I am not even sure where to start so I will give both side to the situation. It does provide protection to officers who have o choice but go all the way in order to maintain their cover, but the problem is police history. The public doesn’t trust the police to use this loophole only as a safety net, but thinks the police will abuse it. Let’s be honest here, police history does suggest that it will happen. So the best course of action is to take it away and deal with each incident on a case by case basis.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust is lodging a formal complaint against a Judge who was reluctant to allow a sex abuse victim to read her victim impact statement in court saying the Judge showed an unacceptable bias towards the offender. Full Story at:
I do understand where the public is coming from with this one. It seems that the justice system is so afraid of violating a offender’s right that they lose their senses and instead, violates the victim’s rights in an effort to appear unbiased to the defense. How is that fair or sensible? The victim should be the priority and not the offender. Once someone has been convicted than all soft gloves should come off. I understand the need to hold a fair trial so innocents don’t get thrown in jail, but after a conviction this should no longer be an issue.
I do not like the tone of this article. It starts off very accusatory and there are no other sides but the narrow minded view that cops are stealing from the public to enhance their own personal departmental gains. There is no discussion on the good that comes from having civil forfeiture laws, the reasons behind it, and what actually requires it to take place. There is only hate and content for police departments that have them. I even doubt that most of what was stated is true or factual. You have to be careful of what you choose to believe.
Well there is a lot to be said about that. First, I would not go into any fast food restaurant drive-through and order food in a marked police vehicle and wearing a police uniform. It is well known this kind of thing happens. However, I do not agree with what happened and I am outraged by it. A police officer should be able to go to any restaurant and order whatever they want without having to worry about their food getting them sick. I wonder what McDonalds will do about this little mishap? I guess only time will tell.
You would think this kind of thing doesn’t go on anymore, but it does. It is still surprising to hear this kind of news of people of color being profiled and thought of as not having money. I wonder is there more to it than the color of their skin, perhaps the way they were dressed had something to do with it as well. If a white person were dressed the same way and purchased the same items, would they have been approached? Another question is whether it is the police or the store that is making these assumptions based on race.
I do not agree with this. I can understand the good in having police wear lapel cameras during every contact with the public, but to say it should be on the entire shift is ridicules. Cops joke around a lot with each other, and if a defense attorney could access some of those jokes, nothing would ever get prosecuted. People see this as a way to police the police, but it’s really just a way to justify not believing or trusting the police. If an officer’s word is not good enough for court, then that person should not be a police officer in the first place. Instead of trying to fix what is broken in out police, just ensure that we hire ethical and honest people.
The very idea of having punishments for officers who don’t have their lapel cameras on in the form of not accepting evidence only hurts the victims. Sure it my upset the officer, but the real person who is being punished is the victim. The courts are already geared towards helping the suspect as it is, there should not be any more favor towards them. As I stated in the beginning, I think that lapel cameras have their place and purpose, but let each agency decide how to apply them. All day and everyday use has too many variables that don’t benefit the victims of crime for it to work.
When someone tries to ram through barriers at two of the nation's most highly protected facilities, do officers shoot? What if the driver's car is carrying a powerful bomb? Or what if the driver is unarmed and has a child?
It is hard to look at this situation from the rear wearing 20/20 goggles and say that officers used too much force. The officers acted appropriately, I can only say that I’m glade the child was ok. With this whole terrorist thing going on, it’s a wonder that more shots were not fired. People need to realize that a car is a lethal weapon, and when facing deadly force, the officer must act to preserve the life of others and themselves by using deadly force.
This is just another sheep versus sheepdog situation (see Col. Grossman).
I can’t believe that a principal would even think of asking a police officer not to wear his uniform while dropping off his kids to school. It’s like the worse thing a principal could say considering all of the school shootings lately. You would think he would have asked the officer to do it more often so parents and children could feel safe. However, I would like to add that I do understand what it must be like to have parents complaining about everything you do and what their kids are seeing and learning in school. To the parents I would say, if you care so much about your kids seeing a uniformed police officer at school (with a gun), then you should home school your kids like so many other parents do.
Overall, this is a pretty ridiculous situation that should not have happened in the first place had the principal had some backbone and came up with all of the “teaching” methods to explain to the children why police carry guns in the first place. Or, the parents could have done their jobs and explained it.
It’s refreshing to see something positive being said about the every cops that risk their lives to serve and protect. However, it is a shame that it takes actions, risk, and tragedies like this to get some support. I guess it’s easy to take cops for granted and take your angers, frustration, and hostilities out on them, but remember who it is that you are calling in your hour of need.
Wow. I can’t believe that the media is still pulling the same old stunts. Is it possible that the man died from the Taser? Possibly. However, it is so unlikely that it did and it is almost a lie to state that a Taser killed a man it did. Especially when there is information about the man taking drugs and fighting people naked. The toxicology hasn’t even been completed yet! All this type of media does is place fear into the hearts and minds of people about tools that police use to prevent from actually shooting them with a gun. This stuff has serious effects on people, yet it is perfectly legal.
Well at first sight, I agreed that her rights were violated by the fire department acting as peace officers. The fire department should have treated this situation as any other citizen and called 911 and reported the crime unless immediate action was required.
However, as I read and learned that the firemen was essentially conducting a welfare check on the driver, asked about her wellbeing, and made a suggestion that she have someone pick her up. To me, this means that the firemen had no intention to act as an LEO, but as a concerned citizen and thus, the “stop” should have been considered legal. The firemen did not attempt to detain her until police arrived, but let her go and called police after ward. If anything the firemen was trying to do her a favor.
I wonder how this would have read had the driver killed someone after being stopped by the firemen, or if the firemen had done nothing and the driver hurt someone. I bet if a citizen learned that a city official stood idly by why this serious crime of DUI was occurring and made no attempt to intercept, people would be criticizing them for their failure to act. There were damned either way if you ask me.
I disagree that the decline in the U.S. prison population is due entirely or in any way to the new approach to crime conducted in the U.S. I say this because it seems that crime rates are not dropping, victims are still being victimized, but the offenders are just not being sentenced to jail as they used to. Probation and parole are over used even when they know the offender is an extreme risk to society. I remember reading just a few weeks ago about an Anchorage, Alaska man who had broken into someone’s home and sexually assaulted their small female child just to be placed on probation. He did the same thing again and was, for a second time, released from jail where he for the third time did the same crime, but this time he killed the grandparents who were watching their grandchild.
This is just one example that makes it really hard for me to think that the decline in prison rates have anything to do with our new approach to crime, unless of course they mean our lack of actually punishing those who need it.
This should have been common sense information. If the police have the time and funding to conduct proactive patrolling, they will find unsafe behavior. The scary part about this is that there were a lot more than those 49 (total) impaired drivers out during the weekend, but they just didn’t get caught.
I don’t even know where to start in this obvious disservice done this kid. What kind of crime has he committed by trying to capture evidence of other students bullying him? This is the kind of stuff that kind of goes against the whole zero-tolerance policies designed to prevent bullying. The purpose of these policies is to prevent the victims from feeling they have no choice nut shoot the ones who bully them, but the victim in this case is being punished. The statements made by the judge was almost incoherent and the rational used was comical. I fully disagree with what the ultimate decision was made here and I have to believe that there is more to the story than just that.
This video is very subjective and can easily go either way. It appeared as if the offender grabbed the edges of the door which would show some resistance, but the video does look bad for the cop. It is important to remember that the video clip only shows a very small and narrow part of what really happened in the police station and people should not jump to conclusions and start prosecuting the officer until all the facts are made clear. The offender was intoxicated and just arrested for DUI; some intoxicated people who have been arrested are very resistant, both verbally and physically, and there could be facts similar to this that will exonerate the officer. If there are none and the officer did cross the line then he should be held accountable.
Former Arlington police Officer Thomas Kantzos pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a charge of improperly using a department computer to help tip off his steroid dealer. Kantzos, 45, remains free on bond. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for February.
Well if you do the crime you have to pay the time. I hate that some officers lose sight of what their promise and responsibility to society is. This officer is basically a spy for the enemy and placing his fellow officers in harm’s way. I think he should get what he gets.
CENTENNIAL, Colo.(Reuters) - Police coerced movie theater gunman James Holmes into talking about explosives found in his apartment after he shot 12 people to death, and those statements should be barred...
This is the most frustrating thing about our adversarial justice system. It is very pro-defendant. On one hand, we don’t want to sentence an innocent man to hang and it is better to let guilty men walk free than have one innocent man locked up. But on the other hand, what about the victims, the dead, and wounded? Our system only seems to account for the victims after the defendant is found guilty. The police and prosecution are under a lot of pressure from the public to “make the arrest” and charge the suspect, so mistakes are going to be made. This does not excuse any constitutional rights that may have been violated, but it should at least be considered before people start passing judgment.
I understand both points of view here and agree with some of both.
From the driver’s point of view: It is scary to have some guy (police or other) pull you over with a gun drawn and pointing at you for no apparent reason. In this guy’s point of view, being a black male and having a white cop pull him over, I’m sure it was even more so stressful with all the stereotypes and rumors going on about how cops are racist. He did the right thing by following the police officer’s orders and I agree that the officers should have at least explain the situation in some kind of detail and try to help him understand what was going on, why he was suspected, and the importance of their situation. I also agree that the officers should have offered some form of an apology for violating his rights, pointing a gun at him, and placing him in great fear.
From the officer’s point of view: I absolutely under why he did what he did and I won’t even began to why he took those actions because there are so many possibilities. The only thing I will add is that there should have been some form of an apology and attempt to help the subject understand why thing had to happen the way they did.
I think that this is a tricky one, after all police are citizens that just have a bit more training and legal authority. If a complainant wants to report a reckless driver, that complainant should chose to be listed as the complainant and not anonymous. However, most people don’t like getting involved in other people’s business and in the end, it only makes the police job that much harder.
Everyone is so worried about how this man spent the last 41 years of his life, about how his rights were violated when he had an all-male grand jury, and about how he died from liver cancer. I ask this; what about the armed robbery and the death of the prison guard. I do understand having rules and laws that we must play by, but there needs to be a line where the victims are the number one priorities and not the suspect. The trial itself did not violate his rights and the Grand Jury doesn’t decide if anyone is guilty. Our legal system is so caught up on making sure that the suspects are treated fairly and justly, that we forget about the victims of these crimes and the justice they deserve. It makes you really look at criminal justice and realize that it just that, criminal justice and not victim justice.
Local Groups Oppose DPD Use of Stop And Frisk CBS Local DETROIT (WWJ) – Is it racial profiling — or just good police work? The controversy surrounding the policy known as “Stop and Frisk” has come under fire in Detroit.
I don’t know how I feel about this one. One hand, there are some people who need to be frisked for dangerous weapons and contraband, but on the other, at what point are we violating people’s rights? The answer isn’t easy. It could potentially be used as a racial profile or other type of profile technique, but at the same time it could be used to make a difference and possibly deter crime. For this to work, it would have to be used on anyone who legitimately is acting, doing, or providing some evidence of reasonable suspicion (RS) and the cops need to be able to prove the RS beyond a reasonable doubt. To clarify, the officer would only need to be able to prove his reason behind frisking a suspect that makes sense to a reasonable person. Perhaps there could be a type of jury system that could decide if the RS was there or not.
Well I don’t really know what to say about this one because I wasn’t there. I can add that perspective is everything and even his partner can’t be expected to have been thinking and feeling what Richard Chrisman was at the time. I am not saying I think he is innocent, but there needs to be some give to recognize that, as the president of the police board said, cops make life and death decisions in a split seconds time, yet they are judged from a slow and deliberate perspective.
It makes sense, but now how do we get low level drug dealers to turn on their big bosses when they have nothing to gain from helping. I guess it’s another one of those damned if you don’t and damned if you do situations. Perhaps if drugs were legal this whole thing could be prevented.
FAIRBANKS — Alaska State Troopers say a pair of encyclopedia salesmen from Estonia who upset several residents in Fairbanks and North Pole with their aggressive selling tactics earlier this month have evidently moved on to Anchorage.
This is very interesting to me. I think that due to all the burglaries in the North Pole area, residents have become very suspicious and ready to act without proper cause. This is just the typical human behavior. Someone says something based purely on speculation and another person takes it as the gospel and acts on it. Someone always ends up getting hurt.
I wish I could say something to the effect that I am surprised or astounded, but I can’t because I’m not. This isn’t news, this is reality and I agree that I am glad to see a president call it like it is, morally wrong. I am just waiting to see what will happen to change this. I am not expecting anything to change, but I would be happy to see it change.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.