Crime

"We are Coming to Find You and Monitor Every Step You Take": NYPD Stalks and Cyberstalks Juvenile Criminals

|

It's like Father Connoly's attempts to keep kids on the straight and narrow, but with fake Facebook accounts of hot teen chicks. The New York Times reports on an innovative [link fixed] (and highly invasive) new program to keep kids who've been arrested from committing more crimes.

Details with comments:

Officers not only make repeated drop-ins at homes and schools, but they also drive up to the teenagers in the streets, shouting out friendly hellos, in front of their friends. The force's Intelligence Division also deciphers each teenager's street name and gang affiliation. Detectives compile a binder on each teenager that includes photos from Facebook and arrest photos of the teenager's associates, not unlike the flow charts generated by law enforcement officials to track organized crime.

The idea, in part, is to isolate these teenagers from the peers with whom they commit crimes — to make them radioactive.

"We are coming to find you and monitor every step you take," said Joanne Jaffe, the department's Housing Bureau chief. "And we are going to learn about every bad friend you have. And you're going to get alienated from those friends because we are going to be all over you."

The police also keep tabs in more covert ways.

Detectives spend hours, day and night, monitoring the Facebook pages and Twitter accounts of teenagers in the program, known as the Juvenile Robbery Intervention Program, or J-RIP, and of their criminal associates. To do so, detectives create a dummy Facebook page — perhaps employing a fake profile of an attractive teenage girl — and send out "friend requests" as bait to get beyond the social network's privacy settings.

There are "nicer" parts of this stalk-y approach to citizens, like free turkeys and sneakers and help with gtting government benefits. And what sort of teens are targeted? Ones who live in East Harlem and the Brownsville section of Brooklyn–though interestingly, it targets only those young crooks who commit crimes outside their own neighborhoods. The program is based on the work of David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

"We tell these teens, 'You have a choice,' " Chief Jaffe said. "You will not victimize anyone else. If you commit a new robbery or any other crime that is going to hurt people, we are going to do anything we can when you get arrested to put you in jail. Your friends will get out. You are not getting out."

The background on the program:

Chief Jaffe created the program in January 2007 after she noticed a spike in robberies in Brownsville, a neighborhood with 21 public housing developments within 2.2 square miles. She tried traditional policing strategies, like increased foot patrols, but the robberies persisted, she said.

She decided to identify every juvenile under 18 who lived in Brownsville public housing and had been arrested for robbery, anywhere in the city. The result was a list of 106 teenagers linked to 132 robbery arrests in 2006. Only 24 percent of the robberies occurred on housing property — a distinction that was important to Chief Jaffe, because stopping these teenagers in Brownsville would have a beneficial impact throughout New York City…..

For Facebook, Detective Kennedy creates an avatar, typically the persona of a female teenager, and sends out "friend requests." Sometimes, accepted requests are followed by a come-on from the targeted teenager, like an inquiry about where the "girl" lives or whether she wants to meet up.

Department rules bar the detective from engaging, but he and Officer Ramos spend at least two hours daily monitoring the teenagers' chatter — alert for talk of fights, party plans and criminal activities. If a program teenager is looking for trouble, Detective Kennedy said he could often see it coming and hopefully intervene.  

These concentrated efforts have helped produce results: Of the 106 Brownsville teenagers, only 14 were arrested for a new robbery in 2007. The success led the department to expand the program to East Harlem in 2009.

That re-arrest rate is significantly better than the slightly more than 50 percent re-arrest rate to be expected from that category of criminal, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The rest of the story narrates some successes, and some failures of the Big Brother-ish (in all senses of the term) program, including an I guess supposed to be touching account of a sad youngster waving at cops as they leave his home after a visit from J-RIP officers to his 17-year-old sister, in the program for gun possession charge at 15 and a robbery and beating charge at 17. Then this:

"In low-income areas, nobody really believes in the police," a Brownsville resident, Renee Smith, said. When officers first visited her apartment after her 16-year-old nephew was arrested for robbery, Ms. Smith was suspicious and bemused. She looked at the two baby-faced officers, standing earnestly at her apartment doorway, prattling on about the program.

"I'm thinking it was some sort of trick to get into your business and get you in trouble," Ms. Smith recalled in a recent interview.

NEXT: Illegal Shades of Green

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. “I’m thinking it was some sort of trick to get into your business and get you in trouble,” Ms. Smith recalled in a recent interview.

    You’re a smart lady, Ms. Smith

    NYPD has gone full Stasi.

  2. Now I have Officer Krupke playing in my head.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq28qCklEHc

    1. Hey, Officer Krupke! Krup you!

  3. Detectives spend hours, day and night, monitoring the Facebook pages and Twitter accounts of teenagers in the program, known as the Juvenile Robbery Intervention Program, or J-RIP, and of their criminal associates. To do so, detectives create a dummy Facebook page ? perhaps employing a fake profile of an attractive teenage girl ? and send out “friend requests” as bait to get beyond the social network’s privacy settings.

    What could possibly go wrong? A pedophile would never volunteer for such an assignment and the opportunity for free access to teenagers via social media. Never!!

    1. Oh, come on, John. Any activity that involves teens or kids will attract pedophiles, so that’s not much of an argument.

      I am not terribly concerned about this because it is focused on small numbers of convicted criminals. It does seem like Angels With Dirty Faces, and that doesn’t seem bad, and it seems like it works. I am far more willing to have the police look closely at such people than to have them surveilling all citizens, searching random “suspicious” ones, etc.

    2. It has cool acronym, that’s what’s important.

    3. What could possibly go wrong? A pedophile would never volunteer for such an assignment and the opportunity for free access to teenagers via social media. Never!!

      I’d be more concerned with EFTA and overall bureaucratic inertia. Once started, the program (already with their clever acronym) will never disappear, and will only grow. Before long such an assignment will be much preferable to actual police-work and there will be medals for valorous conduct performed on Facebook.

      Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.

    4. Pedophiles can do that anyway. And pedophiles are into prepubescent children.

      My question is shouldn’t these cops be going to federal prison for violating the terms of use of Facebook? Like that dumb bitch who was mean to the girl who killed herself?

      1. Nevermind. The conviction I was thinking of (Lori Drew) was rightly overturned on appeal.

    5. Why would a pedophile be attracted to a teen targeted program? Are these teens prepubescent?

    6. Sweet evil jesus – more pedophile hysteria.

      Personally, this sounds like a halfway decent experiment (despite Doherty’s attempt to diss it because it doesn’t cover *every* teen convict).

      The main problem I have is the usual – the government isn’t competent enough to safeguard the info it gathers or to know when the program isn’t showing results and should be shut down.

  4. The NYT article link is wrong, it goes to Angels with Dirty Faces on Wikipedia.

    1. Thanks FB, link is now fixed.

  5. It’s better than just coming into some kid’s house and shooting him.

    Of course, this is more likely than not a mere preliminary.

    1. They have plenty of opportunities to go to people’s homes and kill their dogs and kids. They don’t need to create a special program to do that. That is just SOP. And moreover, if they used this, it would let the juvi cops have all the fun.

  6. I’m pretty sure I saw this on an episode of The Wire. And then McNulty got drunk and poisoned his relationships.

  7. If you commit a new robbery or any other crime that is going to hurt people, we are going to do anything we can when you get arrested to put you in jail.

    I’m sure when he says “anything” he doesn’t mean entrapment or torturing an confession out of you.

  8. Stop resisting!!!

  9. The idea, in part, is to isolate these teenagers from the peers with whom they commit crimes ? to make them radioactive.

    This worked like a fucking charm for Dirty Harry.

    IOh, wait-

    The program is based on the work of David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

    “We tell these teens, ‘You have a choice,’ ” Chief Jaffe said. “You will not victimize anyone else. If you commit a new robbery or any other crime that is going to hurt people, we are going to do anything we can when you get arrested to put you in jail. Your friends will get out. You are not getting out.”

    I wonder what they have to offer as an alternative; midnight basketball?

    1. Jimmy Vollmer suggests a lock in at the Rec Center.

      TIMMEH!

  10. OT: I’m not given to paranoia or hysteria but I’ve got to say that I can’t help viewing this as a tad ominous.

    1. The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

      That is nuts. What in the world could be the justification for buying those things for use in the US? I’m no conspiracy theorist either, but that is worrying.

    2. not that it changes the report, but the commenters at the site you link to are certainly given to paranoia.

    3. Most likely just a handout to a defense contractor crony. As if that’s not ominous enough by itself.

  11. In fairness to the cops, while I have real sympathy for kids who commit crimes like drinking and drugs or truancy and get caught up in the system, if you commit an armed robbery, you are fucking criminal and need to be locked up, I don’t care if you are 16. These little bastards need to be in prison so I don’t really care if the cops are harassing them while they are on probation and getting less punishment than they deserve.

    1. No where in that article does it mention “Armed” robbery.

      1. Unless it is real petty shoplifing, I still have no sympathy for them. And even if it is that, don’t steal shit.

        1. I agree… taking something by force or threat is just fucking evil, but I also know that the NYPD has a habit of trumping up charges and being convicted of robbery is not the same as being guilty of robbery.

          1. “taking something by force or threat is just fucking evil…”

            Hey if it’s good enough for Uncle Sam, it’s good enough for me. If you’re too much of a pussy to defend yourself, then I have every right to take your shit.

            1. By trying to take my stuff by force, you are, as far as I am concerned, forfeiting your right to live.

      2. I think that “robbery” is more than just theft, legally (though I suppose it may vary by state). Doesn’t it have to involve some kind of (not necessarily armed) assault?

        1. That is correct, Zeb. In New York, in particluar (because that is the subject of the article):

          S 160.00 Robbery; defined.
          Robbery is forcible stealing. A person forcibly steals property and
          commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or
          threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person …

  12. God forbid you come to the attention of the NYPD. It seems you will never be free from them again.

    1. If you are out robbing people, you should come to the attention of the NYPD. Again, if this is kids who committed real no kidding robberies, I really don’t give a shit how much the police harass them. They should be in jail.

      1. “I really don’t give a shit how much the police harass them.”

        Plug their fuckin’ butts with broom handles! That’ll teach’em!

    2. Once the local gang of armed thugs takes interest in you, the only thing you can do is move to an area patrolled by a different gang. They will never leave you alone.

  13. Outside of the Facebook creepiness, this seems like the kind of thing cops have always done in smaller towns. The cops keep tabs on the kids that get into serious trouble and let them know that they are on a short leash.

  14. They should be in jail.

    Fuck that bleeding heart shit. Cut their hands off.

    1. yeah Brooks, throwing thieves in jail. The humanity, the humanity.

      1. Not thieves; robbers.

  15. I knew this chick who worked at the jail. She said one of her favorite things in the world was to go into a bar, see someone she recognized, very loudly say “Hey [insert name here]! Aren’t you on probation!?! What are you doing here!” and watch them shuffle out the door.

    She had power. Not much, but she had power. And that made her world.

    1. That is the problem with jails. You have to have them. But only the worst sorts of people are ever going to want to work in them. This is why the liberal dreams of making jail rehabilitative was always just that a dream. Even if you had a program that would work, you could never get competent or compassionate people to run the program because competent and compassionate people don’t work in prisons.

      1. Replace “jails” and “prisons” with “governments” and that post still makes sense.

        1. There are lots of competent and compassionate people government. The problem is that being competent and compassionate isn’t good enough to overcome the inherent limitations of government actions.

      2. Maybe that’s the best argument for Swedish -style prisons. They get a different kind of employee willing to work there.

      3. Last week I had someone from the Sheriff’s Department try to recruit me to come work at the jail. One the selling points, at least in this person’s mind, was:

        It’s not like the hospital. All your patients are prisoners, so you don’t have to put up with their whining. You just threaten to tell the officers, and they usually shut up.

        Apparently, even the nurses who work at the jail are not competent or compassionate.

  16. Did anyone else read that little In Defense of Flogging book that came out a while back?

    1. No. But I heard about it. And frankly it makes some sense. From a humanitarian perspective, how is it more humane to lock someone up in a cage away from their friends and family for years than it is to subject them to a few minutes of even the worst pain? I am not seeing it.

      Also, we know that there is a point of diminishing returns for deterrence. If a flogging would deter someone just as much as years in prison and is no less humane, why not flog instead of prison?

      1. What? And take away overtime from prison guards? You monster!

      2. If I remember correctly the guy was proposing a simple ratio be set of prison time to strokes of the cane. The convicted could choose either the flogging or the prison time.

        I think especially for property crimes it’s much more effective. People who steal just learn more effective techniques in prison. Plus, unlike with prison, there’s no glamour at all to being flogged.

        1. There is a small number of criminals, my guess is around 20%, who are threats to society and need to be locked up. The other 80% are just stupid people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or basically decent people who made a mistake. I see no reason why canning wouldn’t work to serve justice and deter the other 80%.

          1. There’s a certain element that I wouldn’t call necessarily dangerous, but that habitually makes shitty decisions. Those decisions often end them up crossways with the law. You have to do something to these idiots, because actions have consequences. But at teh same time, locking tehm up for years doesn’t strike me as the best choice. They’re still the same dumbass who’s decision making skills are limited.

            For other reasons, this topic has been on my mind lately.

      3. I’d take a flogging over prison. And I bet a lot of people would choose the same. For this reason, I think it would have little deterrent effect for more serious criminals. I suppose jail doesn’t either, But at least jail keeps them from committing more crimes for a little while.

  17. Officers not only make repeated drop-ins at homes and schools, but they also drive up to the teenagers in the streets, shouting out friendly hellos, in front of their friends. The force’s Intelligence Division also deciphers each teenager’s street name and gang affiliation

    Sounds like a standard-issue episode of The Wire.

  18. These kinds of programs don’t work and will just build resentment and I bet they’ll feel even more tempted to do shit, if given the chance they can get away with it.

    I don’t think they should be treated as kids, because they are really young adults, or treated in this stalky manner just because they’re 16 instead of 18. But the problem is the concept of crime and punishment is all wrong. Rather than jail, which does them no good, does the victim no good, and does the tax payer no good, nor will this kind of stalky social program reform them, the entire system needs to be changed to define the crime as an act of aggression against the victim, rather than breaking the law (i.e. crime against the state).

    Then you can use the principle of restitution, which can include working, and if warranted, proportional retribution. That is, restitution to make the victim whole, and optional retribution to the proportional extent you’ve taken away the victim’s rights. These things can be negotiated between parties.

    If he robbed a store, why not make him work for that store for say, a year? He’ll have a clean slate if he behaves until then. If he assaulted someone, he’ll work to pay for the injuries, then if the victim wants, he can go with the default Hammurabic case–reverse assault which would settle the “debt” from the original violation of rights, or something else up to the victim, like working for charity (for free), etc

    1. No. All crimes are crimes against the State. The State is wise, and compassionate, and just. Trust the State. Love the State.

    2. Nothing says “hire me for a vocational rehab assignment” like robbing that same store.

      1. Ok, we’ll send em over to the monocle factory instead.

    1. “The teacher has been placed on administrative leave while both the Linden School District and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department investigate the alleged incident, but no charges have yet been filed.”

      Yeah, not like they have any, you know, evidence of a crime or something…

      1. She didn’t have a warrant. So it’s inadmissible.

        I guarantee this girl will be disciplined for setting up cameras.

        1. Actually under California law, the girl was perfectly within her rights to set up the cameras, and the police are free to use this evidence should she voluntarily submit it to them for their investigation.

          While the teacher did have an expectation of privacy in the locker room, the girl’s interest in apprehending the thief taking her stuff plus the fact she didn’t record indiscriminately but limited her surveillance to documenting criminal conduct makes it a pretty open and shut case.

          So the girl recorded legally. Even had she illegally recorded the material, police are often allowed to use the proceeds of one crime as evidence to prosecute another crime.

          1. Correct. In brief, the exclusionary rule is a (court created via case law) exclusion on evidence illegally obtained by law enforcement or agents thereof. It does not apply to “civilians”. I had a case where a “civilian” committed a Burglary once and in the process, gathered a lot of evidence. He was prosecuted for Burglary (he took a plea bargain for the gross misdemeanor of Trespass), but all the evidence he collected WAS admissible. Virginian doesn’t understand the exclusionary rule if he/she thinks it applies to a schoolkid… as long as the schoolkid was not acting on the direction of the police and there is no evidence that is the case.

        2. lol. Um, the exclusionary rule does not apply to NON-law enforcement (unless they are acting as agents of the police), so it most definitely WILL be admissible. I’ve had cases where non-cops have gathered evidence in the course of committing crimes (like trespass) and trust me – it’s admissible. The constitutional case law involving exclusionary rule is a limitation on LAW ENFORCEMENT not school kids acting as junios sleuths.

          Btw, there are some examples of exclusion by CASE LAW, like in my state, recording without two party consent, the recording is inadmissible even if made by non-law enforcement, but that’s by specific statutory contruction.

          In brief, Virginian, you need to bone up on the exclusionary rule – it only applies to cops/law enforcement.

          1. Btw, there are some examples of exclusion by CASE LAW, like in my state, recording without two party consent, the recording is inadmissible even if made by non-law enforcement, but that’s by specific statutory contruction.

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that states requiring two party consent of recordings only do so for audio recording, leaving video recording without consent perfectly legal.

            1. That’s correct. And there are a few exceptions to the two party consent rule – it must be a “private conversation” first of all, and various threats, etc. are excluded.

      2. This is part of the reasonoid lack of understanding of police procedure. There is no RUSH to charge people in cases like this. Once the person is charged, the speedy trial clock runs (see: due process). It is beneficial, in a case like this without exigency/lives in danger) to do a thorough extensive investigation BEFORE filing charges. Iow, it’s good police work. The idea that the cops should rush to charge is because you don’t understand police work or how the court system works. We do “rush files” all the time (charge within 72 hrs). That is based on very specific criteria, but in general, it’s the exception not the rule.

  19. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com…..22531.html

    Reason number one million why you should never send your kid to public schools.

    1. Tort’s hat: You take your victim as you find him. If the two chuckleheads beat the boy, resulting in a concussion which lead to the seizures that ended up killing him, they could be liable.

      Crim hat: They likely did not intend to kill him, but reckless or negligent homicide is still good for a few years.

  20. We’ve used the fake facebook and myspace accounts with great success. We’ve used them to locate felony and misdemeanor warrant suspects, gain intel on future crimes and especially get evidence on past crimes. It is amazing how often criminals will brag about their crimes, even post pictures of themselves with evidence from the crime on their facebook pages.

    If somebody is going to be dumb enough to friend somebody they don’t know, it just might be the cops. And trust me, they friend us all the time.

    The intel and gang units are the primary users of such intelligence gathering techniques.

    1. OMG I actually find myself on the same side as Dunphry!
      1. Look, these “kids” are on probation, are they not? Doesn’t probation include not associating with other criminals?
      2. Facebook is not private correspondence, it’s much closer to the public square. So if some dumb-ass is bragging about a crime, say in a bar, and a plainclothes officer overhears him, how is that any different?
      3. Asking somebody to do an illegal act is entrapment, asking somebody to talk about illegal stuff they have done is not.
      4. Yes, the police are violating Facebook’s TOS, but that is a civil matter, and should not be criminal, despite the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

      But don’t get cocky, Dunphry; even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while

    2. My wife likes snakes as pets and has tons of Facebook friends who are fellow herpers. She is always amazed at people who openly keep pets that are illegal to own. I mean, if you’re going to keep a Burmese python in a state where they are illegal, shouldn’t you keep it to yourself? Police are not very proactive. They rely on tips more than anything else. If you don’t tell anyone, they won’t drop a dime. Fuck. People are so stupid.

    3. I don’t want law enforcement just friending random accounts trolling for illegal acts without a good, specific reason for friending someone, but I have no problem with invitations to specific people suspected of criminal activity or parolees, etc.

  21. 1) Isn’t creating fake facebook accounts a federal crime according to federal prosecutors?
    2) What are these police going to think of their wonderful program when one of the kids they are shouting to gets offed because his crew suspects he’s working with the police?

    1. They won’t care when they get someone killed. See Dunphy above. Any non cop doesn’t qualify as a human being to these people.

      1. troll-o-meter: .01

        No kid has been “offed” by his crew, but if a kid joins a criminal gang, then the cops are doing their job by monitoring, within constitutional limits, the kids activity.

        And it is no more illegal for cops to set up a fake facebook account (note that this law has been covered at Volokh.com and is largely unenforceable. See, for example, the Lori Drew case where she posed as a male friend of the female who committed suicide. Orin Kerr wrote an amicus brief, and the case was overturned on appeal), then it is for cops to pose as drug users/dealers and in the process possess drugs, which OTHERWISE would be legal.

        It’s good police work – it doesn’t use force. It uses subterfuge and it lets the criminals incriminate themselves.

        Damn good police work. There is no privacy violation because the gang members “friend” the cops. THEY INVITE us in.

        As for John’s dumb comment, I’ve been cited for valor for saving lives (pulling people out of a burning building), and I’ve devoted my life to saving lives – as a lifeguard, firefighter, and now police officer. He’s just spouting nonsense. Cops shouldn’t NOT investigate criminals on the incredibly remote chance a criminal will be “offed” by his crew for providing intel to cops.

        1. I’ve never understood why cops should be able to break a law to enforce it. Of course, mostly it is drug stuff, which shouldn’t be illegal anyway.

          1. We both agree that there should be no drug war in the first place. I’ll just say that I prefer investigations that use subterfuge and stealth, to those that use force. Setting up fake facebook pages, or posing as a bad guy to catch bad guys is good police work.

            Reactive police work has its place, but proactive police work is necessary too.

        2. There is a big difference between setting up the fake facebook account and posing as a drug dealer, and that is a federal law known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Lori Drew conviction wasn’t overturned on appeal, but vacated by the district judge. It has no precedential value in the 9th Circuit or elsewhere. And DoJ’s position continues to be the ToS violations are criminal under the CFAA.

          “We’ve used the fake facebook and myspace accounts with great success. We’ve used them to locate felony and misdemeanor warrant suspects, gain intel on future crimes and especially get evidence on past crimes. It is amazing how often criminals will brag about their crimes, even post pictures of themselves with evidence from the crime on their facebook pages.”
          Just too ironic.

          1. There is ample case law that cops can use subterfuge and pose as criminals, in order to investigate crime. That’s what they are doing. We have had numerous criminal cases develop from such activity, and they have ALL HELD UP. Thus, the courts disagree with you.

            The DOJ can take whatever position it wants, and we will continue to do our job.

            Again, there are laws saying drug possession is illegal. And yet, cops possess drugs all the time when in the line of duty, and it is not a violation. The same concept applies here. I worked undercover for 2 yrs. I bought drugs on over 150 occasions. In none of those occasions was I in violation of drug possession laws, despite the fact that I possessed drugs. In fact, I was authorized per policy to DO drugs, if my safety was jeopardized.

            If cops can possess drugs as part of drug stings, they most definitely can pose as criminals, as part of criminal intel stings.

            1. Cops can possess drugs under certain circumstances because the drug statutes make specific exceptions for law enforcement. There are no similar exceptions under CFAA. You can continue to do what you want, and DoJ will likely not pick on you because you are part of the club. That doesn’t mean you aren’t committing a crime though.

              1. Like when he violates HIPPAA by asking pharmacists for patient information. Just because the kid’s public pretender doesn’t call him on it doesn’t mean it’s not illegal.

        3. There’s a difference between investigating a crime and harassing people who once committed a crime. Try and see if you can spot the distinction, will you, Fosdick? If you can indeed spot a difference, then maybe you can explain why the second one concerns us, but not the first.

          1. There is ample reason to keep tabs on, and investigate criminal gang members. We will continue to do so, and normal law abiding people support these efforts.

            Criminal gangs have an online presence, and we’d be shirking our duty if we didn’t follow.

            1. There is ample reason to keep tabs on, and investigate criminal gang members

              Probable cause is such a silly thing. We do police work by figuring out who we think is guilty and then harassing the shit out of them.

              Your primitive understanding of pretty much everything but the law in particular never fails to entertain.

    2. I think there is precedent against number 1.

      1. Correct. But that doesn’t bother the anti-police trolls.

  22. Well, in all fairness. If the State is going to be your mommy, might as well be your daddy too!

    1. I know a cop who had a complaint lodged against him. He was involved in a pursuit of a subject who was throwing bags of cocaine out the window, was a convicted felon, and in possession of an illegal firearm (felon in posession as well), and had warrants. When he finally caught the bad guy, the bad guy fought with him, and the cop finally got him in handcuffs after a long struggle (cop is former golden gloves btw). He said “you fight like a little bitch. Who is your daddy now?”

      Arrestee made a complaint, based on that.

      Seriously.

      NOW THAT is a whiny bitch

  23. There are “nicer” parts of this stalk-y approach to citizens, like free turkeys and sneakers and help with gtting government benefits.

    Shit worked when Nino Brown gave Pookie the turkey.

  24. This type of tactic is only a problem when law enforcement stalkers can engage in questionable surveillance activities with full impunity and practically zero accountability.

    Bring on civil liberties stalkers who can monitor police activities to make sure cops work well within ethical rules and perhaps some good will come of this. Until then what the open society of law-abiding individuals who resist thinking critically are inviting is a burgeoning police apparatus that grows increasingly comfortable with bending the rule of law to justify playing at the edges of dictatorship.

    On one hand it is beneficial to have police work intelligently and ethically to contain crime- on the other hand it is counter-productive and ultimately destabilizing to the workings of a free society to allow police full rein to mimic criminal behavior in the pursuit of enforcing law. This is partially why corruption is rampant within many police departments here and around the world.

    The world of law enforcement operates a hair’s breadth away from criminality and rather than maintaining a healthy distance from aberrant behavior many of these uniformed klutzes at all levels revel in pushing the boundaries, as if the world is one big Hollywood blockbuster and they are the film’s star attraction.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.