Militarization of Police

New Jersey Cop Attacked Woman Who Filmed Him at DWI Checkpoint

|

Leslie Rosario and Jessamine Roman have filed suit against the Ridgefield Park Police Department, claiming that an officer assaulted Rosario when she refused to hand over her cell phone at a DWI checkpoint. The Record reports that Rosario filmed the stop as the car's driver, Juan Calle, was being administered a sobriety test: 

Rosario's attorney, David Chazen, said in an order to show cause that Rosario took out her Blackberry phone and began recording the incident before Ridgefield Park Police Capt. John DiNiro told her to stop.

When Rosario refused and continued to record, DiNiro reached into the car and tried to grab the phone, Chazen said.

Rosario wrested the phone from DiNiro and threw it to Roman, who was sitting in the back of the car, Chazen said.

An enraged DiNiro then opened the car door, yanked Rosario out of the car and forced her onto the ground before handcuffing her with help from another officer, Chazen said.

Other officers ordered Roman out of her car and told her to raise her hands, Chazen said. When Roman hesitated and explained that raising her hands would cause her breasts to be exposed, the officers arrested her, Chazen said.

The two were taken to police headquarters and placed in a holding cell for several hours. They were charged with resisting arrest and obstruction.

Richard Blender, the attorney for Roman said in court papers that the officers "not only refused to remove the handcuffs while [Rosario and Roman] were incarcerated, but at one point they re-entered the cell and made the handcuffs tighter."

DiNiro says that the light from Rosario's BlackBerry was a distraction, and that she scratched him when he tried to steal her phone. 

The two woman have requested that the Ridgefield Park PD release video from the police car camera and the jail. According to a representative for the police department, there's no video to release, as neither Ridgefield cop cars nor the jail have video cameras. As is the case with most of these arrests, the women initially broke no law. And while fighting back probably crosses a legal line, it's also the case that if DiNiro hadn't been wearing a badge, we'd call what he did to Rosario "assault and battery."

Reason.tv on the war on cameras:

 

(H/t Carlos Miller

NEXT: White House Signs Off On FCC's Needless Net Neutrality Rules

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When Roman hesitated and explained that raising her hands would cause her breasts to be exposed, the officers arrested her, Chazen said.

    Hand bra FTW!

    1. raising her hands would cause her breasts to be exposed

      And if she had, she’d have probably been charged with indecent exposure…

      1. lol. right. (the idiocy continues)

        1. You doubt that?
          They’re already claiming that she scratched him when he was forcibly removing her cellphone without her permission, so..

          1. and that MAY be true. otoh, that doesn’t negate the idiocy of the indecent exposure claim.

            1. How? They’re both criminal violations caused directly by the cops overstepping their authority. If one is used for punishment for questioning authority, why wouldn’t the other be? How is using one more idiotic than using the other?

        2. (the idiocy continues)

          I assume you’re referring to the behavior of the police toward their paying customers. The myth of public “service” was summed up nicely by someone (maybe even by a writer here at Reason) who wrote, “where do you get better service, Starbucks or the DMV?”

          1. Sounds like something Nick or Matt would say if they were ever to write a book together.

            1. Man, I bet that book would be amazing. they’d probably promote it nonstop, though.

        3. Cops in NY who order “suspects” (I.e., those who are being stopped and frisked without a SHRED of probable cause) to empty their pockets ROUTINELY arrest those people for displaying marijuana in public. Thousands and thousands and thousands per year.

          About those numbers: While only about one tenth of 1 percent of the stops yielded a gun (at present it’s nearly impossible to legally carry a gun in New York), the practice has helped drive up the city’s marijuana arrests from 4,000 in 1997 to 40,000 in 2007. Marijuana for personal use was actually decriminalized in New York during that period. But you still can’t display your pot in public. So the police simply stop people, trick them into emptying their pockets, and then arrest them for displaying marijuana in public.

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..ose-quotas

    2. I’m really trying to imagine any other scenario that explains this. Cropped t-shirt maybe?

      1. Tube top.

        1. Do they fly off if you raise your hands?

          1. Tube tops are held up by elastic, which when stretched wants to return to its original smaller diameter. The waist is smaller than the upper back, so the elastic slowly creeps in that direction. That’s why women wearing tube tops have to periodically scoot them up.

            Furthermore, stand in front of a mirror with your shirt off, raise your arms and notice the position of your nipples. They move up, being connected to the skin of the shoulder.

            If you combine the tendency of a tube top to want to go down and the skin moving upward, the result can be tits popping out. Happy now?

            1. I’m not sure I follow you. Got a pic?

              1. Well, here’s one about to happen.

      2. Silly rabbit. She was wearing a normal t-shirt but has really saggy tits. You’ve never seen Miss Chokesondick?

    3. I don’t understand why raising her hands would have that effect.

      What is she wearing?

      1. A too small bikini top?

  2. They will never pay so much of an ounce of a price for this. They have a union to protect them I am quite sure. There is a special place in hell for those who think cops should have unions.

    1. utter rubbish. police are routinely disciplined, and even criminally charged and fired in the US – this idea that the cops never get punished is absurd.

      and *if* this woman’s claims are true, this cop definitely deserves punishment

      1. Bullshit. Cops have enormous amounts of job protection. It is virtually impossible to fire a bad cop. And since there is no national registry of bad cops, even if they are fired they just get another job in another jurisdiction.

        What do you want to bet that nothing happens to this cop? If cops were in real danger of being disciplined, this stuff wouldn’t be so common.

        1. john – dunphy is a cop. regardless he’s correct. u libtoids have alittle OCD about LEOs.

          1. Liberals used to care about people’s rights. Then the new left came along and they can’t suck cops’ cocks hard enough.

            And you have OCD about me. Stop stalking my posts you little creep.

            1. again, utterly false. spend some time at democraticunderground.com and other liberal enclaves. the cop bashing runs amok.

              1. Gee, seems that nobody likes cops. Sucks to be you.

                Shorter dunphy: Waaaaaaaah.

                1. false. again a failure of reading comprehension

                  the american public overwhelmingly likes and respects cops. i have posted stats to this effect several times.

                  otoh, the idea that liberals are restrained in bashing cops is silly

                  DU et al are sufficient evidence of that

                  hth

                  1. “the american public overwhelmingly likes and respects cops. i have posted stats to this effect several times.”

                    Of course people say this. They are too scared of the cops to say otherwise. It’s like criticizing the fuhrer or telling people you think their ugly, unruly children are ugly and unruly.

                    1. right, because in large, anonymous polls conducted over and over by respected polling firms, people feel that if they say anything negative about police, that gallup et al are going to report them to their local constabulatory.

                      i’m sorry, i lost my train of thought due to the whirring of the black helicopters outside your apartment. what were you saying?

                    2. right. this is a problem that polling agencies etc. runs into all the time. nobody ever ranks govt. agencies negatively because they fear polling agencies will turn them into the authorities if they express negative sentiments.,

                      lol

                      how are those black helicopters treatin’ ya?

                    3. Or it could be that polling agencies usually end up only polling retirees (an age bracket that is generally deferential to authority or would base their opinion on experiences with police decades ago) and anxiety ridden housewives that are convinced a rapist might bust through their door at any minute looking for her daughter (even though the violent crime rate is very low).

                    4. jesus man. this is like textbook cognitive dissonance.

                      seriously

                      it really is amazing how blind you are to the fact that you simply will do ANYTHING to explain away an uncomfortable fact

                    5. The “uncomfortable” part is that you’re right. Most people are statist fuckholes of various sorts who would sooner allow a cop to curb stomp them then challenge their authority out of reverence for the “selfless” angels who put the rights of citizens above “officer safety”.

                      I have no problem believing that.

                    6. Then why do people flinch when you warn them”cop” and shrug when you say rattlesnake. Only skunks and Gbears provoke a fear response at the level of your beloved cops.

                    7. Dunphy laughs out loud at the fear he provokes in innocent people?

                      Mr. Dunphy, that is why people hate pigs.

                  2. Maybe that’s b/c cops only target minorities and other people who they know won’t resist. THAT is fact that has better stats than your bullshit. Dick.

                    1. lol. nice fantasy

          2. Do you really think we don’t already know Dunphy is a cop? LURK MOAR!!

        2. john, i could give you a million examples but it’s not going to make any difference to an ideologue and i know that.

          yes, cops have due process protections, etc.

          but the idea that cops are somehow immune from punishment for wrongdoing is ridiculous and routinely shown to be bullshit.

          cops get suspended, criminally charged, etc. all the fucking time.

          fwiw, it is correct that juries are generally hesitant to find cops guilty of shit, but hey cops have the SAME right to trial by jury as anybody else.

          i called for, for example, paul schene’s prosecution from the beginning, and he WAS criminally charged and tried twice.

          i *knew* that this would happen btw. and i was right. many reasonoids claimed he would never be charged or fired.

          furthermore, he, like many rogue cops, was turned in BY ANOTHER OFFICER, somethign else reasonoids claim never happens

          1. suspended…with pay.

            charged…but the charges are uniformly minor, have a surprisingly low rate of conviction and rarely result in serious jail time.

            1. charges uniformly FIT THE CRIME. in cases where prosecutors OVERCHARGE, which they sometimes do , due to political pressure, that just decreases the chance of conviction

              regardless, they have a low rate of conviction because they have DUE PROCESS and get a right to trial by jury, many of whom are sympathetic to cops

              do you have a problem with right to jury trial for cops?

              should we throw away rule of law and due process for them because you are a bigot?

              1. No, show me where I posted anything here implying that cops don’t deserve due process including jury trials (if they choos that over a bench trial).

                Bigot? Sure, whatever.

                1. This can’t be the real dunphy. Even he isn’t that naive.

                  1. oh yes it can.

                    and again, the whining about cops being acquitted is just that.

                    cops get due process. if juries CHOOSE to acquit them, that’s part of the process they deserve under the law

                    1. Yeah since the jury fears retaliation by other members of the force. Some choice.

                    2. bwahahahahaha!

                    3. Again, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. You, as a member of the protected, overpaid, unwanted bully class, are usually in a civil rights civil suit, whereas I would be facing criminal charges.

                      Yes, you get due process, but you also get all the favors and breaks that your unions and badge-licking judges bought for you at the hands of innocent people.

                      Also, you type like a 3rd grader, which is to be expected since most cops are barely high school graduates.

                    4. yawn.

                      again, with the lies. we are not an UNWANTED anything

                      most people like and respect police, a fact overwhelmingly suppported by polling evidence, etc.

                      again, you take your tiny, fringe, mentality, and assume the rest of the people think like you

                      thank god, they don’t.

                      just the tiny fringe does

                    5. “most people like and respect police”

                      You keep saying that like it matters. Those same people elected Obama, so you can take your “most people like and respect police” for what it’s worth.

                      Americans are stupid. See Obama. See respect for police. See the Kardashians. See Dancing with the Stars.

                      CB

                    6. ah yes. libertarian elitism. just as nauseating, but oddly similar to, the elitism of progressives.

                      yup, merkuns are stupid. derp derp derp. and you are just so much smarter. it hurts

                    7. And a sure sign that most citizens are statist cock suckers.

          2. In Oakland a cop walked up and murdered a guy and barely got a couple of years in prison. If I walked up and shot someone, I would never get out. All the cop had to do was claim he mistakenly grabbed his gone and he practically got a get out of jail free card.

            I have known lots of people who deal with cops on a daily basis. I work with cops on a daily basis. And I believe every horror story I hear because I know cops. Most of them are natural bullies who became cops because they love the power. And the power goes right to their heads. And if discipline were frequent, this shit would never happen or rarely happen instead of being common.

            Are cops so stupid that nothing can deter them from behaving badly?

            1. he didn’t murder the guy, and even RADLEY BALKO agreed that he should have been charged with what he was charged.

              rule of law matters to me, and to cop critics like balko, but not you

              1. No he didn’t murder the guy, he just pulled out a gun and blew his brains out. Big difference. With great authority comes great responsibility. That cop should have been held to a higher standard than a civilian. If I had been the judge, we would have started at twenty to thirty years and worked from there.

                1. no, LEGALLY speaking, he was subject to the penal code which as i (and balko) understand correctly subjected him to the charge he WAS charged and convicted for.

                  nobody who believes in rule of law believes otherwise. that’s why i have massive respect for balko. he DOES believe in it.

                  you clearly do not

                  1. No. I think the law ought to be different. It ought to be incredibly harsh on cops and hold them to a very high standard.

                    1. fine, then that’s a normative argument i disagree with.

                      fwiw, when it comes to PENALTIES (jail time etc.) cops are generally held to a higher standard FOR THE SAME CRIME

                      but there should not be a dual penal code wherein cops get harsher charges because “John” wants it

                      thank god, i live in a nation where rule of law matters and that cops are subject to rule of law, not rule of John

                    2. If cops want authority, they need to be held to a higher level of responsibility. When a cop commits a crime, he damages the integrity of the entire criminal justice system in a way a civilian committing a crime can’t. For that reason, the penal code ought to be very harsh and unforgiving towards cops. Malfeasance by cops is a special evil that cannot be tolerated.

                    3. it wasn’t malfeasance. it was misfeasance, which is why it was properly charged as manslaughter, which i, balko, and anybody with a brain recognizes

                    4. Color of law abuses, dunphy. The PENALTIES for THE SAME CRIME are higher when done by an official than a “civilian.”

                      RULE of LAW and all that.

                    5. Only if it a nonviolent crime.

                  2. As I recall the case, I thought it was a very close call. While it was pretty clearly not first degree murder, I was leaning toward second degree (whatever they call it there, aggravated manslaughter or whatever). The cop got a lesser charge than that.

                    And I still doubt very seriously that a non-LEO who accidentally grabbed a gun instead of a taser and killed someone would have gotten the lesser charge.

                    1. all the attendant circumstances would have to apply.

                      regardless, this issue was endlessly hashed over. reread the thread.

                      balko got it right, as he usually does.

                      it was manslaughter

                    2. I don’t know why I’m wading into this, but I’m here…

                      Mehserle pulled a gun and killed a guy. The guy was face down on the ground complying with the officers’ demands. Sorry, I’ve seen the video, he was. Period. End of story. (I’m just cutting off the “but, but, but, he was resisting” that might be coming)

                      This is another example of where the cop gets lighter treatment by the prosecutor. Had any non-cop did something like that, the prosecutor would have invoked felony murder – basically claiming the assault was felonious. Mehserle admitted that he was going to tase Grant. His pathetic excuse was that he meant to tase Grant but mistook his gun for the taser. Tasering someone in that position is still illegal.

                      In the end, he was beating up a black guy and shot him. The other officers stole cameras in an attempt to hide the evidence. Think I’m lying? The DA actually asked through the media for people with video to come forward. None of those other officers were ever charged.

                      If a non-officer stole a bunch of cell phones, would they be charged? We both know the answer. If a non-officer erased videos that were evidence in a criminal case, would they be charged? We both know the answer.

                      It’s very easy to talk about how police officers are punished all the time, but the bottom line is that the punishments are less severe than they would otherwise be and, worse, many criminal acts are turned into administrative problems and dealt with internally instead of through the courts. Assault and battery, for example, just become “excessive force” (which doesn’t exist in statutory law) and results in a little time off, often paid. In fact, that should result in a *higher* punishment than a non-officer would get, since in most jurisdictions there’s an aggravating circumstance known as “under color of law”. It’s rarely used.

                      I know you mean well, Dunphy, and you bring a needed perspective here. But if you read as many cases as many of us here have, you’ll come to understand that in many places cops aren’t punished or it’s swept under the rug. They also stand up for each other, and many are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution if they do. Again, read Balko – plenty of cases that will make you cringe.

                  3. You are obviously an ignorant fucker. Cops are covered by SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Until you stop, go learn something, and then see how ignorant you are, stop wasting everybody’s time you piss ant.

          3. cops get suspended [with pay], criminally charged [and acquitted], etc. all the fucking time [occasionally].”

            1. the whining about acquittals is stupid
              it’s called due process. there is no corruption or abuse by govt. when juries acquit cops

              who do you blame for that? some elitist comment about the ‘dumb sheeple” or something.

              ALL prosecuters can do is charge people and take it to court. juries are autonomous citizens and if you don’t like the fact that they acquit cops sometimes, you can suck it

              rule of law. deal with it

              1. definitely not the real dunphy.

                1. Yeah, it doesn’t read like the real dunphy. He’s not that hostile.

                  1. it’s me. i just get tired of the whining. apparently, many reasonoids long for a star chamber where cops won’t get the right of juries.

                    1. dunphy, I can understand that you don’t like the whining. But if you don’t like it, why do you egg it on?

              2. “”it’s called due process. there is no corruption or abuse by govt. when juries acquit cops””

                And juries do acquit often. I see it in NYC often. Perhaps is may have something to do with smart people avoiding jury duty and leaving it to the dumb people 😉

                But you can’t really fault people for having a bias against a bias.

                If a cop goes to beat you to death, self defense is almost always crime.

              3. I’m sure prosecutors often intentionally throw cases involving cops. And don’t charge them when they should. And judges instruct juries differently than they would with “civilians.” And it’s not just cops, it’s prosecutors, judges and really anyone in government who are held to a much lower standard of conduct.

                A judge who lived around the corner from me is a perfect example. He was known as “Iron Mike” because he was a real law and order, take no guff kind of judge. Turns out he embezzled about #150,000 from the medical building he co-owned with a bunch of doctors. Then he used his position as a judge to try to intimidate them when he was caught. All of this was eventually admitted to and he plead guilty. He was sentenced by one of his buddies to probation, and restitution of the money he stole – no additional fines or penalties. Rather than being given a harsher sentence because of his abuse of power, his “many years of service” were cited as reasons to go easy on him.

                I’m not saying all cops, etc. are utterly corrupt. But the system does hold them to a lower standard of conduct, and they are given much more consideration than your average Joe.

                1. That’s probably true is some cases, and in general, the system rallys around its self. But do consider that fact that many people believe those being abused by cops are just thugs getting what they deserve and the odds that at least one of those are on the jury.

                  Hey, people love a rouge cop beating the shit out of a criminal. Make a movie out of it and it’s almost always a box office win.

                  Go ahead, make my day.

                2. lol. more black helicopter shit

              4. Prosecutors seem to be quite soft on police compared to average citizens.

                Charge stacking is the best example. How many charges would a ccw holder have if he had shot a guy in the back on a BART platform? How many charges would there be for an average guy who ‘unintentionally’ shot a cop in the back just like the BART shooting?

                The police aren’t the only contributor to the problem, but they are the ones who willingly operate under within the system of biased and flawed set of rules that seems to excuse even major incidents when done by police.

                That openly bad cops are acquitted by a jury calls into question prosecutorial integrity and competence no differently then it does for say the Casey Anthony case. That the juries are more sympathetic to cops shows how bad up this cop hero worship crap has become.

                In the end though, it’s still cops abusing people’s rights and relatively or truly getting away with it.

                Until proven otherwise, I view individual cops as members of a street gang that is well organized, paid, and trained; while also being (relatively speaking) unaccountable. They have the tools and training to cause me a lot more harm then any gang member AND they have a much better of escaping any real punishment, and they know it.

                It’s for this reason that I want as little to do with the members of that profession and view them with an almost unhealthy level of contempt, distrust, and skepticism.

          4. It doesn’t matter. Because when they get punished, they 1) get convicted for “civil rights” violations that for other people would be murder and assault charges, (due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity) 2) they don’t have to pay anything personally, and 3) they have a remarkably easy time getting rehired elsewhere. So piss off you POS.

            1. actually, you have it exactly backwards. cops are about the only people who routinely get charged in federal court when local courts find them not guilty e.g. rodney king case.

              that’s de facto double jeopardy regardless of the sovereignty issues

              in that respect, cops get treated harsher than non-cops.

              regardless, we , like everybody else have the right to jury trial.

              juries tend to give us more credibility because , like i said endlessly, people tend to respect and admire police

              i know you can’t stand that, but it’s the truth

              1. Dunphy, you claim that cops get similar treatment by the system as civilians. Can you provide a link to data?

          5. Hey Dunphy!

            The more you write the more people hate pigs. Not just you, but all pigs.
            It’s not a good thing when your boss hates you, you know. This is bound to end badly for the pigs.

      2. We’re talking meaningfully punished, dunphy, not the vacation-with-pay followed by a whitewash IA “investigation” that is SOP in these cases.

        Sorry, but until I hear about cops doing hard time, housed with the general inmate population and sentences in line with what non-LEO would receive, I remain unconvinced.

        1. cops are routinely criminally charged when they commit crimes, and no # of examples will ever convince the reasonoid ideologue.

          and of course cops shouldn’t be housed with the general population. i wasn’t aware that extrajudicial punishment was ok with alleged libertarians.

          1. See my 3:30 above.

            And why shouldn’t they be housed with the general population? Better than the rest of us?

            The acts of prison inmates are solely the acts of those individuals, not the state.

            “reasonoid ideologue”…LOL How conveniently you forget that I’ve come to your defense many times on principal.

            1. it’s not matter of better or worse. certain prisoners (not just cops) are routinely housed seperately for their safety.

              again, *if* you believe in rule of law, you do not believe cops shouldbe housed in general population

              i don’t think the ACLU would support it either, because it would result in almost certain extrajudicial punishment

              hth

              1. Sounds like that would be even more of a deterrent. But with all the special breaks, cops know they can get away with breaking they law.

          2. “”cops are routinely criminally charged when they commit crimes, “”

            Yeah, like rape. But defining crime in this case greys the term. In many cases, when you do it, it’s a crime, when a cop does the same thing, not so much.

      3. A citizen is always to be believed over any government employee, especially a cop.

      4. What color is the sky on your planet?

        Here on earth, it pretty much takes shooting someone in the back while they’re lying prone on the ground and pretending that they really intended to just torture the victim with an electrocution device before a cop ends up in front of a jury.

        -jcr

  3. This cop should be shot, probably. If someone attacked you in your car, after blocking the road on which you traveled, you’d probably shoot them. If someone is trying to drag you out of your car, you’d reasonably expect they mean you a great deal of ill will or harm; kidnap, possibly for ransom, or abduction for sexual abuse, followed by murder. I mean, just because someone is wearing a funny hat and decorations doesn’t change the reality of what they *do*.

    1. At some point these assholes have got to start fearing people again. They just run around like maniacs because they know no one will fight back and there is nothing they can do that will cause them to lose their jobs.

      1. Sadly this is how I’m starting to feel. Maybe the real solution should involve more dead cops. Nothing else seems to work; it just gets worse. Make them fear people.

        1. do you have any EVIDENCE “it just gets worse”?

          or are you a typical media stooge?

          iow, show me statistics that show it is getting worse.

          many people believe that crime is “getting worse” despite our homicide rate recently hitting a 3 decade low

          why?

          because of media sensationalism

          ironic that so many reasonoids fall into the same trap vis a vis cop miconduct

          1. Patriot act? Police departments turning becoming basically paramilitary units? You don’t believe this is worse?

            1. Turning or becoming. Take your pick. I like to provide options…

              1. again, provide EVIDENCE

                i am talking about police, not federal crap which is what the patriot act affects almost all the time

                show me EVIDENCE it’s “getting worse”

                extrapolating trends from anecdotes is not how responsible people come to conclusions

                hth

                you are doign the same thing that teevee viewers did when they assume crime was rampant, when it was getting much better.

                do you think this shit wasn’t occasionally happening 20 yrs ago, or is the prevalence of reason.com, and cell phone vide merely HIGHLIGHTING a pre-existing occurrence

                show me data it’s otherwise

                1. do you think this shit wasn’t occasionally happening 20 yrs ago, or is the prevalence of reason.com, and cell phone vide merely HIGHLIGHTING a pre-existing occurrence

                  dunphy does have a point, Destrudo. It’s more likely that cops have been this corrupt and abusive all along (or worse), and we are just hearing about it more often now.

                  1. yes. that’s exactly my point

                    fwiw, based on anecdotes i hear from old timers (granted, they may exaggerate) cops were a LOT more likely to use excessive force and do bad shit 20,30,50 yrs ago then they are today.

                    i believe this is true.

                    the fact that thankfully we have way more police oversight, cell phone cameras, etc. is a GOOD thing because it highlights police abuse

                    imo, police abuse is RARE, but it still happens too often and deserves punishment when it does

                    imo, IF this woman’s claim is true, this is an example of police abuse and deserves punishment

                    1. And the fact that these actions have come to light and the actions of LEO have come under a microscope is a damn good thing.

                      The fact that some of us believe it to be a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM AND GETTING WORSE is not a bad thing.
                      There is not an acceptable number of these instances other than zero.

                      No public reaction to any of this can be an overreaction. Ever.

                    2. anything can be overreacted to. terrorism for instance. see: patriot act

                      regardless, we agree.

                      abuse by cops should be punished and THE MORE people (and cops) that routinely videotape cop encounters the better it is FOR EVERYBODY

                      it helps convict dirty cops AND helps exonerate honest cops from false complaints (i’ve seen both happen several times).

                      win/win

                  2. It’s more likely that cops have been this corrupt and abusive all along (or worse), and we are just hearing about it more often now.

                    One cannot argue that police have always been this militarized. I vaguely remember dunphy even expressing disgust at the overuse of SWAT.

                    I’m sure dunphy will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the problem with policing over the last couple decades or so is exactly the same problem with education. FedGov wants to throw more money at what should be a completely local issue – and it is difficult for police departments to turn down money just like it is difficult for schools to turn down money. But to get that money the schools/police have to become statistics-oriented and it slowly corrupts the organization even if most of the people within it don’t purposely change their behavior because of it.

                    1. We were doomed the same minute they invented the modern professional police force system in England. People were too stupid to realize that the new “Force” amounted to a force of military occupation. Professional police are necessary for the enforcement of Social Engineering.

                2. show me EVIDENCE it’s “getting worse”

                  Allow me to direct you to a little something called “The Cato Raid Map”.

                  http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

                  I would say that lying to get a warrant constitutes police misconduct.

                  1. i read cato all the time. love cato

                    but that doesn’t prove it’s getting worse.

                    again, that implies a trend

                    hth

                    1. Check raid’s on innocent suspects by year. They increase. I doubt a judge would sign off on a warrant if he was told “yeah, we think he lives there, but we didn’t check our intel”. Which means an increasing number of cops lying to get warrants. Christ, do I have to spoon feed it to you?

                    2. no, i simply asked for evidence.

                      i am not at all convinced it’s getting worse. that shit has ALWAYS happened (occasionally) and still does.

                      you are claiming a trend

                      but can’t prove it

                      anecdotes don’t prove it.

                    3. you are claiming a trend

                      but can’t prove it

                      anecdotes don’t prove it.

                      ???

                      So an ever increasing yearly number of bad warrants executed is not a trend? Do you know what trend means?

          2. Many people also believe that violence against LEOs is getting worse (a War on Cops?), and that being a cop is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, but none of that is true either.

            1. EXACTLY my point.

              thank you.

            2. Many cops make that claim too.

              A true war on cops would be short and one sided. The cops would be rolled over in short order.

              50-100 cops a year nationwide is 50-100 human beings killed on the job and quite sad. But, it’s nothing close to a war on them.

              In a city of 250,000, just 1 in 10000 deciding to declare war on the police and each managing to kill just one would result in more cops dead in a day then in a typical 4-6 month period nationwide.

              There’s no war on cops. But, the statements by the police spokesmouths coupled with what always seems to be a “we’re not taking it anymore” (ie,. escalation) attitude will do more to provoke a backlash against the police then almost anything they do.

              1. yes, many cops make erroneous claims about violence against cops, JUST like many reasonoids make erroneous claims about violence BY cops

                duh

                fwiw, while there is no “war on cops”, PART of the reason cop deaths are (fortunately) rare is because we DO use REASONABLE force to help ensure our safety. Sometimes, we get killed anyway, but proper officer safety, use of force, de-escalation skills, communication skills, physical tactics, taser use, etc. etc. ALL help decrease injuries and deaths to officers and if done properly, while respecting the rights of suspects.

                1. Most of the time you get killed by driving in an unsafe manner. A citizen should be able to use the same degree of force in defending himself from cops. Failure to comply is not a reason for a cop to use force of any kind.

                  1. check odmp.org

          3. That I am 6 times more likely to die than you are, when you arrest me, is sufficient evidence for me.

            CB

            1. except YOU are not. the set of people cops arrest necesasrily includes a substantial # of violent felons who try to kill police, assault them, etc.

              what is surprising isn’t how many people cops kill, it’s how few we kill, considering the kind of major felonious criminals we arrest all the fucking time.

              it’s actually amazing how many very dangerous people we arrest without them even getting a scratch.

              the vast majority of police killings (homicides by police) are so obviously justifiable it’s ridiculous. a very small %age are ‘lawful but awful’ and a very very small %age are questionable and an even smaller percentage are actually crimes.

              1. War on cops the movie.

                Location: Police check point (Are you sober?)
                Action: Car stops three cars back in line. Four men with rifles get out.
                Cops: “Oh Crap!”
                Men: Blam blam blam blam blam blam etc.

              2. Yeah. All of your arrests are major felony arrests. No one is ever arrested for disorderly conduct or shoplifting or resisting arrest (nee. insufficient deference to authority).

                And all of those killed were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by that jury of their peers that you so frequently call on.

                CB

    1. Shut up, you chalk-faced whore.

      1. I still can’t get over Abercrombie and Fitch paying the one dumb ass not to wear their clothes. That is just hysterical.

        1. Is that Coase or what…I mean like AWESOME dude…and stuff.

          1. It makes perfect sense. The entire audience for that show is kids aged 14-20. And that is A&C’s customer base. And that guy is the biggest loser on a show whose cache is loserdom. He could do billions of dollars to their brand.

          2. Damage to their brand I mean.

      2. Where do you want it!

  4. can reason.com give a clarification as to what NJ’s law *is* regarding open recording of cops? i would suggest that post glik, what this woman did is almost certainly constitutionally protected. but i’d be curious about NJ’s state law.

    regardless, if this woman’s claim is true, this cop should be charged with (whatever NJ’s version) of assault and battery is.

    imnsho

    1. New Jersey is a single party consent state. (See http://www.citmedialaw.org/leg…..ording-law) She was doing nothing resembling an illegal act.

      1. excellent. also note that even if it was two party consent, as long as she was not surreptitiously recording (which she wasn’t) it would not be a violation

        thanks again.

    2. Hey Dunphy. Personally I like you, and I think your posts are thoughtful and genuine. I bet you are a good cop and treat people fairly. But FUCK it’s hard to respect the police when there is incident after incident like this. I know it’s a few bad apples, but it seems that the entire barrel has spoiled. Just venting. Have a good day, dude.

      1. thanks man. and like i said, *if* this woman’s claim is true, the cop should be charged

        imnsho

        1. I don’t dislike you either Dunphy. And I like a lot of cops. I work in law enforcement for God’s sake. But these stories make me so angry. And make me feel so damned powerless in my own country. This kind of stuff has got to stop.

          1. it will never stop, because in ANY profession, some people are bad and do bad shit

            it has ALWAYS happened and always will

            what is key is that abuses are dealt with , within the bounds of rule of law, and that cops ARE held accountable.

            again, *if* this woman’s claims are accurate, he should be criminally charged imnsho

            1. what is key is that abuses are dealt with , within the bounds of rule of law, and that cops ARE held accountable.

              So long as there are no double standards anywhere, I would agree.

              Unfortunately, our system is jampacked with double standards.

            2. IT depends on the jurisdiction.

              In Chicago or Philly? Hah there would be no punishment, unless a youtube video went viral or something.

              The PD in my town are pretty good, and I am pretty sure would charge an officer who pulled this crap. The guys two towns over are a street gang that you do not want anything to do with. They’re kind of like the St George Police.

            3. it will never stop, because in ANY profession, some people are bad and do bad shit

              it has ALWAYS happened and always will

              I completely agree. Which is an excellent argument for not giving a bunch of fucksticks tasers and guns and then giving them a legal monopoly on telling other people what to do (“disobeying a lawful order” often being a crime in and of itself).

              1. no, it’s a good argument for holding cops accountable when they abuse their authority.

                cops in the US have significantly less power in many respects than most other nations, and i include france, germany, and england

                MOST people obey reasonable orders, and most cops give reasonable orders.

                if i tell somebody “take your hands out of your pocket” on a stop, and they say “fuck you. no./ make me”

                they go to jail

                it’s never happened, because when and if i do, people comply (with take your hands out of your pocket)

                i recall a case in my area where a guy approached some cops on a warrant, they issued that command, he refused and then when he got closer, shot three of them .

                those kind of realities are just that- realities.

                and i absolutely support the authority to issue REASONABLE orders to people and have them lawfully bound to comply.

                those who abuse that authority deserve to be punished

                1. it’s a good argument for holding cops accountable when they abuse their authority.

                  And that’s precisely the problem. The institutions charged with holding cops accountable (Fellow cops, Department heads, Judges, Prosecutors, Legislatures) exhibit reluctance to actually deal with the rogue officers, for various reasons.

                  No society will ever completely rid their LE rank and file of all the psychos, but that’s not the problem. It’s the entire chain of command that’s too busy protecting their asses and trying to cover up such behavior that causes me concern.

                  1. except i believe and i know you disagree that many agencies do a damn good job with discipline. Some agencies do protect their cops too much. OTHERS, go after their cops too much. heck, i work with guys who were railroaded out of the dept. because of vendettas etc. by management and had to rely on union attorneys and/or arbitration to get their jobs BACK

                    you think it only worksone way – that IA is just about protecting cops

                    imo, it’s more often the opposite- many are looking to fuck over cops on flimsy pretense.

                    1. I actually do agree that it can go either way, but both scenarios (too lenient or political grandstanding) back up my point:
                      There are institutional problems with the justice system that result in a failure to deliver the fundamental government function that forms the entire reason for these entities to exist at all – The protection of the freedoms of the citizenry.

                      IOW, it’s about the system itself, of which cops are a part. We’re not witnessing some esoteric ‘war on cops’ or advanced thuggery on the citizens. We’re beginning to be able (thanks to technology) to give a wider audience the ugly picture of the inevitable path of unrestrained government bureaucracy – the proliferation of bureaucratic existence for its own sake, and nothing else.

                      Transparency is the key to unraveling this mess, and it’s the cops, prosecutors, judges, IA crews and legislators that share the blame for restricting that cleansing sunlight.

                      That is our difference of opinion.

          2. I don’t hate dunphy. I don’t know dunphy. I prefer it that way.

            1. anybody who hates somebody based on that person’s posts on this blog needs to get a fucking life.

              for example, i find tony’s posts inane and ridiculous, but i don’t “hate” him.

              heck, if i knew HIM, i might like him.

              who fucking knows?

              people take this shit way too seriously;

              1. I don’t hate you either, Dunphy, though I have no particular desire to meet you – but this shit IS serious. It’s about what kind of country we want to have and our disagreement over LEO abuses and legal punishment speaks directly to that. I try to be reasonable and decent to people discussing this, but I am in no way surprised that anyone get’s worked up about it.

              2. heck, if i knew HIM, i might like him.

                Tony isn’t real. It’s a failed Turing experiment.

                1. i’ve considered that. but if he has the right input/output ports…

                  1. Consider this dismaying observation: What has Tony learned while visiting here?

        2. “”thanks man. and like i said, *if* this woman’s claim is true, the cop should be charged

          imnsho
          “”

          So let’s see if this incident supports your claim that cops are routinely charge.

          1. first, let’s see what exactly can be proved and how valid this woman’s claims are

            here’s a hint… in my experience, a substantial %age of claims against police are either wildly exaggerated or flat out lies.

            it MAY be true, to a lesser or greater extent.

      2. There are no good cops, only less bad cops.

    3. Dunphy, can I ask you what the standard procedure would be for someone who is using their phone when an officer directs them to get out of the vehicle, but they refuse to stop talking/recording/playing angry birds?

      1. standard procedure would be (generally speaking) to let them continue to hold the phone

        it isn’t (much) threat as a weapon, so why should the officer care?

        i’ve had people film me with cell phones on traffic stops

        bfd

        if the officer had cause to pat frisk her, then he could direct her to put her hands behind her head and interlace her fingers, which would mean she had to put the cell phone down

        i think at a DWI checkpoint where the officer OBVIOUSLY had ample backup and there was no danger in her holding a fuckign cell phone, that he should have let her keep it in her hands.

        if he was going to do FST’s on her, he couldoffer to let her friend hold it or whatever. but that wasn’t the case here ASSUMING her story is accurate, which is a major assumption

        1. “”i’ve had people film me with cell phones on traffic stops””

          Next time will you break-out in a song and dance. I want to see that on youtube. 😉

          I’m glad you put reason above respect my authority. If only we could get rid of the cops that do not.

          1. If only we could get rid of the cops that do not.

            That’s probably my only major disagreement with dunphy. He feels that firing a cop is a punishment worse than giving him jail time. I disagree. Firing is a not a punishment, it is the elimination of a poor or unsuitable employee.

            1. Firing is a not a punishment, it is the elimination of a poor or unsuitable employee.

              It’s also a measure taken to protect the public. You know, something they supposedly pledge to do. But no, they’d rather give him “training” and wait till he violates the rights of several other people before they can him, cause it’s just so terrible for a cop to lose his job.

              Apparently, him keeping his job is far more important than the numerous rights violations that occur down the line. Only after he’s racked up a respectable number of victims is the firing justified.

              And that’s apparently what the good cops think.

              1. “”It’s also a measure taken to protect the public.””

                It just keeps him from doing it under the color of authority. It doesn’t prevent him from being an asshole that will beat up someone else.

                1. It just keeps him from doing it under the color of authority. It doesn’t prevent him from being an asshole that will beat up someone else.

                  True, but it removes the from him the protection of both the police union and the retarded “cops can do no wrong” jurors. Which in turn makes him both less likely to do it and more likely to get properly punished if he does.

              2. no, it’s called progressive discipline

                cops aren’t perfect and if you want honest accountability that does not mean firing a cop the first time they fuck up, especially assuming it’s something minor and etc.

                one of my friends once got suspended for a week for slapping a kid in the face (kid was mouthing off and spit on the officer’s shoe on purpose)

                did he deserve suspension?

                yes

                did he deserve to get fired?

                no

                and that was his ONLY issue with that kind of thing. he did his suspension, which also prevented him from a lot of other stuff for 3 yrs as is policy, and then never had a problem again

                when good cops make mistakes, i take their ENTIRE record into account

                1. Yup, no double standard there. Nothing to see here.

                2. Your buddy committed a battery, he should have been fired and spent time in jail.

                  Like my drill sergeant told us on our first day of basic: “Don’t matter how many ‘atta boys’ you have, one ‘aww shit’ will erase them all.”

                  1. Like my drill sergeant told us on our first day of basic: “Don’t matter how many ‘atta boys’ you have, one ‘aww shit’ will erase them all.”

                    True for everyone but law enforcement, apparently. I don’t know of any other job you can keep after slapping someone while representing your employer.

                    1. Well I can’t get worked up about the slapping of someone who spit on a cop. I mean, if someone spat on me I’d probably hit him. It’s this bullshit of “failure to comply” that pisses me off.

                      Cops can arrest people if they see them committing a crime. They can execute search and arrest warrants. They do not have the power to tell people what to do if the person’s actions are not criminal. Calling a cop names is not a crime. Making faces is not a crime. Filming is not a crime. Nonviolent actions do not become crimes simply because a cop says they are because he wants to exert his authority.

                  2. except that’s utter rubbish.

                    nobody around here would get jail time for a first offense slap in the face.

                    prosecutors would be hesitant to even charge unless the person had a bruise or something, quite frequently.

                    it’s this funhouse mirror version of reality i see so often here.

                    he was effectively fined 2,000 (a week’s pay), and had all sorts of restrictions on him for 3 yrs. he also knew if he did anything of the sort again, he’d get fired.

                    a $2,000 fine is worse than the average person would get for slapping somebody who spit on their shoe

                3. He could have arrested the little scumbag and no one here would complain. But he shouldn’t get fired for assault? WTF? I’d be arrested for that in a millisecond! Come the fuck on!

                  1. Arrested him for assault? Charged him with a felony? For spitting?

                    Punk spit on him, punk got smacked. If I was ever drunk enough to do something like that I’d hope to god the cop decided to apply a little correction on the spot and not charge me with a felony for a moment of stupidity.

                    1. The optimal outcome was for the officer to just deal with it. Someone spitting on your shoes is bullshit, but not the biggest deal. But if a cop is going to do something about it, it shouldn’t be extra-legal punishment. Do you have any idea how dangerous that is, Britt? “A little correction”? What is wrong with you?

                    2. Arrested him for assault? Charged him with a felony? For spitting?…I’d hope to god the cop decided to apply a little correction on the spot and not charge me with a felony for a moment of stupidity.

                      In Texas, they do both.

                    3. I’d hope to god the cop decided to apply a little correction on the spot

                      I too hope the cop would smack you around a bit if he thought you spat upon his anointed tootsies, you prissy sycophant.

                    4. Oh of course the cop being the bigger man is the ideal, I thought that went without saying. However, well, its the cops. Being the bigger man isn’t really in the job description.

                      Taking the choice between a slap and a felony arrest, I think the slap is the lesser of two evils. Just my humble opinion.

                    5. Oops, sorry. I misunderstood your comment. Yeah, a choice between being arrested for felony assault and even a good ass beating I’d take the beating. I thought you meant you wished the cop would hit you so you’d learn a lesson. Mea culpa.

                      Most likely you’d get slapped and arrested, though.

                    6. in my jurisdiction, it wouldn’t be felony assault. our prosecutor will only charge felony assault on a cop IF the cop has injuries or a weapon was used.

                      again, that;’s the difference. i know reality. people here assume it.

                      regardless, the point is what the cop did was WRONG.

                      he got justly punished.and nobody tried to cover up for him.

                    7. the point of the story is this

                      a good cop did a bad thing, he was punished for it, nobody tried to cover up for him, etc.

                      he didn’t deserve firing, he deserved stern punishment and considering his otherwise excellent record, that was the end of it

                      “back in the day” despite the reason meme, it’s much more likely he would have smacked the kid, THEN taken the kid home (he was a 17 yr old longtime criminal btw) and when the parents found out what their kid had done, THEY would have slapped him too

                      times change

                    8. So, if I slapped some kid whose attitude I didn’t appreciate I would face no legal sanctions?

                      Sweet, thx for the PROTIP, Sheriff Teasle.

                    9. Oh, and what happened to the minor who was assaulted? Was he charged?

                    10. nothing happened to him in regards to that incident. the officer told him to go home. he did, and he told his mommy the mean cop slapped him (conveniently leaving off the spitting on the cop’s shoe after telling the cop to fuck off).

                    11. So what crime did the minor, who was assaulted, commit other than allegedly spitting on a shoe?

                    12. if the kid spit on your shoe, and he called police to make a report and all those facts and circ’s were known.

                      not where i work. at WORST, you’d look at a fine, a years probation, and then it would be wiped from your record. “continued w/o a finding” some kind of shit like that.

                      could a prosecutor charge you? sure. they have discretion. around these parts ime it’s exceedingly unlikely.

                    13. cop slaps some minor on the job = suspension (most likely paid)

                      cap’ l slaps some minor on the job = gets fired + fine + 1 year probation (in dunphy’s super liberal state)

                      Due process yay!

                      No double standard here, move along.

                    14. jesus, you are getting stupider and stupider

                      there is no such thing as a “paid suspension” for discipline

                      you guys confuse administrative leave w/pay (which is what happens during SOME investigations to protect both the cop and others BEFORE guilt is determined)

                      and SUSPENSION which means WITHOUT PAY which i already explained

                      a week suspension = 00 fine

                      5 days at (roughly) $400/day

                      jesus fucking christ. if you could for once just read , comprehend THEN spew it would be nice

                    15. ugh. 2,000 fine

                    16. cop slaps some minor on the job = suspension (most likely paid)

                      cap’ l slaps some minor on the job = gets fired + fine + 1 year probation (in dunphy’s super liberal state)

                      Due process yay!

                      No double standard here, move along.

                      There.
                      In the future, I’ll try to be less stupid, and not get progressively more stupid.

                    17. oh, and i love the way you conveniently leave out facts.

                      it wasn’t the attitude, as much as the actual spitting on his shoe.

                    18. I’m sorry, I missed the day they passed the law where spitting on a cop’s shoe allowed him to slap you.

                    19. it doesn’t. that’s why it was and should have been punished.

                      however, you rewrote the narrative when you said he did it because the kid merely had a bad attitude. the kid spit on his shoe. does it justify what the cop did? of course not. but it doesn’t follow you leave out facts to make it sound worse.

                      and if the cop had slapped him just for mouthing off, THAT would have been worse.

                      it’s a mitigating factor, just not a justification

                    20. Do you think that if a kid spits on my shoe that I should be allowed to slap him, legally?

                    21. I do. But you should only be allowed to slap him with a pair of kid gloves held loosely in your hands. Scratch that, your manservant should be permitted to slap the unruly youth with a pair of kid gloves held loosely in one hand.

                    22. In all seriousness, I would not (intentionally) spit on a stranger’s person or accoutrements, for I would not blame that strager for proceeding to strike me.

                      Perhaps officers of the law should be held to a higher standard in this regard, but striking the youth in this instance seems reasonable.

    4. I’ll be doubtful that anything meaningful will happen

      Prosecutors have a lot to lose going after police for anything but a really big deal. I imagine the uptick in missed court appearances, foggy memories, etc. would put a real dent in the prosecutor’s conviction rate.

  5. That poor policeman; he’ll be in therapy for years after being psychologically abused in that manner.

  6. Hmmm this looks suspiciously like a CCTV system at the RPPD HQ. Where do those tapes go?

  7. Rose did not comment on how the incident unfolded, but officers who were at the scene said in their incident reports that Rosario was arrested because she refused to turn off her cell phone, which was flashing a light at the officers conducting the DWI check.

    “I asked her to stop shinning [sic] the light on the officers and in the direction of the officers, as it was dangerous and distracting,” DiNiro said in his Aug. 29 report.

    Now, in addition to the breasts, I’m trying to imagine just what kind of cell-phone spotlight she had? Is there an app for 120,000 candlepower?

    1. it sounds like complete crap excuse making.

      unless it was some kind of special cell phone i am not aware of.

      1. I’m sure you, as an ethical cop, would NEVER make up shit like that, right?

        I’m sure that you’ve NEVER stood by while one of your brothers broke the law or harassed someone. You’re one of the good guys, right? The fact that you think so makes you more disgusting, not less.

        1. yawn. troll-o-meter: .01

          1. troll =/= wrong

            1. Why cast aspersions on dunphy? He seems a stand-up guy and I wouldn’t assume otherwise unless he gives me reasons to.

              1. He’s a stand up “and say his partner had to beat the handcuffed prostitute” guy.

    2. If the Blackberry’s camera flash is anything like the one on my HTC Thunderbolt, it’s pretty fucking bright, and would definitely be a distraction, particularly at night. My phone even has a flashlight app, which uses the LED flash. It’s very effective in that capacity.

      None of which justifies Mr. DiNiro’s assault on this woman.

  8. Obviously, to the Public Safety Official, the woman was a threat to the Homeland.

  9. As it was reported in the local media.

  10. Jeebus H. These cops are running a checkpoint on a road AT NIGHT. God only knows how many flashing lights there were on the cop cars alone, not to mention whatever barriers and whatnot they had up.

    Or the headlights on all the other cars on the road.

    And the light on this woman’s cell phone was “dangerous and distracting”?

    Damn, but I’d like to get these idiots on a stand for cross-examination. My goal would be to have the jury burst out laughing, in court. And I bet I could do it.

    And I await the 4A challenge and civil rights suit to this kind of abuse, namely, that any policeman who interferes with the gathering of potentially exculpatory evidence by any person has violated their civil rights, for which (I should point out) sovereign immunity does not apply.

  11. Perhaps some of their older squad cars lack dashcams, but a quick google image search reveals at least one does. I’m still calling shenanigans on the lack of video.

  12. Of course, this whole incident was a direct result of a bullshit DWI checkpoint Precrime Squad dragnet.

  13. Poor, poor, Fosdick; he just wants us to love him.

  14. I don’t know who’s anecdotal evidence to believe.

  15. Of course, if the SCOTUS hadn’t screwed the pooch in Michigan v. Sitz, then this incident could not have happened in the first place.

  16. Well, we almost got it all – attacks and counterattacks, “a few bad apples”, “all cops are bad if they don’t squeel”, “isolated incident”, “lots of cops are prosecuted”, unfair allegations, impugned motives….ALMOST all.

    Ahem…..

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED!

    That is all.

  17. The root of the police problem (which exists, and is not rare) is the volume of “criminal” laws, and weak enforcement of civil rights and due process, which results in police having too much opportunity to fuck up peoples lives. Reducing the amount of “crimes” for them to enforce and doing things like requiring all statements to be recorded will put a needed wall between police interacting with the public as much as they do.

    1. it *is* rare. however, i agree with you that the state should have far fewer activities it defines as ILLEGAL

      we can agree on that.

      the WOD is a good place to start

      what used to surprise me is how often people who call police WANT shit to be illegal that clearly isn’t and/or want minor shit THAT AFFECTS THEM but is clearly de minimus to be dealt with like a life altering felony

      example: in 20 yrs of police work, i have never seen a simple shove ever prosecuted as assault

      ever

      not once

      fwiw, if a cop shoved somebody unjustifiably everybody here would be claiming he got special treatment for not being criminally charged for it.

      many people who call us constantly want the state to solve every little fucking problem for them and turn it into a criminal case.

      fwiw, i find this far more common in urban than in rural areas, and generally speaking, i find the “i’m a victim dammit” mentality also more common amongst liberals.

      1. what used to surprise me is how often people who call police WANT shit to be illegal that clearly isn’t and/or want minor shit THAT AFFECTS THEM but is clearly de minimus to be dealt with like a life altering felony

        It shouldn’t have. I’d estimate 80% of people want to make their neighbors conform to their wishes. It’s why universal sufferage leads to totalitarianism (I favor the Starship Troopers method fwiw). It’s why the constution is viewed as a roadblock by most now instead of a protection.

        fwiw, if a cop shoved somebody unjustifiably everybody here would be claiming he got special treatment for not being criminally charged for it.

        They would. And they’d be right. Because if anyone but a cops shoves me, I can shove him back. Prosecution is the only thing the “sheep” have got to protect them.

        1. “It shouldn’t have. I’d estimate 80% of people want to make their neighbors conform to their wishes. It’s why universal sufferage leads to totalitarianism (I favor the Starship Troopers method fwiw). It’s why the constution is viewed as a roadblock by most now instead of a protection.”

          i very much agree

      2. True, but a shove is not a slap. If somebody slapped me, I’d punch their lights out. Unless they were a cop. I’d be too fucking scared, and that’s not a joke.

        1. It’s the escalation thing. I wouldn’t blame you for punching someone that slapped you, but I wouldn’t blame someone for slapping you if you spat on them.

  18. I recently recorded some cops and they didn’t beat the shit out of me, or even talk to me. I was very disappointed. I want a civil rights settlement damn it.

    1. that’s UNPOSSIBLE

  19. she scratched him when he tried to steal her phone.

    Oh, my heart bleeds for the scratched robber.

    Aren’t we supposed to have an independent judiciary to punish anyone who breaks the law, even if they’re in a government uniform?

    -jcr

  20. If this woman’s account is accurate, this cop should be lucky to find a job. Hell, he should be grateful if he ends up a taxi driver.

  21. This is why everyone should lock their car doors when cops are close.

    A la David Herman in Office Space.

  22. And they wonder why we rejoice everytime some stupid cop gets clipped in the line of duty!

    http://www.anon-web-toolz.at.tc

  23. If you need more traffic to your website check out the website in my name. It really helped me and i think it can help your website.if you are enjoy the winter fashion welcome to visit us.Moncler Jassen Heren , Moncler Heren Schoenen

  24. “The two woman have requested that the Ridgefield Park PD release video from the police car camera and the jail. According to a representative for the police department, there’s no video to release, as neither Ridgefield cop cars nor the jail have video cameras.”

    I find that completely ridiculous considering Ridgfield Park was given a little under a quarter of a million dollars 6 or so months ago to put BETTER video equipment. Does this not mean they already have video equipment in police cars, just like every other police department, for safety.

  25. yet another reason to get rid of the standing army we call cops.

  26. RPPD does have cameras installed in the patrol cars, they are lying.

  27. New Jersey is a cesspool, I lived there when I was a kid.

  28. Police Capt John DiNiro is a criminal who needs to show cause why he should not be exterminated with prejudice. I always support law abiding LEO’s caught in difficult circumstances, but I condemn scumbags who abuse their power, especially a corrupt bureaucrat like DeNiro. All decent humans agree. He needs to be eliminated from the force. Permanently.

  29. so…can you video a game at a (state)University football game? a city stadium MLB game? NFL ? some of those stadiums are privately owned i guess while some are owned by the city..or county….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.