Cop Took Cell Phone Used to Film Him, Lawsuit Alleges Retaliation

The war on cameras continues in Point Marion, Pennsylvania, with a federal lawsuit filed by a man whose cell phone police confiscated. Gregory Rizer says he was at a friend's house, filming a police officer he felt was being aggressive in his questioning of his quadriplegic friend about the whereabouts of her cousin.

The police officer, Kevin Lukart, confiscated the cellphone and Rizer was eventually charged under the state's wiretap law, a common prosecutorial tactic against those who film police officers in states with two-party consent or other wiretapping laws. The charges were dropped by the state attorney in February (the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 1989 and again in 2005 that police officers don 't have an expectation of privacy under the wiretapping law) and Rizer says in his lawsuit the memory card was missing (surprise!) when his cell phone was returned to him.

The lawsuit alleges Rizer was retaliated against by the police department, with his arrest under the wiretapping law coming after a complaint to the mayor, who is listed as a co-defendant in the lawsuit.

More Reason on the war on cameras

Pic via Carlos Miller at Photography is Not a Crime, who has more

UPDATE: A tipster points out the same officer was involved in a caught on tape incident earlier this year.

Comments

[R C Dean]

While you're at it, file a legal ethics complaint against the prosecutor. Its black-letter law in PA that no crime was committed, so charging someone should be a no-no. The Texas legal ethics for prosecutors include:

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

A prosecutor has the responsibility to see that justice is done, and not simply to be an advocate. This responsibility carries with it a number of specific obligations. Among these is to see that no person is threatened with or subjected to the rigors of a criminal prosecution without good cause.

[Tulpa the White]

How is that ethics code enforced?

[DesigNate]

In an ideal world, we would get to tar and feather the offending prosecutor before kicking them out of town.

[R C Dean]

Complaints to the state bar, which can sanction the attorney up to and including loss of license.

[Ted S.]

That's the theory. How does it work in practice?

[Whahappan?]

Rules are for little people, not sanctified enforcers for the State.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

If you have a smartphone, get Evernote. You can instantaneously record and archive to the cloud.

[Kaptious Kristen]

Or qik or ustream

[ant1sthenes]

Or the new ACLU app.

[John]

The people who have the balls to film cops really are, to quote Joe from Lowell, doing God's work.

[Auric Demonocles]

You need to say that lower.

[sloopyinca]

I wonder if dunphy (Buckaroo Banzai himself!) will come on here and call the guy an idiot and say he was asking to get charged?

Oh wait. He reserves that treatment for people who are shot and killed by (unidentified) police while answering their door armed at 1:30 in the morning.

Seriously, there is a case for prosecutorial misconduct, false imprisonment and myriad other criminal offenses that should be used here to prevent this type of behavior from being the norm.

[Restoras]

Hey, he was obstructing justice just like that door that got shot to pieces - it was just a coincidence that there was a citizen exercising his second amendment rights behind the door. Dude is lucky he wasn't a door.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it takes very little "balls " to film cops. for every case like this, there are hundreds of examples on youtube alone of videos people took of cops in action.

heck, even nick gillespie in one of his articles said that most cops respect the ability of people to film them

that aside, atfpapic, if this cop was made aware of those case rulings in training (iow there was a record of him being trained that it's unlawful to seize cameras of people filming you and charge them), he should be fired. period

our agency came out with memo's and roll call training, and it's not part of our procedures manual on specifically how to deal with filmers

1) we are allowed to ask them name, etc. so we can list them as a witness on the report (which is what we do with witnesses in general

2) we are not allowed to seize the camera. period . full stop

3) if it's a critical incident, he filmed, like a homicide, rape, etc then we contact major crimes and let them know about the filming

and the policy says officers SHALL (not "may" but "SHALL" be disciplined for violating same rights)

all agencies should do this

it's proactive, and it's bright line

[R C Dean]

it takes very little "balls " to film cops.

I would disagree, a little, with that. Most people are reluctant to do anything that might get a cop mad at them (entirely rational on their part, of course, given the scope cops have to retaliate and their lack of accountability).

In this case, you had a cop who was obviously going all "hard guy" on somebody. Pulling a camera on that cop isn't something to be done lightly. For obvious reasons (possibility/likelihood of arrest, incarceration, and charge).

[Restoras]

Listen, pulling anything out on a cop is asking to get shot. It makes you a moron, and idiot, and, really, deserving of several 9mm puncture wounds in your torso.

[Sal Paradise]

"if this cop was made aware of those case rulings in training "

I didn't think ignorance of the law was an excuse. Or is that just for the proles?

[Restoras]

Just for the proles. And you better be fucking careful - you might get detained for hours (if you're lucky!) or the proud owner of a bunch of 9mm slugs.

[Fist of Etiquette]

it takes very little "balls " to film cops. for every case like this, there are hundreds of examples on youtube alone of videos people took of cops in action.

Yeah, but all it takes is that one a-hole to fuck you up for doing it. And there's no quick, easy or not expensive remedy for that. In this case, it appears the officer actually stole and probably destroyed evidence, but is not being charged. The civilian, on the other hand, was charged, illegally. He has to sue to get any hope of justice.

It does take balls.

[R C Dean]

Next you'll be claiming there's some kind of double standard in favor of cops.

Bigot.

[Clich? Bandit]

I lol'd

[Juice]

The cop is a civilian too.

[RedDragon6009]

if this cop was made aware of those case rulings in training (iow there was a record of him being trained that it's unlawful to seize cameras of people filming you and charge them), he should be fired. period

Nice double standard. I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse. If cops are too stupid to verify the crimes they are charging people with then they have no business being cops. He should be fired plain and simple.

[robc]

that aside, atfpapic, if this cop was made aware of those case rulings in training (iow there was a record of him being trained that it's unlawful to seize cameras of people filming you and charge them), he should be fired. period

Why should training matter? Ignorance of the law isnt an excuse.

[Whahappan?]

Actually, it is. I don't have citations, but several court rulings have made it clear that as long as the powers that be can pretend that the cop (or prosecutor!) were acting in "good faith" (ha ha) ignorance of the law is an excuse. But only for those empowered with enforcing the law, not for untermensch.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

oh btw, sloopy is as usual an idiot. he ignores case law, he ignores the facts in my posts, etc. and he only sees what he wants to see

i have NEVER in my entire time on reason.com in ANY post supported any sort of actions against people for filming police

i have posted many many times (pretty much any time i see a war on cameras blog entry) that

1) it should be an absolute 1st amendment civil right. and it is. and every ofc in the nation needs to get on fucking board. prosecutors too
2) cops who can't stand getting filmed need to get another job
3) every agency should have roll call training and written policy making it clear NOT to fuck with filmers/recorders and that they WILL (not MAY) get punished if they do)
4) MORE people should film police. even if you see a cop doig something totally boring and routine, and you have time, film it. if and when the shit hits the fan, your film can help to prosecute a cop in the wrong, and help to exonerate a cop in the right

period

again, i challenge the liar that is sloopy to find ONE post of me ever supporting action being taken over people filming, whereas many honest posters here have recognized i am 100% consistent on this, just like any civil rights issue

hth liar

[Dunphy (the real one)]

note, i haven't posted 1-4 EVERY time, but every time ihave posted i have support their right to film and over time, i have made every one of these points

iow, if you see a case involving a person filming cops, insert 1-4 as my answer. an obvious exception would be if the guy walked up to within a couple feet of a cop while he was making an arrest and refused upon being ordered to step back. that has never been the case in any reason recording police blog post

and fwiw, i have knowingly been filmed dozens of times, as have most cops i know

it's extremely common

[tarran]

Wow, Dunphy, way to lie about what sloopy was saying:

He didn't say you would call this guy an idiot and say he got what was coming to him.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

imo, he implies it but *i* will say mea culpa and say he didn't say it

my bad.
he just uses it as an excuse to lie about my other posts. iow, he can never be complimentary and he can't simply agree with a cop. that's a bigot. even WHEN i agree with him, he HAS to do a "yea but" and bring up some tangent why i disagree with him

he can't drop a previous case

and note, accor4ding to the article i read he did not merely answer the door "armed". he answered it WITH GUN DRAWN

which is an entirely different thing

again, he twists reality to suit his needs

i NEVER justified a cop shooting somebvody for answering the door while "armed"

but again, mea culpa. he did not say i WOULD support the cops in this case.

my bad
(unlike sloopy i can admit when wrong)

[sloopyinca]

and note, accor4ding to the article i read he did not merely answer the door "armed". he answered it WITH GUN DRAWN

Only, from the subsequent articles, based on the entry angle of the bullets and the fact that the door is a RH Inswing, there's very little likelihood they could have seen the gun, let alone have it pointed at them.

Oh, and the cops said they shot four times, yet I see at least five tagged entry marks in the door. Let's just call that lie #1. Shall we go on?

[Mr. FIFY]

But it's only okay to defend yourself if it's NOT cops at your door, and you're supposed to just let them shoot you even though they couldn't be bothered to have the right fucking address in the first place.

Shit, sloop, this ain't newcular rocket surgery.

/snark

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it is NOT ok to defend yourself based MERELY ON SOMEBODY KNOCKING AT 130 am (again, facts and circs) by drawting your gun

period

[Dunphy (the real one)]

or more correctly drawing your gun and opening the door and presenting yourself with drawn gun

he was the aggressor and fuckstick got justifiably shot atfpapic

[$park?]

Yes, I think we all understand that if you open your door at 1:30 AM with a gun in your hand you deserve to be murdered.

[DesigNate]

fuckstick got justifiably shot

This is why people hate you.

[oncogenesis]

atfpapic

WTF?

[Restoras]

aftpapic is LEO lingo for as the fact pattern as presented is correct.

He's one of those douches that likes to drop professional lingo into casual conversation to make him sound wikked smahhht.

[Suthenboy]

Dunphy, I have had a few, and obviously you have too.

The cops story smells like bullshit, looks like bullshit, and feels like bullshit. Care to guess what it is?

I answer the door with a gun in my hand when it is someone I dont know. I keep it pointed down and behind the door. The chances that this guy opened the door with a gun pointed at the cops and couldnt get a shot off before they drew theirs and shot him is is fucking zilch.

[RFID]

or more correctly drawing your gun and opening the door and presenting yourself with drawn gun

Well, there are a few assumptions in this story that you and others have made:

1. That the guy opened the door for the cops
2. That he had a gun
3. That the gun was drawn
4. That the gun was pointed at the officers

As far as I can tell, none of these points have been verified. The only thing we have to go on for these points is the word of the cops. So why are you saying with certainty that he was the aggressor? How can you say that he was justifiably shot?

[Restoras]

it is NOT ok to defend yourself based MERELY ON SOMEBODY KNOCKING AT 130 am (again, facts and circs) by drawting your gun

period

Really? You sure? Do you mean to tell me that I shouldn't be prepared to defend myself from a knock on the door at 1:30AM? Was this person supposed to have security cameras lounted outside his door to ascertain the identity of door knockers? Or should he have just used his magical seeing-eye powers to figure that out?

[Dunphy (the real one)]

again, you characterized him as being armed, which is an understatement

i'll make this as clear as possible, as i already have, ASSUMING HE ANSWERED THE DOOR WITH A GUN DRAWN, the shooting sounds more likely justified than not

it's really that simple

that's why i qualified with ATFPAPIC

if he was apprehensive enough to open the door with a drawn gun , he should not have answered the door

not to get all "randian" but HE was the aggressor if that's true.

knocking on a door, even at 1:30 am is not an aggressive act. one can argue it's a rude act. although when you are searching for a violent felon and you believe he may have ran into an apartment in the vicinity, it's not even remotely questionalbe as an act

i have had a # of people when i knock on the door, in full uniform, say "how do you know you are police"

if the uniform, and marked patrol car (if it's visible is not enough)

there;s a simple solution "sir or ma'am, call XXX-XXXX which is our dispatch. it's listed in the phone book. ask them if ofc. XXXXX is assigned to your address and standing outside your door"

and several times, they have done that. bfd

that's how RATIONAL people act

[Dunphy (the real one)]

people who being the aggressor and escalate and do something i have never seen any lawful gun owner do in 20+ yrs of police work, and i have dealt with hundreds, if not thousands, is answer the door based on mere knocking with a gun drawn

i am sure some gangbangers and/or drug slingers may do that because they justifiably fear a rip, but the DUTY is on you to either NOT answer or answer with your gun holstered. period

[Suthenboy]

"..NOT answer or answer with your gun holstered. period"

Fuck that. In my area we have had two guys crash in doors after the lock is opened and beat the hell out of and rob people. This has been going on a couple of years and they havent been caught yet. If I dont know you and you knock on my door I am gonna have a gun in my hand. It will be pointed down until I determine you are 'safe', and pointed at you if I determine you are not.

Look dude, you are turning yourself into tiger butter trying to defend what was pretty obviously a bad shoot. They were hyped up and as soon as they saw the gun some dunce shouted 'gun!' and bang.

Pointed at them my ass. He had it in his hand is my guess.

[Cyto]

I'm really surprised to see you write that. I'm surprised enough to be dubious that Dunphy penned it.

Just to be clear, when two armed men bang on your door in the middle of the night, they are the aressors. You are the homeowner who was asleep in his bed bothering no one. Answering the door with a gun in hand is perfectly reasonable, if not always wise.

The idea that you would flip things around in your mind such that shooting someone for answering the door with a gun in their hand is self defense is appalling. The correct answer for LEO in this situation would be to move quickly to cover and negotiate a surrender. Shooting an unknown person with unknown intentions in their own home within seconds of first contact is not good police work. It is probably negligent homicide. Getting fired should be the least of their worries in a just world.

[R C Dean]

i'll make this as clear as possible, as i already have, ASSUMING HE ANSWERED THE DOOR WITH A GUN DRAWN, the shooting sounds more likely justified than not

So you would have no problem with any "civilian" opening fire whenever a door gets answered by someone with a gun in their hand?

people who being the aggressor and escalate

How is answering a door with a gun in your hand "being the aggressor" and "escalating"? Its perfectly legal, after all.

but the DUTY is on you to either NOT answer or answer with your gun holstered. period

Bullshit. I have no duty not to answer a door in my own house with a gun in my hand, whenever I feel like it.

[R C Dean]

I'm fascinated by your contention that anyone with a gun in their hand is automatically an aggressor.

Does that apply to cops, too, or is that just for "civilians"?

[$park?]

If you can out-draw a cop and shoot him before he has a chance to fire then that's just self defense right?

[DesigNate]

Don't be an ignorant anti-cop bigot Sparky.

[sloopyinca]

i'll make this as clear as possible, as i already have, ASSUMING HE ANSWERED THE DOOR WITH A GUN DRAWN, the shooting sounds more likely justified than not

But that's not what you already said, asshole. You called him an idiot and said he had it coming. And based on the fact pattern as it is now being presented, the likelihood that he "opened the door and pointed his gun at the officers" as they stated in their report, is about 5% at best.

that's how RATIONAL people act

And only rational people have the right to protect their person and property from unidentified people banging at their door at a very unusual hour, right?

if the uniform, and marked patrol car (if it's visible is not enough)

Why are you claiming that is the case here when it plainly is not?

[VG Zaytsev]

if he was apprehensive enough to open the door with a drawn gun , he should not have answered the door

not to get all "randian" but HE was the aggressor if that's true.

So let me get this straight:
If you answer a knock on your door you are the aggressor.

If you don't want to be an aggressor you should cower in your own home.

WTF!!!

This is a fucking retarded statement, even for you, which is saying something.

Hopefully, you'll eat lead soon.

Cause your a fucking totalitarian piece of shit.

[VG Zaytsev]

Fucking squirrels that was a response to Dunphy the totalitarian cocksucker.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

oh, sloopy is also an idiot because he claimed false imprisonment... unless i am missign something (and i concede i may have), i see no mention of a custodial arrest. his camera was taken away. he was not physically arrested, thus no false imprisonment. again, if i a m wrong on that mea culpa, but i see no mention on that

hth

[tarran]

More lies from buckaroo banzai:

oh, sloopy is also an idiot because he claimed false imprisonment... unless i am missign something (and i concede i may have), i see no mention of a custodial arrest

From the article:

Lukart then arrested Rizer, placed him in handcuffs and took him to the police station.

hth, liar.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

not a liar. i read only the reason post. not the article and i said "I concede i may" be wrong.

i was wrong

see, again, only people with small egos (and bigots usually have that problem) can't admit being wrong

i was wrong.

i have ZERO problem admitting it

i'm not a liar because i didn't misstate something i knew was false. that's a lie. i was simply not "armed" with the info.

my bad

[The Fatman]

You're a cop. Like a lawyer or a politician that makes you automatically a liar.

[sloopyinca]

hth

Well, it doesn't asshole.

FT(linked)A: Rizer felt that Lukart's questioning was overly aggressive, according to the suit, and Rizer was concerned for Hughes, who is a quadriplegic. Rizer took out his cell phone and began recording the questioning, but when Lukart realized he was being recorded, the officer seized the telephone, the suit states.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

aS I ALREADY SAID , i was wrong.

i didn't read the linked article, just the reason article and i didn't see where it said he was custodially arrested.

imo, that makes this case WAY worse

IF the ofc. received roll call or training that explained that it's a civil right to film cops AND he arrested this guy, he DOES deserve to be charged

again, my bad

[R C Dean]

IF the ofc. received roll call or training that explained that it's a civil right to film cops AND he arrested this guy, he DOES deserve to be charged

What difference does that make? Untrained cops should get a free pass, is that what you're saying? Ignorance of the law is a defense, if you're a cop?

[DesigNate]

That's what it sounds like to me.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

gen4erally speaking, it's true. see my below post. past practice and training are key. i mentioned just the other day in that arbitrator case where he threw out the 900 hr suspension

the ofc. was suspended after he reached into a car to try to turn it off, was dragged, and shot and killed the driver.

chief said he shouldn't have done it

arbitrator pointed out it was not an uncommon activity for ofc's to do, no policy prohibited it, and several ofc's who were highly decoratexd even have done it

his suspension was lifted an dhe was paid back pay +OT as is correct

[sloopyinca]

So because the cop didn't know the law, he not only got away with murder, but got back pay? Thanks for making us all feel better.* I wonder if I can plead ignorance if I ever get arrested for a crime I didn't know existed.

*This must be the case unless you're just twisting the story in an attempt to weasel out of your arguments above.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it wasn't murder. even the chief wasn't saying the shoot wasn't justified. he was saying if he didn't reach in the car, it wouldn't have happened (which of course is true)

i already commented on this case, and feel free to look it up. it happened in oregon, the cop got 900 days because the chief wanted to SEND a lesson and the arbitrator correctly concluded he acted CONSISTENT with past practice and there was no policy opposing it

iow, it was results based analysis. always wrong on 4th amendment issues (and a shooting is a seizure)

and if i reach into a car and a person starts draggin' me, they very well might get capped

as mentioned, i once reached in to turn off the car of a noncompliant drunk driving a stolen car

i accepted the risk

and if he bit me or something, i wouldn't have shot him

but if he dragged me off, very well likely

and you can never know what crime you PREVENT, but when a guy is a .464 (again, i have no idea how he was even conscious), you shouldn't be drivin

the cop in the instant case took a calculated risk to himself to stop a dangerous person and she acted with "force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury"

fuck her

[Dunphy (the real one)]

and if and when my dept. passes a policy prohibiting reaching into cars, i won't do it.

but there is no such policy. last time i did it was YEARs ago

it's a balancing test between risk to officer and danger to society if they aren't stopped

[DesigNate]

So I take it that means you support drunk driving laws?

And reaching into someone's car is incredibly stupid FOR THE EXACT REASON THAT THEY COULD START TO DRAG YOU OFF. Shit, she could have had a gun or knife just waiting for you to do something like that. Then we have a dead Dunphy.

[The Fatman]

We can only hope.

[VG Zaytsev]

So because the cop didn't know the law, he not only got away with murder, but got back pay?

Well in fairness sloopy you can't expect pigs to know that its wrong to kill people if they haven't received hundreds of hours traning to that effect.

It's not like they're humans, after all.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i am saying what case law says, what arbitrators say in reviews of ofc. discipline, iow what THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW is.

ofc.s have a much higher burden when they knowingly violate policy

that's true in my agency, and pretty much every agency in the country

and it's STRONGLY relevant to an arbitrator (and IIU if they are doing their job)

to some extent, ignorance IS an excuse

it happened in maui. a cop arrested somebody for something that had literally JUST been decriminalized. we had no GIB notice or other official notice, and ofc's don't spend all their time in superior court waiting for every SLIP opinion.

he was not disciplined.

nor should he have been

this is an issue that is relevant in force (to include deadly force), see: the newhall shooting as an example where training = dead officers and in ALL cases of police misconduct

you may not like it.

i am telling you it's the state of the law and imo it's ENTIRELY reasonable.

fwiw, my agency is pretty proactive in getting legal updates to us. for example, if they send it out in email, the dept. gets a "read receipt" when you open the email. you are responsible for it the moment you read it

that's the standard we demand of our police

[DesigNate]

If ignorance of the law is okay for cops. IT'S OKAY FOR THE REST OF THE CITIZENRY AS WELL.

[R C Dean]

a cop arrested somebody for something that had literally JUST been decriminalized. we had no GIB notice or other official notice, and ofc's don't spend all their time in superior court waiting for every SLIP opinion.

he was not disciplined.

Yet I can be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for something that JUST became illegal.

But the double standard is OK by you.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yes. that double standard IS the one that is in place.

i 100% admit it.

it was the duty of the POLICE AGENCY to update the training, since there is significant gap between laws passing and going into effect

investigation by IIU revealed no such notice had been made

thus, ofc was not responsible.

i agree it is a double standard.

and one i support

[Dunphy (the real one)]

actually, to be TECHNICALLY a double standard the "ignorance exception" would have to apply to CITIZENS making CITIZEN's arrest for recently repealed laws.

i have no idea if they have the same exception

if they do, it's not a double standard

so i retract my previous statement

[R C Dean]

Oh, its a double standard, regardless.

"Civilians": ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

Cops: igniorance of the law is sometimes an excuse.

Double standard, right there.

[DesigNate]

Nice to know that you think you're above your fellow citizens.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i think the same thing. if a citizen makes an arrest for a crime recently appeared, he should not be liable for the arrest, assuming the arrest was otherwise reasonable (no excessive force used, etc.)

same standard

i have NO idea if that's the legal standard

[DesigNate]

If you, as a cop, violate a law that you didn't know about and are not punished, whereas I, as a non-cop do the same thing but am punished, that is IN FACT a double standard.

[sloopyinca]

I've got an idea, asshole. How about we err on the side of the innocent and/or the person that unwittingly committed a crime instead of erring on the side of the people that are paid to enforce the laws. And the first step in enforcement is knowledge, therefore it is incumbent on the individual officer to know the laws they are paid, and paid well, to enforce.

Fuck you, and anybody else, that thinks we should excuse ignorance of the law only for those that are enforcing it, when justice is best served by holding their knowledge of the law to at least as high (but it should be much higher) as the people that are not paid to enforce it.

[VG Zaytsev]

i think the same thing. if a citizen makes an arrest for a crime recently appeared, he should not be liable for the arrest, assuming the arrest was otherwise reasonable (no excessive force used, etc.)

same standard

In that case the citizen would be subject to prosecution for unlawful arrest / kidnapping.

Should the officer pig?

Also, the citizen would be liable to civil action.

Should the pig?

I'm betting that your answer will be no. Which means that your previous statement was a lie.

[Chris Mallory]

He isn't a citizen, he is a government employee.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

iow, to show a true double standard (i always emphasize this... you compare arrests WITH arrests), you would have to compare a case where a CITIZENS arrest was made for a recently repealed statute

i have NO idea if they would enjoy similar protection

based on mauis reliance on "good faith" , they may

[sloopyinca]

Since most "citizens" aren't concerned with arresting people for crimes unless they are committed on them personally, your post above is total bullshit.

If we are paying idiots like you as much as we are (thanks to your bullshit union contracts) to enforce the law, then we should have an expectation that you will enforce the laws as they are currently written. And it is incumbent on you personally to know those laws, otherwise any department can operate with impunity by merely not informing their officers of any laws on the books that protect constitutional freedoms and basic civil rights.

Seriously, this might be the worst defense I've ever seen for extra-legal activity by police officers. I'm not the least bit surprised it came from a bootlicker like you.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i've taken PLENTY of citizen arrests.; in hawaii, where you can't arrest for ANY misdemeanor not in your presence (with few exceptions like DV), i took scores.

again, and i have no idea if "citizens" have the same immunity. if they do, it's not a double standard. if they don't, it is

i have NO Idea if that's the case, since it never came up in my career.

most citizen arrests are for
1) disorderly conduct
2) theft
3 trespass
4) simple assault (but i only take these when it's CLEAR it's not mutual combat)
5) misdemeanor car prowl

etc.

[VG Zaytsev]

If we are paying idiots like you as much as we are (thanks to your bullshit union contracts) to enforce the law, then we should have an expectation that you will enforce the laws as they are currently written. And it is incumbent on you personally to know those laws, otherwise any department can operate with impunity by merely not informing their officers of any laws on the books that protect constitutional freedoms and basic civil rights.

But sloopy,

The pigs are super talented and special that's why the law doesn't apply to them.

[neoteny]

you compare arrests WITH arrests

Why not compare acts committed in ignorance of the law with acts committed in ignorance of the law?

[Suthenboy]

I gotta say Dean, on a couple of occasions cops have warned me to stop doing something that had just become illegal instead of taking any legal action. And, they were nice about it.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yea, that';s even been official policy for us. like when a major traffic infraction changes (cell phone use for example), we were told to issue "verbal warnings" for a certain period of time, just to try to ensure that EVERYBODY got the message before we started ticketin'

[R C Dean]

That was some good policing then.

The point, though, is that you could go to jail for violating a brand new law, but a cop can't unless and until he's had some training.

You just have to show that cops are held to a different standard than "civilians".

Since "civilians" can't ever claim ignorance of the law as an excuse, the fact that cops can makes it, even in limited circumstances, makes it a double standard.

Now, if you can show me that citizens

[Dunphy (the real one)]

can you recognize the one distinction

there is a qualitative difference between making an arrest based on outdated law and acting based on a new law

the cops in this case did the former

without due notice of the law change

i will say one more time... i have no idea if a "citizen" made a citizens arrest based on a newly changed law, and he did not get the same protection, THEN it would be a double standard

i am not aware that cops BREAKING a new law (in terms of action , vs. enforcement) get an "official break"

that's not the case here

as i say consistently, but is consistently ignored, you have to compare COP arrests with citizen arrests

for example, i have taken citizen arrests on people who had some seriously fucked up injuries (the last one was a sex offender who was trying to lure kids into his car), and the prosceutors have NEVER charged.

because they give broad latitude to reasonableness for citizen (technically we don't call them citizens arrest herer usually, but when you detain somebody with force based on PC, that's waht it is) ARRESTS

so, again, compare apples to apples

i had another CA where a guy caught a 20 yr old in bed with his 15 yr old daughter.

um he was a bit "bruised" too

and the pros. know no jury in the land would convict

fwiw, in citizen ARREST scenarios citizens often get MORE leeway because they usually have less training and tools

[Dunphy (the real one)]

fwiw, there is one CLEAR double standard

a cop making an arrest has "qualified immunity"

a noncop has "good faith immunity" (in many jurisdictions)

contrast with prosecutors and judges who have ABSOLUTE immunity btw

the last major case i saw cop immunity lifted was the 9th circuit taser case

the scotus restored it on appeal 🙂

[DesigNate]

Can you explain to the class why you, or anyone else for that matter, deserves anything more than "good faith immunity"?

[Whahappan?]

Because "fuck you," that's why.

[VG Zaytsev]

there is a qualitative difference between making an arrest based on outdated law and acting based on a new law

Yeah,

Cause an arrest isn't a legal action.

You're a fucking retard.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

waiting for liar sloopy to find one example of me posting that i do not support the right to film. i can provide plenty of cites, if he makes a claim i haven't of threads THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN where i make it crystal clear i 100% support the right to film

lying sloopy is a liar
sloopy ignores all facts that disturb his "cops are evul derp derp" meme

[tarran]

Keep lyin about what sloopy said, Buckaroo.

It helps people get your measure.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

not at all. as people can say i gave a mea culpa and admit that i was incorrect on what sloopy posted. i read the beginning and kneejerked

see, i can ADMIT i am wrong.

the internet would be a much better place if people in blogs could admit being wrong

i was wrong.

hth

[Dunphy (the real one)]

note for tarran and sloopy: i falsely characterized sloopy's post (the beginning. he is still providing bogus info about the guy being "armed" and the cop shot him, since he wasn't just armed, he DREW HIS GUN) but on the issue of the filming thing sloopy did not do what i claimed i did

again, i was wrong.

people who aren't small ego having bigots can admit being wrong

being wrong means i learned something, usually.

it's not a bad thing

what is a bad thing is knowing you are wrong and denying it, or in the face of overwhelming evidence, refusing to look at it and concede you might be wrong

heck, i admit i was wrong when (for years) i opposed mandatory concealed carry as policy.

i was wrong

again, bfd

[Episiarch]

Dude, just fucking stop posting here. You're universally reviled, and frankly, people who don't use at least a modicum of proper punctuation and capitalization are worse than Hitler and should be tortured to death.

[$park?]

atfpapic, its no bfd. hth

[Dunphy (the real one)]

thx ur 3l33t kthxbai

[Episiarch]

I'LL KILL YOU

[Dunphy (the real one)]

sm00ches

[Episiarch]

That response wasn't to you, moron. It was me joking with Sparky. You do understand how the indented commenting works, right?

[$park?]

Maybe he just wanted to give you a little cop lovin Epi.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

and i care why?

[PS]

At least Dunphy doesn't cook "chili" with conversation hearts, brocolli and brony love.

[sloopyinca]

At least Dunphy doesn't cook "chili" with conversation hearts, brocolli and brony love.

[citation required that he doesn't]

[PS]

You are right, it's possible that Dunphy got his chili recipe from Epi.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i expect that. just as i expect to universally reviled if i go to the KKK site and spout black power shit

the difference is here i won't be banned

i like speaking truth to power, and i stand by my posts.

and i sometimes learn stuff, it's fun, and when i am wrong, i admit it

i'm not looking to become yer butt buddy, and to me - being truthful and honorable is way more important than being popular

every cop accepts that tacitly

if the reason 3l33t ban me, that's one thing, but i won't succumb to the pressure of bigots who ignore evidence and make ridiculous, fact-averse posts about cops

i've never seen on blog entry in reason that shows (for the sake of balance) how RARE police UOF's are, how ROUTINELY cops are fired for violating UOF doctrine and/or suspended, how routinely they are fired, etc.

i can post stuff from a small outlier group w/o any frame of reference and prove that cherries are a DANGEROUS killer if only post cherry choking deaths, not coinciding it with how many people routinely eat cherries

hth

and btw, the difference is - i don't hate people for being wrong, or beign bigots.

i have love in my heart

seriously.

hating somebody because of posts at reason.com etc. is beyond childish, but typical for a bigot nerd.

it makes you feel all manly because you can TALK BACK TO A COP DERP DERP

bfd

[sloopyinca]

i expect that. just as i expect to universally reviled if i go to the KKK site and spout black power shit

Seriously, dunphy, if you're gonna go down this road why not go all the way down and compare us to Nazis instead of the KKK?

Here's how you should word it the next time:

"i expect that. just as i expect to universally reviled if i go to the hitlerjunge site and spout that jews are human beings."

hth.

[Suthenboy]

" truth to power"

I dont even know what that phrase means but it makes me feel a little nauseas.

Aside from that, I dont hate you. You are dead wrong about the apt shooting though.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

like i said, i fully accept i may be wrong. i am saying that BASED ON THE STORY AT THE TIME (iow assuming it was true he came to the door with a gun drawn), the shooting was most likely justified.

however, if that's not true, and they are guilty of murder, charge those motherfuckers.

again, why is this skin off my back?

my original point is that if you come to the door, merely because the cops are knocking, with a gun drawn in yer hand, you are going to have only yerself to blame if you get capped

if it was NOT drawn, then of course that'snot the case

either way, i'm not WEDDED to a conclusion. i could not care less if it turns out the cops are guilty as fuck, except that if they are, i hope they are convicted

[burnt]

Where is the line on this then?
To use an example from real life, I heard metal clanging in my carport, right around a boat and a car one night at 3 AM.
I went to investigate, firearm in hand, for the obvious reason I was worried about thieves. It was only my idiot neighbor returning a ladder.
Was I the agressor here? Firearm was in hand, safety on, pointed at ground. When I saw the neighbor, I dropped mag and cleared chamber. How should I have reacted in this situation? Left the gun in the holster? Really?

[Whahappan?]

" truth to power"
Yeah, the all powerful libertarians vs. the oppressed, powerless police. He really is that delusional.

[DesigNate]

Your constant dig at nerds is pretty bigoted.

I feel all othered now.

[DesigNate]

I guess you've missed the subsequent articles that show the entry points of the bullets in the door and the fact that it was a right hand swing.

But keep on beating that drum that sloopy is a liar and a bigot. Makes you look like a real man.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

again, i said atfpapic - iow at the time i made the statement

i am not responsible for not knowing everything

again, if there is clear evidence his gun wasn't drawn, then the fact pattern has changed

hth

[$park?]

There it is again. ATFPAPIC. Is that the new acronym making its way around coptown these days? Dunphy, to make your posts easier to follow I suggest making your entire post into 5 letter acronyms for every group of 5 letters.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

no, it's a tacit acceptance that i am not privy to all the facts which are being constantly updated.

like i said, if the current fact pattern supports that the cops were lying, the shooting is unjustified.

and they should be charged.

that's why i try to include ATFPAPIC in my posts, because if i am going to make assumptions, i want to hedge them

when i take police reports,. write warrants, etc. it is incumbent to say (for example)

"according to Sally..."

and "according to John..."

iow, hedge different accounts of an incident that i didn't witness with different accounts

not uncommon fwiw for people to blatantly lie to police to try to get others arrested. that's why the War on DV is so injurious, because it revokes rights (such as RKBA on flimsy evidence).

i also take note of evidence, whether or not that evidence is incriminatory OR helps to show the suspect might be innocent

i routinely act according to statements of arrestees, to check out their alibis, etc. if possible and it is not uncommon for PC to be vitiated based what the SUSPECT said.

investigations are dynamic

the natural kneejerk stance of a reasonoid bigot is that the cops are suspect, the cop "victims" are golden truthful.

i am well aware some cops lie.

so, i will continue to hedge uncertain shit with ATFPAPIC.

[VG Zaytsev]

no, it's a tacit acceptance that i am not privy to all the facts which are being constantly updated.

And yet you're 120% certain that the pigs are telling the truth despite evidence that contradicts their statements.

Oh and that you become the aggressor when you answer a knock on the door of your home. The proper position for the proles is cowering in fear in their own home.

[sloopyinca]

What you call a "changing fact pattern," a sane person would call lies by the police being exposed.

You really are a sycophant when it comes defending your fellow civilians that wear badges and operate outside the bounds of the law.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yawn. not at all. if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the cops lied during the investigation, then they should be fired, and if the statements were sworn or otherwise perjury-prosecutable (most admissions made after being ORDERED cannot be presented as direct evidence in criminal trial agains tthe officer), then the cops should be charged

cops do bad shoots.

some cop shoots rise to the level of murder, some manslaughter (BART shooting - i agree with Balko), etc

i am ALWAYS willing to change my mind given new facts.

i am referring to the fact pattern i knew when i wrote my post. because i don't have a crystal ball

if there are sufficient facts to charge those cops, then CHARGE them

period. full stop

[sloopyinca]

if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the cops lied during the investigation, then they should be fired, and if the statements were sworn or otherwise perjury-prosecutable (most admissions made after being ORDERED cannot be presented as direct evidence in criminal trial agains tthe officer), then the cops should be charged

Oh, so there is a different requirement to take the case involving cops to a grand jury? Because if a "civilian" is accused and there's a shred of evidence, even if it's manufactured by the police, he or she will certainly be arraigned and put before the bar of justice.

Huge Double Standard #2 in just one thread. Jesus Christ. Is Equal Protection just two words thrown together to you, or do you have even a rudimentary knowledge of it's meaning?

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i have no problem with amending that statement, if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be convicted.

hth

[DesigNate]

Are you meaning drawn, as in out, or drawn, as in pointed at the officers?

Not that it matters much since they didn't identify themselves as cops so he could have thought it was *gasp* some thugs or other bad guys.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

uh, if they were in full uniform, the presumption is that they are cops. and if he FEARS who is at the door, don't answer it

again, that's the most salient point

either you feel confident answering the door (in which case you don't draw your gun) *or* you don't

if the latter, you challenge verbally "who's there"

i have had on a few dozen occasions whne i said "police" had people challenge me. and i give them our phone # for police dispatch and have them call and confirm a cop is in fact at their door

simple

in 20+ yrs, working in a VERY gun rich environment, and having knocked on tens of thousands of doors at all times, i have NEVER had a person answer with a drawn gun

NO weapons tactic class would teach this ever.

in fact, they teach you have to have specific articulable facts to draw it AND you have a burden NOT to escalate.

the door was simply knocked on. he escalated by drawing his gun before answering

and *IF* he did not have his gun drawn and the cops are lying, they should be charged period

fact patterns change

[Chris Mallory]

He was responding to two armed men outside his home. He had every damn right to point a weapon at them until they exited his property.

The solution to this is simply to disarm the police, totally and completely. Not even letting them have pepper spray or a tazer. Let them rely on the good graces of armed citizens if they need help. Otherwise, don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash, copper.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

no.

he was responding to a door knock. we have no way of knowing what his basis of knowledge was upon his coming to the door.

if your response to uniformed or clearly identified cops coming to your door is drawing a gun, and you get capped, don't come bitching to me

again, this is typical of the anti-cop people

you assume facts not in evidence to the best possibility of the other side

iow, he knew it was "two armed men" but apparently didn't recognize they were cops

and no, generally speaking, there is no such right.

there is a substantial difference in rights to protect the areas OUTSIDE your home (where the cops were standing) and your home itself

and note even the article didn't claim he POINTED it at them

regardless, you are wrong on the law.

he escalated the situation (ATFPAPIC) and he paid the price

and if his gun was holstered, most likely the cops were wrong

[Dunphy (the real one)]

in brief, knocking on a door is not an aggressive act. the duty is on the homeowner to query before opening the door if he feels unsafe

again, i could poll dozens of uof firearms instructors, those who teach civvies and/or cops, and they would agree that coming with a drawn gun in your hand merely because somebody is knocking is grossly wrong

[DesigNate]

That is patently stupid, especially depending on the neighborhood you live in and the particular crime rates at the time.

[The Fatman]

You are a serious fuck stick. How many times have home invaders dressed like cops. Or actually were cops, ala L.A. I get all the catalogs that you piggys get for uniforms and such. I can buy it all and wear it. It don't make me a pig.

[sloopyinca]

If you want to rehash the Andrew Scott killing based on the shot of the front door and try to jibe that with the cops' story, I'll be glad to go over it with you line by line.

The likelihood that he could have had a gun pointed at them is well below 5% just based on that photo alone. And there's no evidence that bolsters their claim. That's a best-case scenario that the entire report isn't fabricated. Any basic research into left- or right-handedness, door manufacture or angle of entry shows that there is overwhelming evidence that the claims the cops made are total bullshit.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

abd i have no problem with that, sloopy. plenty of cops shoot unjustifiably. these are new facts, assumiong they are true, and the evidence is different, than i have no problem with the cops being charged with the appropriate charge

again, fact patterns can change

like in the berkeley pepper spray case where i was near SURE it was unjustified and then i changed my mind

that 's why investigations are done

some cops commit murder. if the evidence supports that, charge them.

no skin off my back.

i want criminals charged (de minimus notwitshtanding)

[sloopyinca]

like in the berkeley pepper spray case where i was near SURE it was unjustified and then i changed my mind

It may be time to change it back since every investigation said the cops were wrong in the way they handled the situation. The only reason they weren't charged criminally is because they operate above the law.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

first of all, just because they operated wrongfully doesn't mean the behavior rises to criminality.

second of all, i have read the full report. i don't concede arguments from authoritah. based on the report i read which is the final one, they WERE justified.

i have no problem having an opinion that disagrees with "every investigation"

plenty of people here, including you, openly admit to having numerous positions that are rejected by every court, or nearly every court.

you constantly say "the law should be this" about cops, in many cases with stuff that you can't find a single court to agree with

and if your conscience and analysis leads you to that opinion, i RESPECT you have that opinion, although i may disagree with it

but i will never say "well everybody else who investigated it says X" therefore X is true

what i will say is that X is what was decided and stands as the official resolution

i respect your freedom of conscience and i have the same right

[VG Zaytsev]

again, fact patterns can change

Translation: lies get exposed.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

oh, and as will rogers once said (will rogers jr?) - it's not the things you don't know, it's the things you "know" that aint so.

iow, learning you are wrong is not something to be embarassed about.

and i readily do it (as i did when coeus corrected me about an arbitration statistics)

intelligent people enter ANY discussion with an underlying understanding that any of their fundamental underlying visions (to get all sowell) may be wrong, even

iow, i concede it MAY be possible that mandatory allowance of concealed carry nationwide is better policy than "may issue" as currently exists in many states

i STRoNGLY believe in shall issue, but i will never say on any issue that no data can ever get me to change my mind

anybody who truly says their mind is unchangeable on a topic isn't engaging in discourse. they are merely spouting

[sloopyinca]

anybody who truly says their mind is unchangeable on a topic isn't engaging in discourse. they are merely spouting

Either that or they believe in the concept of "Inalienable Rights."

[VG Zaytsev]

Or they're a cop.

[Fist of Etiquette]

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 1989 and again in 2005 that police officers don't have an expectation of privacy under the wiretapping law

Sounds like they need to rule again.

[R C Dean]

Nah. They just need to reject the appeal by the cop and the prosecutor that they have any kind of immunity for what they did.

[John]

Yup. If you the law is clear and they know about it and violate it anyway, they don't get immunity. I can't see how any cop who arrests someone for filming them in Pennsylvania can rightfully claim immunity.

[R C Dean]

and they know about it

So ignorance of the law actually is a defense if you're a cop (or prosecutor)?

That's messed up.

[Restoras]

Yes, but curiously it isn't a defense for us civilians. Funny, that.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

it MAY even be the defense if you make a citizen arrest. i have seen no case law either way.

but it is the current practice for officer's.

[R C Dean]

I gather that's the standard for immunity for police officers, d. Not just in citizen's arrest cases, but across the board.

[Restoras]

Dunphy is in a real bad mood. Some cop must have shot his dog.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i'm in a good mood. i am watching poker videos while my son naps.

as said before numerous times, the day i get angry or whatever using the internet, i walk away

it's childish to get angry because somebody disagrees with you.

i'm a libertarian. i believe in legalization of prostitution, hard drugs, the IRS, etc. that already puts me in a tiny minority

so what?

[Restoras]

So, you shot your own dog?

[sloopyinca]

i'm in a good mood. i am watching poker videos while my son naps.

Is he napping so he can get his body clock tuned to London time so be can be at his best for the Olympic Games? Or is it another one of your kids?

i'm a libertarian. i believe in legalization of prostitution, hard drugs, the IRS, etc. that already puts me in a tiny minority

No, you are an authority fetishist that supports a few activities but doesn't give a fuck about private property rights, 2A Rights, 4A Rights, 5A Rights or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Die in a fire.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

rubbish

the ironic thing is we agree on 95%+ of the stuff that the average dem or repub disagree with.

hey, even ron paul has some views that you would consider authoritah fetishist

like his lack of support of open border

that aside, i LOVE that it pisses you off that i am spoutin' the libertarian line, pimpin' libertarianism, AND i'm a cop

i know you are like one of those robots in star trek presented with data that 'does not compute" and you start smoking and blow up

and the best thing is i am entirely confident it PISSES you off, whereas disagreement with people doesn't cause anger or hate in me, because i'm not a little child like you.

i mean the fact that i can incentivize people to get a user name like "die in a ..." is so reasssuring to me, because i realize that the truth hurts, that even libertarians who claim to be the sole arbiters of "reason" lol can be just as bigoted, hateful, and fact averse as ANY ideologue

iow, the more we differ, the more we are just people.

i don't post TO piss people off. i post to speak true. but i find it amusing that such small, largely in some cases mostly worthless inconsequential basement dwelling nerds, can get filled with such hate

it really is sad.

[sloopyinca]

i know you are like one of those robots in star trek presented with data that 'does not compute" and you start smoking and blow up

Find me one episode where that happened.

And you're a libertarian in the same way Bill Maher is a libertarian: you both incorrectly self-identify yourselves. This is especially true because you do not care about equality, personal freedom or a just application of the law. You are the kind of filth we do not need associated with us.

but i find it amusing that such small, largely in some cases mostly worthless inconsequential basement dwelling nerds, can get filled with such hate

I don't know who you are referring to, but I'm not filled with hate. I just love pointing out hypocrisy, false self-labeling and idiocy in the name of the law.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

rubbish, sloopy. you just can;t stand that there are cop libertarians.

bill maher is a big govt. anti-RKBA statist ninny

i realize facts don't matter to you, but when we agree on the vast majority of issues that WE DISAGREE with the party platforms of both major parties and those issues happen to be ones supported by libertarians, we are libertarians

and you can play your purity game all you want, because you don't want to let any evul cops in yer club

tuff cookies, pumpkin

[sloopyinca]

I'd love to see libertarian cops. You know, ones that arrest officers that commit crimes by violating peoples' rights, that refuse to arrest people on bullshit charges and crimes that violate the constitution and ones that respect private property rights and leave people alone that aren't injuring anyone else.

When you come across a story of a cop that does these things in the name of liberty, I'll believe there are libertarian cops out there. So far, you haven't been able to link to any stories so I'll disregard your libertarian claims on those grounds alone. Nevermind your support of qualified immunity, double standards in citing behavior, allowing cops to get away with criminal behavior and in general working for an agency that doesn't recognize equal protection or libertarian principles.

Look, idiot.* You've told us on many occasions (including right in this thread) that you have let criminal behavior pass by fellow officers that you cited "civilians" for and that you support double standards that treat police as super-citizens. That alone disqualifies you based on the most basic principles of libertarianism.

*Please don't take that the wrong way. It doesn't mean I think you'd deserve a hail of bullets.

[VG Zaytsev]

that aside, i LOVE that it pisses you off that i am spoutin' the libertarian line, pimpin' libertarianism, AND i'm a cop

i know you are like one of those robots in star trek presented with data that 'does not compute" and you start smoking and blow up

Don't flatter yourself.

[sloopyinca]

I'm off to the dog park with my lovely wife and three (THREE!) dogs.

Enjoy dealing with Buckaroo Banzai here. I've done enough of it for one day.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

yes, i am sure your life is so complete

the difference between me and you, sloopy is that I do wish you the best, because i have love in my heart

and you are so shallow, i am sure you don't wish me the best

and generally speaking, a policy of treating people with respect , having a good attitude and having love in your heart pays off- for society and yourself

give it a try

[neoteny]

i have love in my heart

Love of what?

[VG Zaytsev]

Fucking with humans.

[The Fatman]

Love of the state and your "brothers" in the gang. I personally would like to watch you die in a fire with your progeny. Hell, I would light that motherfucker up myself.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

yes, i am sure your life is so complete

Actually, you douchebag, Sloop has a pretty good life. He comes from a nice family, has great kids, a lovely new bride, and a successful career. He is funny, brews pretty good beer, roots for tOSU, and is a genuinely nice guy.

Also, he isn't an authoritarian boot licker.

[DesigNate]

You know Dunphy, you'd probably garner more respect if you, just once, said that the cops fucked up and were wrong on a non-recording thread.

You want to speak "truth to power"? Why don't you start by telling your superiors that you refuse to enforce laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. Never mind "protecting and serving" instead of "enforcing".

And I for one think it would be great if there were more cops that were libertarians. Especially if they were brave enough to do that (don't y'all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, or is that just elected officials?)

[neoteny]

that's why the War on DV is so injurious, because it revokes rights (such as RKBA on flimsy evidence).

I'm sure that it chaps your copper ass to no ends, Dunphy, that DV is the one area where police is treated like all others: no amount of blue wall of silence or corrupt union support can weasel a cop out of the process.

Even Mirkarimi had to plead guilty to a reduced charge if he wanted to keep his gun -- and his job. That he's suspended without pay by the mayor is mostly politics, but he himself is a political animal so he only got what was coming to him.

[sloopyinca]

The PWNAGE in this thread is breathtaking. I'm gonna save it for future reference on the off-chance that I have a bad day and need cheering up.