blame this on the anti-police sentiment that has been artificially created"
The anti-police sentiment is a result of police abuses, not the people who are decrying police abuses. You say "artificially created" as if the police don't abuse their power. The evidence contradicts this assumption. There is nothing "artificial" about it.
"What's sad is that everyone waves the first amendment around like some baton and Americans have worn it out."
There is no first amendment connection to this issue, but I did want to point out that the Constitution cannot be worn out. That you think they can is a little bit scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*When* was it vouchered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *When* was it vouchered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *When* was it vouchered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *When* was it vouchered?
In this case, I believe, vouchered means proven, provided evidence for, or possible documented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *When* was it vouchered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *When* was it vouchered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bright side!
No "interfering" charges for recording is a step up... right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://7online.com/news/second-video-revealed-in-case-where-man-says-cop-stole-his-money/34555 0/
and this is a problem. The problem is that the cops aren't providing their own, more complete, footage of the event.
Trying to go by who said what isn't really reliable because neither the cop nor Joye have a perfect history (and since this isn't the cops first act of misconduct the punishment the second time around should be greater than what it would have been had this been his first act).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus the officer (no gentleman) was a little too liberal and at ease with the use of the spray, that seems to be outside of normal use guidelines.
At the end of the day Police officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard and videos like this show they are not worthy. And sadly they have no desire or incentive to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I looks like in the video the officer didn't spray until someone hit his hand each time. In this case the officer is justified in protecting himself with the use of pepper-spray.
The incident would have been worse if he had been enraged when he started spraying.
Course he should have just told the lady his number and name instead of just trying to leave the area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The first guy he sprayed just after he acquired the money, that was an aggressive action on his part.
The 2nd was the 'sister' was trying to get his name and badge number that he is supposed to volunteer when asked for it.
Even though he did contact his arm she was already away from him when he sprayed. Plus he could have easily have stopped walking and addressed the woman and not force her to escalate her attempt to get his badge information.
The 'protecting himself' argument is weakened since everybody he sprayed was already at arms distance when he pressed the button.
Pepper spray is not "non-lethal"... people do have bad reactions to it... it is "less then lethal" and is not supposed to be used on a whim and as a substitute for managing a situation properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the absence of the "whole story", I will give the benefit of the doubt to the citizen every single time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 14th, 2014 @ 2:59pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Officer robs and assaults citizen with no criminal charges filed and he blames it on "anti-police sentiment" and the "morons" making the recording.
That cop should be in a jail cell at this moment.
Anybody care to guess how often this officer has done something like this in his 20 years on patrol? 100 times? 1000? The only thing that has changed is that he is no longer assured of getting away with it unrecorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The police are NOT trustworthy anymore, if they ever actually were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes they are. They're learning that they're not alone in making mistakes, and that mistakes aren't punished even when they're observed, recorded, and elevated to national attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
small town symbiotic relationships
Actually, Tim, the typical small-town newspaper would never print anything the slightest bit critical of the police or ruling establishment. So a police abuse lawsuit simply wouldn't be "newsworthy" since mere knowledge of its existence might encourage others to file similar suits.
It's a much different situation from a city, which has a more diversified local media and whose selection of news stories tends to be at least occasionally adversarial to the interests of the establishment.
...just wanted to point that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And also get rid of stop-and-frisk laws. New Yorkers were assured that stop and frisk was needed to keep people safe by checking for and confiscating illegal weapons. Instead, cops are now confiscating people's money, as if carrying money is somehow illegal.
The only time authorities should be able to search people is when they are arrested for a crime. Anything else is a violation of personal liberty and privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want to be a criminal, become a cop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Want to be a criminal, become a cop!
Oddly enough, if your recall, this is exactly a plot point in "A Clockwork Orange". Alex's fellow gang members during his crime spree have become thug police officers when he gets out of jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about cannibalism? Would a cop lose his job if he went full-on Hannibal Lecter? There's got to be something left that'd actually get a cop in trouble... Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the "justice system" refuses to have them arrested and jailed for their crimes what use is there in anyone following the laws, when it no longer gets applied evenly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Oblivious: Dumb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For their own safety, good cops need to nail bad cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For their own safety, good cops need to nail bad cops
Oh wait, they already do by definition. Any cops who aren't doing that aren't good cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much of that is true, I don't know, but I'm less skeptical now after reading this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She was shouting in his face ffs, there are no countries on this world where this would have ended better.
Lets be honest here, its obvious that if she was not sprayed they would have jumped at the cops within a minute and brutally murdered them.
If he took the money then yeah sure he should be fired, but he did the right thing when he sprayed again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The correct response would be to ignore her or even better answer her questions and talk her down. Resorting to physical violence is the response of a thug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or does this somehow only apply to police being able to break the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Body Cams for Cops
The dispatcher can see the video in realtime, meaning cops get help faster when they need it.
The cop knows every move he makes is recorded from multiple angles, so he pulls less shit.
The people know that talking to a cop is making a post to Judicial Youtube, so they moderate their hijinks a little and stop agitating the cops.
The public knows that all this video exists for each patrolman on scene and will not tolerate the failure to produce it.
In every direction accountability goes up and the margin for bullshit goes down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. "Why do you care? Are you black? Besides they said on the news that the cops tried to give the money back and they couldn't find the guy. Obviously he's hiding from them for some reason."
2. "What can you do? That's just the way things are, you can't change them. Just keep your head down and don't make trouble."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the case of my first friend, it's not so much resignation as he doesn't see anything wrong with what the cops are doing because it doesn't affect him personally. Mention how minorities are often the target of police abuse and he tells you about how statistics prove that the majority of crimes are committed by minorities. Ergo the cops are justified in treating minorities badly because they probably deserve it.
Michael Brown deserved to get shot because he allegedly robbed a store and pushed around the clerk, and because he was a big, physically imposing black man who brought it on himself by daring to struggle with a cop.
The "rioters" in Ferguson deserve to be shot with rubber bullets and tear gas because some of them looted store, proving that they're all just animals.
John Crawford deserved to get shot because he shouldn't have been carrying a BB gun around a store and should have dropped it when the cops told him to, in the 2 seconds before they opened fire.
In the miniscule percentage of cases where the people didn't bring it on themselves, it was one isolated incident by a rogue cop who will be swiftly dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]