More Reality Cop Show Shenanigans

More problems for Police Women of Broward County, the awful TLC reality show I previously wrote about here.

The filming of a new season of Police Women of Broward County has victims, suspects and the sheriff saying the reality series has gone too far trying to create must-see TV — including offering suspects money if they're reluctant to allow their faces to be used on the program.

Crime victims have come forward recently, upset about their treatment by deputies connected to the show while a number of suspects have complained about what they say is pressure put on them to sign release forms…

The Broward County Public Defender's Office is aware of at least three clients who have been offered or received money to sign release forms since filming for the new season began in January, Chief Assistant Public Defender Gordon Weekes Jr. said. One was paid $500 and another offered that same amount, Weekes said.

"They need to take any action necessary to prevent future arrestees from being further exploited," Weekes said of Lamberti's office. "They need to take some responsibility for the lack of supervision of these folks."…

Some victims have also criticized the show, saying they have felt pressured by deputies and the show's producers to allow the cameras to intrude on their lives.

One woman who reported a date rape to BSO in January said she was disturbed when Sheriff's Office sex crimes Detective Julie Bower came with an all-male television crew and pushed for her to tell her story on camera. Bower is one of the original stars of the show…

"I started getting upset, crying," said the Pompano Beach woman, 51, who has since moved to the Orlando area out of fear of running into the man she said drugged and raped her. "I'm reporting a date rape. I'm trying to get someone to listen to me and she's trying to put me on TV."…

[Broward County Sheriff Al] Lamberti said the show does have benefits.

"I wanted to show law enforcement in a human way," Lamberti said. "It does illustrate that women can have a career in law enforcement."

Here's a screen cap of the show humanizing Det. Andrea Penoyer.

Comments

[Hugh Akston]

Here's a screen cap of the show humanizing Det. Andrea Penoyer.

God bless you, Radley Balko.

[Urkobold?]

HUMANIZED? THE URKOBOLD DOES NOT BELIEVE THE DETECTIVE NEEDS MORE HUMANIZING. NOTE THE PROMINENT MAMMARY GLANDS, INDICATING HER POSITION AS A FEMALE MEMBER OF HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS. ALSO, THE DETECTIVE'S FACIAL EXPRESSION APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT SHE IS IN A STATE OF ORGASM, WHICH ALSO STRONGLY INDICATES THAT SHE IS A HUMAN FEMALE.

[wayne]

Probably faking it, Urk.

[Urkobold?]

FOOL! ONLY ONE ANIMAL IN NATURE FAKES ORGASM!

[Nipplemancer]

is it this?

[Colonel_Angus]

Its arms are like puffy tree trunks.

[Cunctator]

Then I want to be a lumberjack.

[MWG]

Hugh, you motor-boatin' sonuva bitch!

[wylie]

"I started getting upset, crying,"

"Our ratings are GOING THROUGH THE ROOF, keep pushing her!"

Stay Classy, Law Enforcement.

[wylie]

Also, nice to see TLC doing something that's actually educational, even if it's a Balkonian lesson.

[Mister DNA]

No shit. How long before they start doing "Haunted Tattoo Parlors of Broward County"?

[Episiarch]

SciFi already did that.

[KWebb]

I've watched about a minute of one episode. It took the officer less than 15 seconds after arriving at a scene to start screaming profanity and threatening a man for, as far as I could tell, no reason at all.

It was very enlightening.

[dunphy]

is that an indictment of women or cops? or both?

[BoscoH]

Here's a screen cap of the show humanizing Det. Andrea Penoyer.

Looks human to me.

[Mister DNA]

She needs to remove the bathing suit to confirm there are no reptilian scales under there.

[Sudden]

I must examine the subject hands-on to verify.

[duster]

oh the humanity!

[dunkel]

oh, the huge mammaries!

[D-oh]

So the inference is that Detective Andrea Penoyer is not humanized through her actions on the show huh?

[sloopyinca]

If the audio is running, why doesn't a "suspect" make a citizens arrest on the officer and film crew for illegally filming them.

Otherwise, why can't someone arrested for recording a cop walk by asking the cop to sign a release? Are the tapes of people who refuse to sign the release destroyed? If not, these cops are breaking the same laws they are putting peope in jail for.

That does it, I'm printing some release forms for use the next time I record a cop.

[wylie]

That does it, I'm printing some release forms for use the next time I record a cop.

There's an App for that.

[dunphy]

depends on the state. In my state, it's entirely legal for cops to record people and them to record us.

I've had COPS ride with me several times. They are very professional. Granted, they have been doing it for many years.

They must use the release forms if they want to BROADCAST the footage. Since it's entertainment and not news, they need permission.

I had a sweet incident where a guy threw a meat cleaver at two of us, then tried to light his garage on fire. He wouldn't sign a release 🙁 so it never aired

[sloopyinca]

I'm calling bullshit here. What episodes were you on COPS?

So, if I offer a release form and they don't sign it, all that would mean is that I couldn't put it on my (nonexistant) YouTube page? Otherwise, I could just keep it, right?

Somehow, I doubt your bullshit would work in practice. Methinks I'd end up with a cracked skull and a felony rap sheet.

And I'll patiently wait for the link to your appearance on COPS. They're all on HULU, so you can give the season and episode #'s and I'll go find em myself.

[Adam]

"And I'll patiently wait for the link to your appearance on COPS. They're all on HULU, so you can give the season and episode #'s and I'll go find em myself."

Oh, how I love the internets! My memory is weak and failing, but the internets never forget!

[dunphy]

i really can't believe this nimrod thinks i'm going to give him my name. does he want my badge # too?

[sloopyinca]

I just wanted to know what episode you were on. I never asked for your name. Seeing as there are more than one cop per episode, you'd still have some anonymity.

In other words, you just got called on your bullshit.

[dunphy]

i didn't get called on jack and shit and jack left town. i have steadfastly refused to name my dept. here for several years. i'm not starting now. and i don't give a flying fuck what you believe. omg, i'm so depressed. some anon troll on the intertoobs called me a liar.

[sloopyinca]

I'm not an anon troll. I've been posting on here for a while and anyone who got in my NCAA pool 2 weeks ago knows my name and where I'm from.

I'll give you a hint...the name's in my email address and where I'm from is in my handle (CA).

[Sudden]

My name is also Ken, and I am also from California. However, I have adopted this moniker and refused to give my email on here for fear of getting propositioned by rectal.

[Rather]

Dream on
A moniker like sudden is hardly a turn-on
baby, sorry but it happens all of a sudden; I'll try for ten seconds next time

[a-hole]

I'm an a-hole living in North America and that's as much info I'm willing to give rather/rectal. I actually think she's one of my ex-girlfriends and I don't want anything ever again to do with her. * she did give a decent blow-job once however...

[Rather]

D?sol? baby, if I gave you a blow-job you wouldn't be calling me your ex.

[heller]

Your from Inca?

[sloopyinca]

And I'm not a nimrod. I'm Nimrod's Son.

Enjoy!

[0x90]

You too!

[dunphy]

i don't care what the fuck you "call it" and if i told you what episodes I was on, that would kind of let you know who i am for pete's sake. jeez.

WA state has two party consent for audio recording, but it only applies to PRIVATE conversation, thus does not apply to police/citizen interactions.

there are some states where thuggish cops fuck with people for recording them, but my state is not one of them. thankfully.

also, even if it was private convo, if you know that you are beign recorded, and talk anyway, that doesn't violate the two party thang. that's why you can use an answering machine, for instance.

i really don't give a flying fuck what you believe, but cops loves filming in the pac nw, and they come here often

[Episiarch]

Where in Washington are you, dunphy? I'll be sure to avoid there like the plague. If you say Seattle, I'll just have to laugh, though you don't strike me as SPD; more like Renton PD.

[dunphy]

i'll remain scrupulously silent on that. it's a great state though. we have a broad right to privacy in our state const. (no dui roadblocks for instance), right to carry, no permit needed for open carry, carry allowed on college campuses, etc.

the democratic legislature sucks, but most of this stuff is established law in regards to state const. so they can't fuck with it much. although mayor nickels tried.

also, the prosecutors have to DISPROVE any self defense claim (burden is on them) and if a jury rules that person acted in self defense, the state must pay lawyer fees and lost wages for the trial.

[Colonel_Angus]

"it's a great state though. we have [....] right to carry, no permit needed for open carry"

Hah!
In practice- no, Washington doesn't.
In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw it on cops, a guy getting hassled for having a gun. Was that your episode?

[sloopyinca]

Epi, dude. He can't tell you what PD he works for. That's like giving you his address and the keys to his house.

[Episiarch]

He could state the general region/metro area. Or he might just be such a huge cop lover that he just pretends to be one. Who knows?

[dunphy]

i am in the puget sound area. iow, i am not in eastern washington, and god forbid nowhere near bellingham...

[Episiarch]

So you are Renton PD! Or maybe Sea-Tac PD. White Center?

[dunphy]

Epi, is this reverse psychology the teenage years? I am NOT saying which agency I work for. I can tell you I used to work in Hawaii, and now work in the Puget Sound area. Of course, there are a lot of us in that situation

[Sudden]

Two beautiful states IMO

[whaaa?]

What's wrong with Bellingham? Too many Canadians or what?

[dunphy]

it's the people's republic of bellingham. WAY leftwing. it wouldn't be quite as bad as being an Evergreen State College cop, but close

[whaaa?]

"WAY leftwing" - yeah, but that's probably related to the prevalence of Canucks shoppers and the wealthy lefty ones buying up property in the neighborhood... but the rest of the county is pretty much non-lefty!

[dunphy]

yes . i have a friend who works the indian reservation up there and likes it. my favorite story about working up there is that (at least several years ago) the canadian border checkers are unarmed. when the cops chase a suspect towards the border, those guards are BY POLICY supposed to abandon their post and hide in the building.

supposedly. the new prime minister was going to arm them, but not sure if he got around to it.

it's pretty frigging pathetic, that they RUN AWAY though

[whaaa?]

Yeah, they did get armed... after a lot of whining by the standard whiners.

[dunphy]

nice. They are almost a real country now, despite their flappy heads and celine dion

[whaaa?]

They'll be a real country when they repeal all the crap that's keeping citizens from being armed... not just the ones with "authority" ...you know who/what I mean.

[junior]

They became a real country when they created Trailer Park Boys. Greatest cultural contribution by any nation in history.

[dunphy]

they've always had excellent comedy. when you consider they are about 1/10 our size, a disproportionate %age of great comics come from canada.

they are also good at self-deprecating humor, so at least they aren't like the french who think they are better than everybody else.

[cynical]

"though you don't strike me as SPD"

Were you intending to offer a compliment on his professionalism?

[dunphy]

i'll say one thing. that SPD birk shooting was a seriously fucked up shoot. i've said it before. deserves repeating

[dunphy]

epi, if you come up to seattle, maybe you can do a ridealong in my police car. of course i'd have to check you for warrants and sex offender history. and then there's the pre-ride along cavity search.

[Helpful]

I believe Episiarch has had his cavities sewn up, just in case. Or were they permanently stuffed? Either way...

[dunphy]

i enjoy a challenge

[Mensan]

FWIW about 25% (my estimate) of the segments on Cops are filmed in Pierce County.

[Colonel_Angus]

"it's a great state though. we have [....] right to carry, no permit needed for open carry"

Hah!
In practice- no, Washington doesn't.
In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw it on cops, a guy getting hassled for having a gun. Was that your episode?

[dunphy]

your basis for believing that WA state does not have open carry is that you are "pretty sure" you saw it on an episode of COPS. lol. yea, that's a compelling argument.

my basis, otoh, is seeing people walking around open carrying, and apart from the occasional hysterical leftist citizen calling 911 to complain (at which point our dispatchers calmly advise them of the law), it is routinely ignored around here.

i've open carried. one of my partners does so frequently here too.

i have yet to get hassled by the cops nor has he and we don't have signs on us saying "off duty cop".

open carry is the law here, and unless you have more compelling evidence that cops routinely harass people for it, you are full of shit

[Coeus]

There was a vague (some say intentionally vague) statute passed in 2006 which stated:

"(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, ... in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."

The fact that those "hysterical leftist citizens" are concerned is what makes it a crime. So, like so many other laws, you only get in trouble if you don't properly kiss a cop's ass. I found an example of it being used in just that way:

http://www.columbian.com/news/.....-gun-case/

The second case mentioned in the article is really the one where contempt of cop seems to be the real charge. It does seem though, that the abuse isn't widespread, as I couldn't find many examples.

[dunphy]

and there was clear case law established AFTER that law was passed that unequivocally determined that merely carrying a handgun in a holster is NOT a violation of that statute.

specifically, ("reason" is often an essence of these types of law, and even used in the PC and Reasonable suspicion standards in general) that it is NOT reasonable for a person to be alarmed by a person walking around with a handgun properly holstered.

EVER

feel free to come to WA state, and walk around with a handgun in a holster clearly visible on your hip, as i see people do somewhat frequently

the worst thing that will happen is that some apoplectic liberal will hiss at you or frantically call 911 to "report you"

if and when a cop prones you out at gunpoint, you will have a CHOICE lawsuit on your hands, since the case law is indisputably clear.

it is a complete and total non-issue except to former mayor nickels of seattle and other similar liberal morons who tried to get guns banned from city parks, etc

[Coeus]

that it is NOT reasonable for a person to be alarmed by a person walking around with a handgun properly holstered.

Then why was Joshua Watson convicted less than 6 months ago? He never pulled his gun or made threating statments.

Better question:
Why do you ask for cites and then not read them?

All that you had to do there was say, "See, it's a rare occurance." Hell, I was basically supporting your claim. You know if I could have found some more, I would have posted them. Instead you go off into some knee-jerk bullshit. Bottom line here is:
1) yes, cops can get you for open carry if they want to
2)abuse of this power by police in Washington isn't widespread.

And quit asking for fucking cites if you're not gonna read them.

[dunphy]

it's a good cite and i admit based on the story, it appears to clearly be a bad case.

fwiw, i note that the officers (to their credit) did not make a custodial arrest but merely cited him and seized the gun. that probably significantly limited their liability if he can successfully sue when the case gets thrown out on appeal, i hope.

but yes, you found a counterexample. i have several friends who work for vancouver PD. i'll get their opinion on this case and try to get a copy of the actual PC certification or report to review it.

but i will concede , IF the article is accurate, that it is clearly a case of police misconduct.

[Gregory Smith]

Aw, blame the TV for the suffering of those poor victims and criminals. What is this? The Parents Television Council? Jesus, today people sound like a bunch of anti-TV puritans.

Cop reality shows are for profit PSA's that educate the community about the dangers of crime and becoming a criminals. This "exploitation" is good for society.

Seriously, if libertarians ever decide to start a TV Station, I hope they don't have shows like "Poor Misunderstood Criminals" and "Potheads in Prison." Nobody's gonna want to watch that.

Earth Hour: Hating Humanity's Progress.
http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....gress.html

[Hugh Akston]

Does it violate the nonaggression principle to hope that Gregory Smith gets hit by a bus?

[J sub D]

No. Pushing him in front of a speeding bus might but it would be difficult to find a jury to convict someone for it.

[Episiarch]

Spock did it to Edith Keeler in The City on the Edge of Forever (in the teleplay by Harlan Ellison, not in the actual episode), but he did it to save millions of lives in the future. So if Spock can do it, why can't Hugh?

[Bohica]

That "aggression" would be good for society.

[Hugh Akston]

Sorry guys, I can't justify it in Utilitarian terms. Gregory Smith's life is precious, if only to him (and I'm sure it doesn't go any further).

So if I happened to run into him on the sidewalk and accidentally bumped him in front of an oncoming bus, I would totally feel super bad about. For. Sure.

[Eric]

If you're an an-cap, there are several excellent dissertations in favor of "he needed killin'" defenses... I am sure that Gregory meets those criterion.

[Gregory Smith]

Wow, you guys sound just like progressives, "I believe in humanity unless humanity disagrees with me."

I hope you guys pay your cable bills, what would you do without MSNBC?

[dunphy]

this aggression won't stand!

[Paul]

No. Pushing him in front of a speeding bus might but it would be difficult to find a jury to convict someone for it.

Not of the Women of Broward County to the arrestin'!

[Paul]

I type better before noon.

[sloopyinca]

Your scenario is impossible because there are no busses or roads in Libertopia. Duh...only the state can operate them.

[J sub D]

What crime did I commit and what lessons were taught the public when 7 year old Aiyana Jones was murdered during the taping of a "The First 48" episode, you blithering idiot?

Don't you have a rock to crawl back under?

[Paul]

What crime did I commit and what lessons were taught the public when 7 year old Aiyana Jones was murdered during the taping of a "The First 48" episode, you blithering idiot?

That even innocent victims are caught up in the drug war, which is why we need to prosecute harder?

[Mister DNA]

Seriously, if libertarians ever decide to start a TV Station, I hope they don't have shows like "Poor Misunderstood Criminals" and "Potheads in Prison." Nobody's gonna want to watch that.

I'd watch Real Lobster Girls of The Seasteading Institute and Radley Balko's "Ow! Your Balls!"

[The Gobbler]

"Ow! Your Balls!"

The Gobbler likes this.

[Hugh Akston]

Also, if Gillespie had his own talk show, it would be a rabid crossbreed of 60 Minutes and The Man Show.

[Eric]

STEVE SMITH: The Rapening has all the makings for a cult hit.

[STEVE SMITH]

STEVE LIKE IDEA, STEVE ALREADY HAVE CONSENT FORMS PRINTED UP

[wylie]

Real Lobster Girls of The Seasteading Institute

Drop the "Real" and turn it into dystopian-future scifi theme.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Gregory Smith,

Cop reality shows [...] educate the community about the dangers of crime and becoming a criminal[.]

Rather, the dangers of relying on the police to solve crimes and for help. They are still tax-fed, jack-booted thugs even if they look good in a fuschia bikini.

[Cyto]

Actually, this show was excellent for my purposes. It showed the attractive detective Penoyer as an overly gung-ho junior officer who is basically a good egg but you could easily see her violating a suspects rights to "get the bad guys". She's a great illustration of the overreaching drug warrior.

They had plenty of examples of borderline (or worse) stops and drug sweeps. They had a rookie patrolman who quite obviously has no business whatever enforcing the laws - too meek and too dumb to ever be effective - but with enough authority to put an innocent man away for a long time.

Then they had another attractive woman who was balls-on tough but also seemed to be a pretty good cop. They showed her stop a couple of would-be Johns and traffic violators and let them off with a good scare and nothing more. I heard that she participated in the Broward vs Palm Beach Police charity boxing match and put her opponent in the hospital. Ouch.

The show was ridiculous and fairly well hated by cops down here (particularly those who work with the ladies in question) because it made them look incompetent (to other cops) and mostly because it vastly overstated the roles of some of the ladies, particularly Penoyer. Word has it that she and her partner drive the pickup vehicle for the narcotics (and other) team - but the show made out like she was a narcotics officer.

The one who comes off worst on TV is Bower (mostly because of her god-awful 80's hairdo), but word has it that she's a solid officer and by far the most serious of the bunch. The TV crew had her go out as a decoy street walker, something that I'm told she never does in her normal job. Other than her interview with the victim and suspect in a rape case (I'm assuming that it is the one mentioned above) she came off as something of a joke. The interview was pretty good, both suspect and victim. They showed enough to show how the rapist hung himself in the interview, and how she was able to convince him that he wanted to hang himself. Pretty good material for any civil libertarian to use.

[MNG]

This is capitalism. It is what people want (as indicated by ratings). Why all the hate for the free market all of a sudden? The market is providing something people demand...scenes of other people's humiliation, and the tasering of various people.

[dunphy]

i thought that was kind of ironic, myself. it's "exploitation" to offer a person money to sign a release so they can broadcast stuff they film? kind of like how capitalists exploit labor or something like that. clearly, that's a libertarian understanding of the evil capitalist system. next, we will have an entry here by gloria steinem's understudy saying that the bunny ranch exploits poor helpless women to commit sex acts with evil oppressive patriarchal men, and that walmart exploits workers by not giving them a huge benefit package and opposing unionization or something

FEEEL the victimization

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

This is capitalism.

What's capitalism? These are not private cops, these are jack-booted, tax-leeching thugs. The fact that they are being followed by a film crew does not change the fact that they are harrassing taxpayers like any other jack-booted, tax-leeching thugs out there.

[MNG]

If they were private cops, there would be EVEN MORE of this, because of their pursuit of profits, which the television show provides.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

If they were private cops, there would be EVEN MORE of this, because of their pursuit of profits, which the television show provides.

More of what?

[MNG]

Try to follow along: this story is about television cameras following cops around, and the potential for abuse which it brings. That is also generally what the comments thread is about. Therefore, that is the "what".

I said, this is capitalism, so there should be nothing wrong with it, even though some so-called libertarians on this board are crying foul. I then stated that there would be more of it - the it being cameras following cops around - in Libertopia.

[capitol l]

I missed all of the people here calling for legislation to deal with this, could you please point them out, dumbass?

I know that in your world not agreeing with somebody's choices = send in baby burning thugs to kill and imprison them, but libertarians usually think that you can find something disagreeable without sending in the goons.

[MNG]

What I'm saying is, I don't even understand why this would be considered a negative, or why anyone would advocate against it, since it is perfectly in line with libertarian ideas.

No one is calling for legislation to ban it...but why even be upset about it at all?

[capitol l]

Libertarians believe in a free exchange of ideas, does that mean that we can never get upset over or disagree with an idea.

[dunphy]

but what IS disagreeable with paying somebody to sign a release? what? i realize some defense attorney claims it's "exploitation" when done to his clients but why? are criminals too dumb to make economic decisions on their own? isn't the whole point of legalizing drugs saying that people ARE smart enough to make their own economic decisions, like in regards to drugs?

[capitol l]

So I take it you thought the part about the pestering of the woman reporting a rape was cool?

Asshole.

isn't the whole point of legalizing drugs saying that people ARE smart enough to make their own economic decisions, like in regards to drugs?

Are you really this simple, or is this an act?

[MNG]

Yes, libertarians believe in the free exchange of ideas. But don't sit there and act like it's anywhere near normal for a libertarian to decry a voluntary economic transaction.

[dunphy]

exactly. and of course i (and you) weren't referring to the rape reporter's story. we were commenting on the alleged exploitation that occurred when god forbid some tv chap offered money to somebody to sign a release.

it's called "piling on" when you use non-injustices (and in fact arguably good business practices) as extra "examples" of injustice. assuming that what went down with the rape complainant is true, THAT is messed up. but i have NO problem with the show offering people money for releases. who fucking cares? just because a defense attorney claims it's exploitation doesn't mean i have to buy his paternalistic crap.

[dunphy]

cmon, dood. this defense attorney is paternalistic as fuck. "oh my poor clients. they were offered money to sign a release so that their idiocy could be televised and they decided to accept the money. that's exploitation. no criminal can resist easy money. wait, did i say criminal? i meant falsely accused, but fragile innocent sweet flower. yea, that's it. hey, they waved that cool green in my client's face. what was he supposed to do? say NO?"

[Eric]

That's true, and in a Constitutional republic that protects my right to free speech and freedom of association, I am perfectly free not to support the show with my time and dollars, just as I am free to state my repulsion with the concept behind the show.

That's one of the nice things about libertarianism: it's not a Total Ideology that covers every aspect of human existence, it is a political philosophy which allows you to believe other things and to act on those beliefs in a non-violent manner.

[Paul]

This is capitalism. It is what people want (as indicated by ratings). Why all the hate for the free market all of a sudden?

Because in a free market we can turn it off, change the channel or make fun of it.

In progressiveland, we could have this show banned simply because it's icky.

But I have to point out... it's a television show about agents of the state... bet you know where I'm going with this, don't you?

[prolefeed]

This is capitalism. It is what people want (as indicated by ratings). Why all the hate for the free market all of a sudden?

Jeebus, MNG, when Colbert says shit like that, he is being IRONIC. He is parodying dumbasses.

When someone comes on here and says the government should shut down this TV show because that person hate the content, THEN maybe you'd have a point -- about that person only.

[dunphy]

i think the point is that when some tv show producer offers a person money to sign a release, calling that "exploitation" is a little rich. this is usually the language of the left e.g. mortgage brokers "exploited" all those poor homeowners with those ARMS, Walmart "exploits" its workers, johns "exploit" prostitutes, etc.

if two people make an economic agreement, generally speaking, libertarians don't see that as exploitation

heck many will say if somebody wants to sell their kidney, they can. that laws against it are wrong (the laws are there to prevent "exploitation")

there is a certain double standard whenever cops are in any way, shape or form involved.

fwiw, at least when COPS filmed with us, they don't involve us at all in the release process. after the incident is over, they walk over and ask the people to sign the release. to my knowledge, COPS has never offered money either. tons of people want to be on COPS, and even when they acted like complete ignoramuses will often want to be on tv.

[MNG]

Exactly, thank you. Prolefeed, I'm commenting on how this article is clearly meant to portray this practice in a negative light, despite the fact that libertarians should be celebrating the unfetted pursuit of profits at the expense of personal dignity, because it's all voluntary (they signed the damn forms).

Nevermind the fact that there was pressure put on people to "voluntarily" sign the forms, which, according to many libertarians, is a non-issue (it's a voluntary transaction! it's a voluntary transaction!).

[Eric]

It should not be an issue for gummint agents, certainly. Or do you want to explain why the men with the nice shiny guns pointing said guns in the faces of "exploitative" show creators is a good idea? Because if you do not agree that that would be a wise course of action, then you're in the same boat as us capitalist exploiters, Hamlet hand-wringing aside.

[Colonel_Angus]

"Why all the hate for the free market all of a sudden?"

The free market is not a public-private partnership, as this show is.

[Fire Tiger]

I think you need to explain your theory that governmental exploitation of the citizenry is the free market at work more completely.

[dunphy]

i think you need to stop begging the question, which is the case if you are assuming that a tv show paying people for releases = "exploitation"

[cynical]

Freedom means the right to be wrong. We can respect their moral right to influence the makeup of TV shows while deploring what they actually choose.

[barfman]

Cop reality shows are for profit PSA's that educate the community about the dangers of crime and becoming a criminals [sic]. This "exploitation" is good for society.

*barf*

[7 year old Aiyana Jones]

What's not to love about TV reality shows featuring cops?

[Rock Action]

Jesus. You don't even need Balko for the nut punch in this one. That's another level of bad.

[MWG]

I love the Sharpton quote at the end.

[Fatty Bolger]

Having a camera crew there is the best thing that could have happened.

Without the cameras it would have happened anyway, and the coverup would be well underway.

[dunphy]

The COPS crews are very professional. They've ridden with me several times. After an interesting incident, they ask people if they will sign a release. No pressure used. You would be surprised how many people who made complete fools of themselves jump at the chance. Of course, if you've ever seen COPS, maybe you wouldn't. (Insert joke about the cops making fools of themselves on tv too)...

They certainly have to do some editing, because everytime you walk up to a scene with a camera crew, the first thing anybody says is "Dude, I am on cops?" and stuff like that.

I had one woman ask the camera guy if he was getting her cleavage. She said she had gotten breast implants a couple of months ago and wanted to show them off. lol

[Ray]

Do you have a high and tight, shaved side burns at the top of your ears and a mustache? I bet you do.

[dunphy]

i most definitely do not have a stache. i hate staches

[Gray Ghost]

Considering that "Cops", the T.V. show, got its start over 20 years ago in Broward County, and one of its claims to fame were the ample charms of Sheriff's Deputy Linda Canada, I can't help but think the concept has gone full circle.

[dunphy]

They used to focus a lot more on the "officer's stories" so to speak vs. now a days. I recall one of those early shows might have been Dep. Canada, where she left her gun at home and had to call in to her husband or something to bring it by the precinct.

[juris imprudent]

Whoa - what's the catch? This isn't the usual Friday Balko nut punch. Have I not scrolled down far enough on the blog?

[Cable Television]

It's got a cop stomach, a 34-D cubic inch rack, it's got cop eyes, cop legs, cop ass.

[Episiarch]

I get out of Joliet, and my brother picks me up with a cop chick?!?

[Pro Libertate]

At last, you find wisdom.

[Pro Libertate]

What do you say, is it the new humanized detective or what?

[dunphy]

more human than human

[Colonel_Angus]

Sickening.

[Eric]

So, what's the deal with Balko's move to the HuffPo? Will he still be posting at Reason regularly, or has he been reduced to guest blogger status? *sniffle* I'm glad that he's moving up in life, and that he's able to reach a much larger audience, but I hope that I don't have to go to HuffPo to read his stuff.

[Colonel_Angus]

What audience?

[Pope Jimbo]

My father was a parole/probation officer and growing up, I got away with murder being his kid in a small rural town. I was pretty sympathetic to LEO's.

COPS changed all of that. Holy FSM! That show single handedly made me start openly rooting for the criminals.

[capitol l]

It's odd that dunphy is willing to go on a nationally televised show that is replayed ad infinitum in syndication, but won't tell the small number of people here what episode he appeared on.

I doubt that he was on the show, but what do I know? I'm no expert.

[sloopyinca]

I'm going to watch every episode of COPS in Washington until I find a chick who has fake tits (and possibly asks if they are getting them in the shot). I'll get back to you all as to the potential identity of dunphy after I view them.

This is what's called "detective work," dunphy. I just got you to give me a clue. Maybe I could become a cop, too.

[Eric]

They don't hand out cop badges to just anyone -- you have to have at least *some* level of hatred of basic Constitutional norms and civil liberties.

[Rather]

$100 you won't find him there

[dunphy]

then i must NOT be a cop, because i challenge you to cite anything i have posted that shows a hatred of const. norms or civil liberties.

i also, to paraphrase sean connery in the untouchables, suggest the question as to why somebody would pose as a cop in THIS blog of all places? for the abuse? i'm simply here to express my pov, which is against the WOD, for firearms rights, free market capitalism, etc. but apparently, that presses people's cognitive dissonance buttons

i've been accused a metric assload of times of being a "cop apologist" for AGREEING with balko about a case (that was my favorite) of justified prosecution of a criminal cop, and have supported prosecution of cops in any # of brutality cases (such as the jailhouse beating of the young girl that happened in the PAC NW and made the news nationwide)

[dunphy]

it's not odd when you consider that anonymity makes for freewheeling conversation. and considering how many times I have strongly criticized my administration, policies etc. it's pretty understandable i'd like the anonymity. also, my namesake "dunphy" is anonymous for the same reason at National Review. When he's acting in official capacity he's not. our names go on every report we write

there is currently a cop in seattle who has made very libertarian statements criticizing the far left city of seattle's "social justice" policies, etc. in his union's newsletter. the mayor etc. have done everything but call him satan and have essentially said he deserves to be fired. for expressing his opinion about policy! imagine that!

clearly, he is protected by the 1st amendment (i would hope, although leftists have no respect for it usually), but he is a perfect example of why cops like to post anonymously.

[capitol l]

I don't care who you are, I just want to see the COPS episode. I think that you think that your comments here are more important than they are.

[dunphy]

the fact that they get such vitriolic response would suggest that others think they are important.

since i have personal experience with cop reality shows, i posted on that. as well as correcting some nimrod on WA state's two party consent law.

since i have actual experience filming with COPS, i felt i had useful information to convey. you can take it or leave it. i don't really care.

maybe you might want to educate yourself

[capitol l]

maybe you might want to educate yourself

What does this even mean? Could somebody please translate this from jackbooted baby burner to English, please?

[dunphy]

i lol'd.

[capitol l]

So you don't deny burning babies?

[dunphy]

what great rhetorical technique... "have you stopped raping goats? yes or no?"

[Gray Ghost]

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

It is kind of funny, but hey, I'm not going to cast stones at someone who wants to be anonymous. Then again, I'm not going to tell you all about anything I might have done that would have been on national T.V. either.

[Eric]

Gotta say it: I don't get all the dunphy hate around these parts. If you're not an anarcho-capitalist (and I know that Ol' Mex, Epi, and some others are), then you have to accept the presence of state-funded (or taxpayer-raping, if you prefer) LEOs. As far as I can tell, dunphy is hated because he's a cop, and proud of it: I just don't see how that is casus belli.

[Hugh Akston]

dunphy has been a regular fixture in Radley's infamous "isolated incident" posts where cops who use excessive force, seize assets, perjure themselves, and basically act like a bunch of people to whom the lawr does not apply.

Despite considerable evidence of these cops' malfeasance, and the ubiquity of them getting away with it, dunphy reliably defends not only the police as an institution, but also the particular cops actions in question.

[dunphy]

which is of course a lie. and exemplifies my very point . i have come out for prosecution in any # of cases. i GENERALLY agree with balko. that's the most ironic part.

but yes, i DO think that citing examples of police misconduct does not prove it's rampant and widespread. it proves it exists.

for example, in terms of shootings, the average cop last i checked fires his gun LOD about once every 12 yrs. police shootings in general occur in a very very tiny %age of arrests/incidents.

and the unlawful, civilly actionable ones are a small subset thereof. balko understandably doesn't print stories about the X good shoots that happened this week. he prints a story about the 1/x bad one(s). that's his schtick. it's what he's supposed to do. i respect that. but it doesn't mean there are a bunch of wild cops out there gunning down everybody in sight for siccing their pomeranian on them

[Jim]

I've always found you to be a reasonable fellow, but you underestimate how often you do (even inadvertently) come up with hedges on why the cops acted the way they did in Balko stories.

I think the point is, the reason the police justify many of the things they do now from a militarization standpoint is to protect the lives of officers, even if this occasionally results in the lives of innocent citizens being lost. Many of us believe that, since no one forced anyone to become a cop, that the police should never take any action which endangers citizens in order to protect their own lives.

I know you've said before that you'd take a bullet to save someone else's life, but the fact is, a huge number of police policies & procedures now (such as no-knock "dynamic" entries) create dangerous, hostile situations for citizens, with the justification of protecting the safety of cops. It's also easy to say that in a hypothetical you'd jump in front of a gun to protect an obviously innocent bystander, but it's another story to state that you'd accept increased risk when serving a search warrant in order to protect someone who may or may not be a criminal scumbag inside the house. Frankly, if they voluntarily took the job, I'm not interested in safety for cops WHEN such actions being taken for their safety result in a decrease in safety for the citizenry in general.

[dunphy]

and i know i've said many times before i do NOT support the overmilitarization of police. i have criticized it, and even mentioned that it was happening in my OWN agency, and we fortunately got the most egregious policy overturned.

that's the ironic thing. i AGREE that the overmilitarization and overusage of SWAT is a bad thing

but i *also* know that the good shit that they do will never make a balko article, so it creates a skewed perspective.

within the last two days, my agency's swat team had a mission where they were inside a room and somebody drew a knife on one of them from about 10 ft away. they took her down without any shots fired, etc. which is why , like almost always happens, you never heard about it

THAT's my point. there is a selection bias going on. you simply don't hear about that stuff, and it creates a false impression that they are a bunch of trigger happy thugs.

i don't know a single cop who hasn't taken an increased risk by not shooting somebody when they are entirely justified in doing so, just like in the incident i just mentioned. i had a guy take a shot at me and a partner and the bullet plowed into the wall between our heads. i had too many people running around to risk shooting him, so i didn't. you didn;t read about that either. you ONLY would have read about it, if i shot him and just as i did, an innocent bar patron ran in the path of the bullet and got shot. then, i would have been just another balko story.

all i am asking for is perspective.

[dunphy]

i should clarify to say don'[t know any cop who hasn't taken AN increased risk to protect somebody else, including a suspect. not all of us have had the justified shoot we didn't take.

[Eric]

I don't know about selection bias: that might be true for a libertarian periodical like Reason, but elsewhere the "narrative" (ugh, hate that word) is that cops are selfless public defenders who have a tough job, and that we peons don't have the experience or moral standing to criticize them.

It's an analogue to chickenhawking that is even more unjustified for law enforcement. Yeah, lots of Reasonites are overboard in their cop-hatred, but the tendencies of non-libertarians to worship cops is much more worrisome to me.

[dunphy]

that's just ridiculous. if that's your perception of the mainstream media's viewpoint of police, you are holed up in a cave somewhere. heck, half the movies that feature cops , the cops are either lunatics (a la mel gibson) or completely crooked (although not to the awesome extent of bad lieutenant.

you aren't even arguing honestly, or from reality, if you think the media portrays us that way, or that they believe that the general public doesn't have the right to criticize them

that's laughably absurd.

bias is one thing. complete detachment from reality is another

[Fire Tiger]

they took her down without any shots fired
So the question is, was a SWAT team needed in the first place.

I agree that it is easy to read Balko's stories and have your perspective skewed. However, considering how ingrained the "if your not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" belief has become in our collective psyche, articles exposing the fallacy of such thought are needed.

[dunphy]

they were there to arrest a few people for burglary. no, it wasn't a drug warrant.

regardless, the point is - stuff like that doesn't make the paper. "cop does not shoot person" almost never does.

[sloopyinca]

Cop picks up 7 year-old special needs kid by the throat. Charges not pressed, but IL DCFS puts him on abuser list. Unsurprisingly, he remains on the job.

[dunphy]

and of course you fail to mention that the internal investigation is underway. so, he may or may not be fired and/or disciplined. they do these things called "internal investigations" to make that determination. god forbid somebody gets due process.

had an officer i know just get his job back after getting fired, over a year later. why? arbitrator looked at the evidence objectively and determined the dept. was full of crap for firing him and now he gets a year back pay, to include overtime he would have worked, consistent with his standard patterns, etc.

due process is important. it isn't just important for drug defendants. it's important for everybody.

[sloopyinca]

FTA...Oglesby was placed on paid administrative leave following the Dec. 21 incident, but returned to work after McLean County State's Attorney Bill Yoder announced Feb. 23 that he was not filing criminal charges against Oglesby. Yoder could not be reached for comment Friday.

I'm not as worried about the internal investigation as I am the prosecutor (above) that didn't press charges. This is the double-standard we're always talking about here, dunphy, and it's the one you always defend.

Hmm, I wonder what would have happened if it was the counselor who did this. Do you think he'd still be working like this cop?

You're an asshole if you think this is even remotely acceptable.

Also FTA,

According to the police report obtained by the Allisons, Oglesby "darted" into the room where the Allison's son was, told the boy he was giving him a headache and then lifted the 65-pound boy by the throat. He "was lifted off the floor so his feet were dangling ? his head was close to the ceiling ? his face was turning quite red," according to the psychologist's statement to police.

The psychologist left the room and told the school resource officer who then went into the room. Oglesby then grabbed the boy by the arm, lifted him over his shoulder and carried him to the principal's office where, according to one witness, he "threw" the boy into a chair.

The report further states that Oglesby went back into the classroom and said to school staff, "You got any more?"

Wouldn't this evidence (in police reports, no less) at least warrant the convention of a grand jury? I'm sure it would if it was you or me. Oops, not you, since you're a cop.

[Marc]

The psychologist left the room and told the school resource officer who then went into the room. Oglesby then grabbed the boy by the arm, lifted him over his shoulder and carried him to the principal's office where, according to one witness, he "threw" the boy into a chair.[url=http://www.replica-watchstore.com/]watches Replica[/url]

[????? ??????]

Thanks