One Nation, Under Surveillance
Tim Dees
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
As if we didn’t need more bad press, a police sergeant from St. George, MO was suspended this last week after his tirade directed at a motorist was captured on videotape. This is unfortunate on several levels, but it should also make for a warning flag for other cops, because the tactics used by the “victim” in this incident are becoming increasingly commonplace.
The incident has been a hot topic on the Officer.com discussion forum, where some people might expect the cops there to be defending the Missouri sergeant. For the most part, this hasn’t happened. The prevailing tone is that the sergeant was out of line and unprofessional, but also that he was baited into the incident by someone that was looking to push his buttons, and succeeded. Cops are supposed to be paragons of self-control, and they usually are. But every one of us has a hot button (maybe several), and if that gets pushed, bad things are likely to happen.
People who are personal privacy activists decry the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American society. A few years back, the instructor in a video forensics workshop I attended said that the typical person has their image recorded on a surveillance camera 11 times every day. If you live or work in the downtown portion of a large city, you can probably double that; if you work in a high-value terrorist target area, like Washington, DC, you can quadruple it. Cameras placed by government officials are only a fraction of those that will capture your image and activities. There are cameras at every ATM, in most supermarkets and “big box” stores (when I walk into the local grocery, I can check myself out on the flat panel monitor above the entry door), at gas stations, and in convenience stores. Many office buildings have cameras in their elevators, hallways, or overlooking parking lots.
Then there are the cameras that just about everyone has with them these days. Cell phone cameras are not just a standard feature on most phones–they’re reasonably good cameras, too. The same cell phones will take passable full-motion video, with sound, and many will act as voice recorders. The point here is that you will have to go to considerable trouble to be in a place where your activities can’t or won’t be recorded for future disclosure.
The individual in the St. George incident has a camcorder mounted in his vehicle, pointed out the windshield, much like the dash cameras in many police vehicles. He also has a police scanner mounted in his car, and both were activated before he parked in the empty commuter lot in the small hours of the morning, where he was approached by the police sergeant. Now, there is nothing illegal about this setup (in most states, anyway, and presumably in Missouri), but a reasonable person might conclude that the driver was looking for a confrontation. When asked for identification, he began questioning the sergeant’s authority to demand it under the circumstances, and the sergeant unfortunately went off the reservation in terms of the threats he made and the language he used to make them. The driver had created that situation carefully, and knew exactly what the sergeant could and couldn’t do. The sergeant was wrong, but he was still being played, and played well.
This is where this proliferation of surveillance becomes a two-edged sword for law enforcement. Video evidence is a great tool for catching crooks, but it can catch cops at their worst moments, too.
It shouldn’t be any big surprise that there is a good sized contingent of people out there who hate the police, and make it their mission in life to discredit, harass, and and/or vex the cops as much as they can. The individual in the St. George case has gone to a little more trouble than most, but he’s certainly not alone. The stated intention of these crusaders is to stop police harassment and make the public aware of abuses of authority. But when you look a bit more closely, you’ll find that most have some serious problems with living within the law. They’re far less concerned with civil rights violations than they are with intimidating cops into overlooking their transgressions. Hey, it worked for Rodney King–for a while, anyway. They also want to get that sweet revenge. If they can’t jam up the cop that gave them the ticket or arrested them, any cop will do. This guy is now a national media hero for having revealed this shocking episode of police misconduct to the world. The follow-up stories are focusing on skeletons in the closet of the St. George sergeant and his chief. Don’t hold your breath waiting to see any investigative report special feature on the record of the guy in the car.
These days, you have to do everything as if you’re going to be on national TV tomorrow night, because you very well might be. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as we should all be on our best behavior, all of the time. And we all know of cops that are routinely abusive, and have no business being cops. But cops are also in the business of dealing almost exclusively with a cohort of people that make their living by identifying and exploiting the weaknesses of others. We shouldn’t let them push those buttons that they are so good at discovering. Even so, I know I’ve let people get to me, and I think just about everyone else has a similar experience or two.
There are some defenses here. First, get into the habit of playing The Court Game. Every time you even think about taking some kind of police action, ask yourself, “What is my lawful authority to do this?” If you’re thinking, “I don’t have to do that,” then use this incident as your example. Did the St. George sergeant have legal justification to demand to see identification? If so, what was that justification? Did he have the authority to order him out of the car in this situation? What was that authority? Instead of dismissing this with “That’s the law,” are you talking about statutory law or case law? Which case or statute do you have in mind? And when was the last time you actually read that case or statute? It’s not unreasonable for people to expect police officers to know the laws they are enforcing, and where the limits to their authority end. The use of intimidation to encourage compliance with orders is a common tactic and one that certainly has its place. The caveat here is that the basis of the intimidation has to be something you can actually do. Don’t make threats that you aren’t prepared to carry out, because eventually someone will force you to do it.
Second, listen to yourself talk to people. Are both your words and your tone professional and composed, or are you shouting and using obscenities? Excitement and agitation can cross-amplify people, so that when one gets loud and profane, the other follows suit. If a disinterested party was watching or hearing the encounter, who would come across as the more reasoned person? Cops don’t have the luxury of anger, even though they constantly deal with people that inspire it. If you allow the other person to make you angry, you have ceded control of the situation to them.
Third, have a way of corroborating everything you say and do. If you have a patrol car camera, use it religiously. The St. George sergeant had a dash camera, but he didn’t activate it, violating his department’s policy. The first reaction of the anti-cop faction was that this was to facilitate a cover-up of the sergeant’s actions, or that he had the camera on, then destroyed the recording so it couldn’t be used against him. Either way, it puts him on the defensive. If you don’t have a dash camera, buy a digital sound recorder and keep it in your pocket, activated at all times. You won’t remember to turn it on in a crunch. There are many models that record to a memory card instead of tape, and have capacities much longer than any shift you’ll ever work. The recordings can be transferred to a PC hard disk if you want to maintain an archive.
If we use all the video recording devices out there to collect evidence on and convict crooks, they can be a great tool. But you have to know also that you are also under constant, covert surveillance, and that any recording of you doing something wrong, or something that appears to be wrong, will be used to convict you in the court of public opinion, where there are no rules of evidence, there is no discovery, and where the video can be edited so as to make you look as bad as possible. You don’t have to like it–you just have to deal with it.
Well, no; the St. George police chief has admitted that the cruiser’s recorder is automatically turned on when the cop turns on his lights . . . but the tape has “mysteriously” vanished.
It’s not “anti-cop” to, after watching the entire tape — available on youtube, uncut and uncensored — conclude that this particular cop is a thug who should be prosecuted. Making excuses for him, as you have, merely spreads the stink further than it deserves to be.
I agree 100% with your assessment. This isn’t the 1st time someone has secretly recorded the cops and later got them into trouble.
>there is a good sized contingent of people out there who hate the police
I suspect it’s actually a small, but loud percentage. Folks I talk to believe cops are our friends and we absolutely need them.
>Don’t hold your breath waiting to see any investigative report special feature on the record of the guy in the car.
He doesn’t look pretty either; the baiting is clear. But he also doesn’t carry the weight of authority. Officers have a much higher standard to answer to, as it must be.
>There are some defenses here.
Well written. Should be standard training.
>and if that gets pushed, bad things are likely to happen.
I have a problem with the word ‘likely’. The nature of a cop’s job requires more self-control than the average person might have. Is that accounted for in the screening process?
>focusing on skeletons in the closet of the St. George sergeant
Ugly and irrelevant, but it’s the world we live in. Shouldn’t be a surprise.
A good friend of mine is a cop so I get to hear about what a-holes they deal with. Maybe cops should start posting those videos!
Enrico: the recording wasn’t secret. Watch the vid.
So now it’s “tactics” for motorists to use the exact same technology that officers use to document encounters, in order to protect themselves from allegations of misconduct, in order to prove that those very same allegations actually happened? We’ve already found that we can’t rely on Sergeant Kuehnlein’s squad cam, due to his mysterious “glitches”.
After watching the entire tape, I would not quibble with the motorist being labeled a victim, because he was most certainly verbally assaulted and threatened with trumped-up and false charges merely for asserting his Constitutional rights. He absolutely was a victim of this rogue officer. Why are you still defending him?
“but a reasonable person might conclude that the driver was looking for a confrontation”
Says who? The individual had already been the victim of harassment by another department, and had won a settlement for that harassment. I think it’s “reasonable” to assume that he was exercising due caution, in order to avoid any further “misunderstandings”.
“Don’t hold your breath waiting to see any investigative report special feature on the record of the guy in the car.”
If there was anything there, and if the officer’s attorney was any good, we’d already know if there were anything negative in the motorist’s past. I highly doubt that the motorist got a friendly judge to expunge a lengthy criminal record, like the officer was able to do. In any event, it’s the officer’s conduct that is under scrutiny, not the motorist’s. Again, why are you still sticking up for this bad cop?
“The St. George sergeant had a dash camera, but he didn’t activate it, violating his department’s policy.”
This is a falsehood. As Joel stated, the cam was automatically activated by the bubble lights, and Chief Uhrig has admitted that the system was in perfect working order.
“It shouldn’t be any big surprise that there is a good sized contingent of people out there who hate the police”
We don’t hate the police. In fact, we appreciate and respect the job that honorable officers do. What we (I’m speaking for myself here) hate is when people given authority to use deadly force and detention abuse those privileges, and we especially dislike it when other cops carry their water for the abusers just because they’re cops, too. If your profession was more proactive and vocal about getting rid of the “bad apples”, the good and honest police wouldn’t have nearly the image problem that they do.
“Third, have a way of corroborating everything you say and do”
Why should the general public be any different? The motorist documented everything, and now he’s reaping the benefit of his foresight. Watch the tape, and check out 4:06, when the officer’s attitude magically changes once he finds out he’s on TV. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.
By the way, Enrico, there was nothing “secret” about the recording. The camera was in plain sight.
Respectfully,
Doug
“Don’t hold you breath waiting for the investigative report of the kid…”
Why would anyone investigate a kid? He has no public job or badge.
It’s the “unprofessional cop” that we care about. Lots of “kids” have attitudes, agends, make mistakes, etc. That’s why we hire cops, to handle any problems.
The “kid” may not be your cup of tea, but there’s lots of people much more unpleasant than a polite kid with an angle.
If a cop can’t handle this polite “young boy” he surely couldn’t handle some of the other people that police meet on a routine basis. Anger means fear. I bet that cop doesn’t threaten them; he’d betoo scared.
That the officer’s video of this incident “mysteriously” vanished seems to me to vindicate Darrow’s approach. Over and over, we see the public can’t rely on good officers to police the bad. The “stop snitching” code didn’t originate in the ‘hood.
Whilst I’m not familier with this particular case, there is some limited parallel discussion here in the U.K. about the increasing incidence of Law Enforcement Officers using “Head Cams”.
In much the same vein, the idea of using an officer mounted video surveillance system, is likewise a double edged sword, being able to gather vital evidence at one level, whilst equally providing senior officers and the legal system, with a constant record of a patrolling officers every move.
The application of this technology whilst still relatively knew, has been endorsed by the recent announcement of significant funding from the UK government, to facilitate cap mounted cameras, for cops operating throughout the country.
It is perhaps also worth considering that although video surveillance can provide vital evidence in a whole range of investigations, the prevelance of inappropriately configured and operated camera systems can often provide as much a barrier towards identifying suspects, as a benefit.
For video surveillance to fulfil its undoubted potential as a serious tool in the law enforcement arsenal, it must be applied appropriately and effectively, and that is often as much about technique as technology.
Almost every analysis of this incident dwells on the “professionalism” of the officer in question while ignoring his repeated threats to commit perjury. The functioning of the judiciary depends on agents of the state being dependable and reliable witnesses, because few offenses could be established in a system that assumes the innocence of the suspect if a police officer’s testimony were not privileged. What civilized and enlightened culture would implicitly trust an officer’s testimony if there were any significant frequency of abuse of this trust? What is a judge or an ordinary citizen supposed to think about a charge like “resisting arrest” or “disorderly conduct” in the light of the Darrow incident? How much suspicion has to develop concerning officers’ judgments and assertions before all claims without physical evidence become suspect? Kuehnlein’s actions strike to the very fundamentals of democratic government, and the protection of our society demands clarity of principle that a law officer must never even contemplate the production of false charges, and any who dare do so must be ostracized.
This guy is a Bozo. If he had done this to me, he would be dead right now!
There is nothing more pitiful than someone who has obviously never walked in our shoes trying to act like they know what they are talking about. Everyone knows that you can sue the police for anything and they will pay you off. This guy has sued the police before and he probably set this up with dollar signs in his eyes, why else would you waste your time like that. People wonder why there is a hiring(recruiting and retention)crisis in every major city in America right now. Who in there right mind would want this job? Go out there everyday and deal with thugs who spit in your face and dare you to defend yourself…because they know your department will crucify you if you put a scratch on there precious little head. The liberal contigent in the country are tying police officers hands so tightly that we feel as if we can’t even defend ourselves. More officers have been killed (by gunfire) the first 8 months of this year than all of 2006… We are being hunted because we are too scared to fight for ourselves. When we lose our ability to command respect from the lowliest members of society the battle is over. Most departments are desparate to hire officers that little consideration is given to these peoples ability to defend themselves much less the public at large. Now we have to deal with idiots setting us up when they have nothing better to do?? I hope all of you Douglas Hesters and Joel Rosenbergs out there are the ones that reap what you sow. I hope it’s the most vulnerable members of family tjhat are violated by the little punks that the police are to scared to stomp a 6 foot mud hole in their heads when they obviously desrve it. I hope the next time you call for help the police don’t show… maybe some little hethern with a video camera will come plug the holes some gang bangers shot in your torso…but I hope not.
James, that’s just bloody wonderful. Wish for violent death for someone’s family because they dare to hold someone to account?
So somehow, the guy driving into a parking lot to wait for a friend is ’setting the officer up’?
One way or another, I’ve been around law enforcement most of my life. I’ve known a lot of people I’d trust absolutely; I’ve also known some I wouldn’t trust to guard an empty doghouse. And all too often, the officers around them who KNOW what a dirtbag they are, do nothing, because “He’s one of us, after all.”
I get the feeling that’s what’s happened here. This officer kept getting away with crap like this for years, and now it comes back to bite him. What bothers me as much as his actions, is the defense of him as if nothing he did matters. “Yes, he went over the top BUT…”
“james,” if you believe confabulated stories, falsified charges, and contempt for the public are the prerogative of the police, let me earnestly encourage you to seek a different line of work: one that does not involve contact with people. Society does not require your “contribution.” I’d rather take my chances with people who don’t hide their criminality.
Sgt. Kuehnlein was out of control, plain and simple. Don’t try the “you don’t know what it’s like to be a cop” ploy this time, because I know what a threat to fabricate evidence sounds like. Any cop that is proven to have threatened to fabricate evidence should be immediately terminated. I can understand losing your temper and letter a few cusswords out, I think we can all get with that. That’s not the issue here. The issue is the fact that this cop violated every ounce of trust the public ever invested in him. Yes it’s a tough job, but Kuehnlein obviously doesn’t have the legal, ethical, and moral compass that is required to do it properly.
Out come the civilian cop bashers.
They flock to this site when they smell blood in the water. I have to pretty much agree with Mr. Dees’ take on this one. I think I understand his point, but enter the cop bashers, intent on tarring us all with the same brush. Let’s look at what they have to say, shall we?
JL says:…”If he had done this to me, he would be dead right now!” Well, Mr. JL, what a nice thing to say. Thank you for your input.
If you’re a cop, you are way out of line for saying this.
If you are a civilian, you are still way out of line. You might think saying it is no big deal — free speech and all. Well, many of us have been told that by people willing and able to go through with it. Its not funny, cute or persuasive. You blew your chance to be taken seriously.
Going up the line…Johnny: The cops can’t find the tape, huh? Well, gosh; or victim seems to have one of his own, so whats the big deal? Oh, you must be of the school of thought where the lack of evidence (OF COURSE!) = solid evidence. Throw in the tired saw about “The “stop snitching” code didn’t originate in the ‘hood.” for good measure. Heard that crap before. Yawn. Enjoy your visit.
Mr. Hester, despite your statement about not hating cops, you launch into all cops for the actions of this one. And, of course, you briefly walk the path of no evidence = evidence. Again, no cop tape? Who cares? You have one. Sigh.
Yes, it was a tactic. The web has various sites where cops have been goaded into doing something they shouldn’t. It does not excuse the mistakes these guys made, but if the shoe was on the other foot, you would scream entrapment. You’d be right.
Then you continue: “What we (I’m speaking for myself here) hate is when people given authority to use deadly force and detention abuse those privileges…”. The officer was rude, he made some threats to arrest, he lost it. No one got hurt. He will be dealt with, there are systems in place. He did not use deadly force that I know of, unless theres some part of the tape I missed. Of course, could it be possible that you want to plant that seed that we are all just seconds away from gunning down people that annoy us? Otherwise, why bring up what is not even remotely true?
And you continue: “…we especially dislike it when other cops carry their water for the abusers… if your profession was more proactive and vocal about getting rid of the “bad apples”, the good and honest police wouldn’t have nearly the image problem that they do.”
You seem to be one of those who wants to perpetuate that image. I think, had you read Mr. Dees article with an open mind, he was warning cops to always behave as the professionals they should be, that persons with agendas will record you, and not in the interest of passing on good reports to the press. Thats all.
I think the victim got exactly what he had hoped he would. If the taper had prior alleged ‘harassment’ problems, then this smacks of simple revenge. He caught the cops in the wrong! I got ‘em now! Watch them squirm! It was like he jumped in front of a speeding train, and then blamed the railroad. Sad that the taper did it, sadder that it looks like the bait was taken.
I see no one carrying the water for bad cops. I, if I may speak for law officers, resent the implication. No one is really defending the sergeant’s bad judgment. There are lines that should not be crossed. I do not have all the facts a full investigation will have, but on the surface he looks like he crossed it.
But, I guess in your world a civilian in this fix would still be referred to in the press as “the alleged offender”, but this cop is automatically fully guilty of losing his temper — and the rest of us with him.
Sorry the posters feel that way. The world must be very scary for you.
I agree with “James” about these anti cop maggots who want to cruxify a cop when they are not the bad guy. As a retired officer I have had my share of these people whose sole mission in life is to make a cop’s life as unbearable as possible. Let’s make one thing clear; if an officer makes a traffic stop and tells the driver to show him his identification the driver has no “right” to ask him by what authority does he do it. This driver was only trying to start an altercation so he could get a scumbag lawyer to file a bogus suit against the officer. So, to the anti cop left wing liberal scumbags Joel & Douglas, I hope some of these “harassed victims” catch you one day and do what they do best: be criminals. Both of you dumbasses need to suffer a good beatdown while the police watch so you two don’t violate the criminals “rights”!!!! Better yet, all you two need is what James spoke of; some gang bangers putting some rounds in your head. Let the police do their job!!
I watched the video. The cop does not know he is being recorded initially. To me that is being secretly recorded. Regardless of semantics, I don’t condone the officer’s actions. I agree with Tim’s take though.
The officer’s conduct cannot be excused, however, I don’t believe the rationale for approaching the young male was wrong. If I observed a vehicle with one male occupant near a computer store in the middle of the night, I’m quite sure I would investigate based off of REASONABLE SUSPICION!!! This is how cops catch bad guys. This is why the police investigate crimes. This is why most of us can sleep at night without worrying about somebody kicking our door in and stealing all of our stuff in the middle of the night. This officer, I’m sure, knows this city better the any of us submitting our comments. This particular area may have been targeted before by criminals, therefore, the officer was probably making sure that the one young male. sitting stationary in the parking lot, was not going to be a criminal threat. In conclusion, I do agree the officer’s behavior in not excusable, however, his rationale for making contact with this young male was in my opinion, justifiable.
In all fairness to the officer, the kid could have had a turn signal burnt out. Just because the dash light indicates that it’s flashing isn’t always true. This is just one bad officer that doesn’t deserve the public’s trust or respect. I have several problems with this officer.
1. It appears that he might have been out of his jurisdiction, in that it has been revealed by another poster that this parking lot is in an un-incorporated part of the county.
2. What is his probable cause? Weaving within his lane of traffic isn’t a crime. If it really was the turn signal issue he might have reason to give a fix-it ticket, but the officer doesn’t even suggest they test the signal, so I doubt that was it.
3. There is no excuse for raising his voice and swearing at the kid. The young man questioned the officer’s authority, which he has every right to do.
4. The young man also knows his rights better than the officer. It’s not the law; it’s The Constitution, which pre-empts ALL laws. The officer should know this. He swears an oath to uphold The Constitution.
5. The young man has every right to tape and film this ‘event’. If it weren’t for the film, it would have been his word against the officer’s, and we all know that an officer won’t lie or embellish his side of the story.
The police don’t like having their own methods used against them, it takes away their invincibility in court. The police better get used to having their actions recorded and used against them. The police are supposed to protect us from criminals. Who is protecting us from the police? We have to do it ourselves.
.I would like to address the statements of the officers on this forum, in calling non law enforcement “civilians”.
I am a Army Lt., and my brother is a police officer. He jokes with me all the time about the “civilian” aspect of our jobs. The simple fact is that police officers are civilians with authority given by the immediate public. (this is stated by the fact that we in America do not have a formal militarized police force)
Non-civilians, militarized personnel, are held accountable (quite vigorously) by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. In which, non criminal acts are punishable by loss of liberties, pay, and even confinement.
So to the officers that state a non civilian status. This concept is mainly a self imposed proclamation by governing police forces in the united states without any Legal or ethical backing. (stating again that our domestic policing is not formally militarized)
OK, well put.
Not right, Mr. jeffrey, but well put. “In all fairness to the officer…” you start, and then become everything but fair. You show your lack of knowledge about statutes and case law. You know, the stuff we work with every day. Lets see how you score:
1. Jurisdiction. I’m unclear myself on Missouri law, but most states do not make cops rein in the horses at the line like an old movie western. In my state you may take the action the officer took anywhere in a reasonable distance from that imaginary line. Suspicious circumstances? yes, you would be on firm ground. In recognition of the fact the 21st century is here and people are mobile, some states even allow enforcement action anywhere in the state.
2. Weaving in your lane? Case law says that may be used as part of your PC. Turn signal out? Thats a violation, you may stop the violator. If you feel that its too minor to allow the police to stop him, well, whats your threshold where laws actually start being enforced? Where is the line where laws are *really* laws and not suggestions?
Wrong. The courts say there is no such thing.
But, wait, you imply that you can’t stop someone for a minor violation with the real reason of questioning them further? Hmmm. What do the judges say?
No, sorry. the US Supreme Court (you know, the guys that decide constitutional issues?) says you may stop someone, as long as the violation is present.
3. Yes, the officer was unprofessional and should not have raised his voice. But did the kid have the right to refuse to comply with lawful requests, based on the fact he wanted to debate the matter?
No, sorry. Thats what the courts are for.
4. “The young man also knows his rights better than the officer…” No, sorry again.
5. “The young man had every right to film this event…”
Oh, I’m so sorry. In most states all secret or without consent recording without warrant, especially audio, is a felony. Again, I don’t know the law specifically in Mo. His mileage may very. However, it still doesn’t change the nature of the “victim’s” mindset.
“The police don’t like having their own methods used against them…”
Thats right, you’re wrong: We just don’t like to be baited any more than you do. Many jurisdictions tape their stops, and these tapes may be subpoenaed by either side. We don’t do this hoping to make it on some lame TV car chase show.
“The police better get used to having their actions recorded and used against them.”
This has been going on for years. This guy did NOT invent the camcorder. Your threat is hollow, and decades late.
“The police are supposed to protect us from criminals.”
*ding* You are correct, sir.
“Who is protecting us from the police? We have to do it ourselves.”
So you are advocating vigilante justice? Bad move. Every jurisdiction has agencies watchdogging it, and you have recourse in the courts. Run your camera, if law permits. Fine. Now, report this to the proper agencies for review. (The agency’s chief, state attorney general, the feds, local prosecutor) Run to the press? No. You know that law stuff you kept talking about? It protects us, too. From revenge, from false complaints, publicity hounds, etc. You know, due process and all that. You have to give us that, the constitution gives it to us, too.
This kid wanted what he got: he baited a cop who got in his face, and then ran to the press so the matter (rudeness?) could be tried there.
Sorry, jeffrey. I’m afraid you missed most of the questions. You have an anti-cop agenda, based on talking points you read somewhere. The officer was rude and crude, and based on the tape most likely should be disciplined. Your grasp of the law, is lacking, and you probably will loose every legal argument.
“krupak” and Sgt. Garrett, I don’t understand what causes you both difficulty with the criticism here. There are plenty of shysters in my field, and I’m happy to see them discovered and dealt with. I don’t make excuses for them; I don’t blast their accusers with angry epithets; I don’t offer constellations of “yeah, buts…” I regard cleaning out corruption as a good thing for the reputation of my field as a whole.
I’m amazed at the way some in your field seem to react to these things: resentment (”civilian cop bashers”), paranoia (”sole mission in life is to make a cop’s life as unbearable as possible”), disrespect for the rule of law (”driver has no ‘right’ to ask…”), parochialism (”you don’t know what our job is like”), innuendo (”this driver was trying to start an altercation”), rationalization (every action can be deemed suspicious with a little imagination), false dilemmas (”would you rather have abusive cops or abusive gang-bangers?”), topped with high-school name calling (”left wing liberal scumbags”). Do you understand how your inability to engage in respectable disagreement calls into question your judgment? Can you see how your inability to distinguish between the exercise of civil liberties and criminal activity makes you dangerous to democracy? Your “outraged authoritarian” posture does not impress me: I do not regard you as moral exemplars, but more like enfants terribles.
This is to answer Mr. Wokoun, After reading your opinion I am caused to ask a few things about you and your kind. Why is it paranoia to state the fact that there are people out there who truly do live to make a cop’s job/life as unbearable as possible? These people do exist because I have personally dealt with them. You claim we show disrespect for the law because again I stated the “fact” that a suspect does not have the “right” to question an officer’s authority. How are we disrespecting the law we took an oath to uphold? Where is the innuendo when after I viewed the tape it clearly showed this little punk being obnoxious and refusing to obey the officer’s commands. Facts are not innuendo but for anti cop liberals like you the truth doesn’t matter. I am so sick of you liberals crying about civil liberties especially when it concerns criminals. If you have never put on a badge and carried a gun plus deal with the human scum on the street you need to keep you mouth shut. I would prefer you just said thank you and leave it at that. Finally, Mr. Wokoun I could care less about impressing someone like you. I have always gotten respect because I upheld the law and took the fight to the criminals you seem to love so much. Get a life you ungrateful cockroach…
As a generally conservative person who actually believes in all the responsibility stuff that the bad cops and bad cop apologists here pretend to, I’m grateful for the responses by the anonymous “Krupak”, the anonymous “James” and the non-anonymous Sergeant RW Garrett — when I talk with good, service-oriented cops and retired ones (like the three retired cops I put through HR218 training just this week), it’s useful to point out how very sick and paranoid (term used precisely) portions of the cop culture are, and what a burden that continues to be and will continue to be on those who see what they do as a public service, and a calling, rather than as an anointing with holy oil.
And Krupak? The fact that this apparent criminal misbehavior (the threats were more than merely “rudeness”) by the St. George Sergeant are apparently only going to be “tried in the press” is the bug, not the feature.
But, yes, you’re right: it was rude. It was also rude of OJ Simpson to briefly kidnap a couple of people the other day, and definitely impolite of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to lop off a journalist’s head.
I can’t speak for the frustration of my fellow officers and how they express it. Maybe there was some name calling. Unfortunately the cold hard fact is that civilians will never understand the job. Oh, civilians think they do, they watch cop shows and go to movies where cops are either corrupt or buffoons. But I’m not falling back on that.
Mr. Wokoun, you have said it yourself: you do not understand the position I have taken.
I have zero tolerance for corruption. The dirty cop or person unsuited for the job deserves to loose the privilege of serving. But, if you would please note: I’m not defending this guy.
When civilian cop bashers come in here and knock the entire profession based on the actions of one: Yes, I do call them what they are.
When they hold up the guy taping as a poor innocent victim, minding his own business when pounced on by a near-homicidal cop for absolutely no reason, I beg to differ. Again, I’m not defending the officer, Its not “innuendo” I’m asking questions about the “victim” and his motivations.
When a poster implies to the public that cops are generally like that, I call them out on their agenda. What is their basis for this?
And finally, when they use false or at least very mistaken representations of the legal issues, I point out their errors. Why? To prevent some other citizen from getting himself into trouble based on a litany of his “rights” as told to him on the Internet.
Thanks for your insight. We will continue to differ.
In most states all secret or without consent recording without warrant, especially audio, is a felony.
Fortunately, there’s been a recent court case ruling that such laws are unconstitutional when it comes to monitoring the police.
In my state, we already had more civilized laws, anyway; in Minnesota, you can lawfully record any conversation you’re a party to, whether or not the other party knows or consents. There are many other jurisdictions with similar laws, and as this case shows, such monitoring can be a check — not a perfect one, by any means — on some police misbehavior.
Guys, this back and forth is delightful, but we have a discussion forum that is much more conducive to this kind of thing. Your call.
With all due respect, Tim, given what’s labeled as “anti-cop” here, anybody who would venture into the officer.com forum — where the, err, welcome page says “We Reserve the Right to Remove Non-LEO Members, Anti-LE or Inappropriate Posts and Users Without Warning” — expecting to be able to criticize bad cops’ bad behavior might as well dig in the pail of manure to find the pony.
(Thanks to JR for the heads-up)
Officer Krupak:
Obviously you are very defensive about this tape. Should we presume that you regularly (threaten to) lock up people, and trump up charges?
When civilian cop bashers
Civilian? I believe that this has already been explained, but you, sir, as a Law Enforcement Officer are a civilian. The entire problem as shown by this videotape is reinforced by your attitude.
One must wonder what a videotape of your patrols would show.
Thanks to this video, we found out how Officer Kuehnlein behaved. Quite likely, real criminals will benefit as his word is now mud - and cases where it was his word against theirs.
Officer Krupak: Shown a video where an Law Enforcement Officer, with a flimsy, nay, even false pretense, immediately escalated and threatened violence, illegal detention, and with the clear certainty he coud abuse his authority you begin defending him in lockstep is proof of why Kuehnlein needed (and one would have to suppose that your lack of professionalism is similar) the supervision and surveillance that you wish upon us “civilians”.
Mr. Dees:
Is there any particular reason you didn’t address the (alleged) crimes of Officer Kuehnlein as shown in the videotape?
Would you care to correct as Mr. Rosenberg pointed out that the video was disappeared, and the implications of that?
A person who videos an encounter with police should not have to defend themselves from spurious, boilerplate charges of “baiting” or “provoking” the police. Many people have been in dubious encounters with the police, and the current environment is not friendly to the presumption of innocence (Why have judges and trials when there is no possible defense against a charge of “resisting arrest” or “failure to comply”?). Ubiquitous surveillance could remove the potential for “I bet I could come up with 9 things” style of abuse, so how do you think it looks when police oppose it?
[quote]If your profession was more proactive and vocal about getting rid of the “bad apples”, the good and honest police wouldn’t have nearly the image problem that they do.[/quote]
Ditto.
[quote]Who in there right mind would want this job?[/quote]
Ouit. Regular businesses are hiring everywhere. Better hours, more pay, 401(k) plan, less danger, … . Get a job without the defects of police work. It’s your choice. Stop whining.
Tom Dees posted:
[quote]Guys, this back and forth is delightful, but we have a discussion forum that is much more conducive to this kind of thing. Your call.[/quote]
I don’t go where I’m not wanted.
ALL THE OFFICER.COM FORUMS ARE POSTED WITH THIS MESSAGE:
[quote]These Are Private Forums for Law Enforcement. We Reserve the Right to Remove Non-LEO Members, Anti-LE or Inappropriate Posts and Users Without Warning.[quote]
Editor’s Note: I think you need to give us a little more credit. If your comments were unwelcome, I could have just as easily deleted this one. And my first name is “Tim.”
“If you have never put on a badge and carried a gun plus deal with the human scum on the street you need to keep you mouth shut.”
Now there’s one diatribe that sounded better in the original German.
I just have a question for Krupak and some of the other posters on this thread. Can someone tell me why it is wrong for the kid to bait the police officer? Any police officer who has the slightest degree of professionalism would have gotten through that stop with no problems. Only a person with poor self control and no respect for the law like would end up like Kuehnlein did on that video. So, even if the kid was trying to bait him, how is this a problem? The police conduct sting operations, and they have have had traffic checkpoints for years. They pick random times to stop all the drivers to check whether they are drunk or not to keep the streets safe. So this kid is creating checkpoints to test the behavior of police officers in his area. So what? Drivers who don’t drive drunk have nothing to fear from checkpoints, good police officers have nothing to fear from them either.
Making sure everyone toes the line is a good thing, isn’t it?
Mr. Wokoun brilliantly shows what is a problem in america. He labels me a nazi because I put him in his place. I am all about law and order, not facism. Apparently liberals like him always falsely accuse anyone who believes criminals need to have their butt kicked. It doesn’t surprise me Mr. Wokoun used this nazi term because that is what liberals do when they are shown to be wrong on whatever subject is at hand. Mr. Wokoun, every time you open your mouth I should send you a thank you note for proving guys like me right! If you hate the cops so bad and think all of them are guilty of something I suggest you go to another country where the cops practice democracy such as the middle east, cuba, russia, etc… I am sure they will respect your civil liberties there. Get a life you communist bastard.
Sergeant Garrett: if you’re going to continue to condone thuggery by folks given authority by trying to shout down criticism of it, perhaps you should consider generating a thicker skin for yourself. One would think you’d be used to it by now. Unless, of course, you’ve been in a position where you could retaliate against criticism in a —
Oh. Nevermind; I see.
Sgt. Garrett, since you appear to view everyone to the Left of Tomás de Torquemada to be “communist bastard[s],” I suggest you get to work on putting all 299,999,999 of us “in [our] place[s].” I don’t think you’re going to like the future very much, so I’ll just leave you to get started on that now.
And we all know of cops that are routinely abusive, and have no business being cops.
Then why are’t you reporting them and getting them off the street before citizens like Mr. Darrow meet up with them. Or worse ones who don’t have a camcorder and who know when it comes to citizen’s word against cop’s word the citizen will lose. Everytime. If the police would get rid of the rouge cops everyone would be safer and you would not have as much of an image problem.
I thought this was about over, but I guess not.
This is my hopefully final entry on the topic, which I only make because both myself and fellow officers are being called names and targeted with innuendo; a tactic that is so incredibly evil when used against the cop-bashers, but is apparently clever, persuasive, intellectual discourse for them to direct at us. At least in their small worlds.
My dear civilian visitors: (if that label is offensive, I will call you non-police cop bashers):
In case you missed it, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE OFFICER. I AM NOT DEFENDING…gee I would repeat it again, but I really hope you finally get the idea. The frustration of good cops with the behavior of bad cops is huge; if for no other reason that it gives civilian (and you are civilians in this context) cop bashers and their various sock puppets reason to come into areas like this and troll, shouting “we told you so”.
The recent statement I do agree with is: “Making sure everyone toes the line is a good thing, isn’t it?”. Yup. Yes, cops do stings, too. Under very controlled legal circumstances your vigilante justice lacks.
In that light, I do note the curious defensiveness on the part of certain people regarding the taper. He was a guy with mission to provoke the police just for the sake of provoking the police. Illegal, no. Ethical? Maybe. Innocent? No. He had a hand in what happened. Posters who try to morph this guy into an innocent victim/constitutional scholar/police watchdog hero are sort of entertaining to watch.
Now that being said, the baseless statements such as “… you regularly (threaten to) lock up people, and trump up charges…your lack of professionalism is similar…you begin defending him in lockstep [I am not defending this guy, as I have said before]… inability to distinguish between the exercise of civil liberties and criminal activity makes you dangerous to democracy… how very sick and paranoid (term used precisely) portions of the cop culture are…” on their very face are preposterous. Throw in a few Nazi inferences as a final blow, and you win, right?
Well, discussions are not won by the first side that calls the other “Nazi”. What it does show, other then you are out of ammo for your arguments? If that’s all you had, then you had really had nothing in the first place.
I’ve said my piece.
Krupak: I think your slip is showing, Dr. Freud. It doesn’t matter what the victim’s motivations were — except to folks looking to change the subject from the perp’s criminal behavior. (It’s more than “rude” to threaten inappropriate violence, false charges, etc. — look it up, Officer.)
And as long as you’re looking things up, you might want to peruse your dictionary for “vigilante.” Darrow didn’t mete out some “street justice” to the (now, thankfully, ex-) cop — he just documented the perp’s awful behavior, and the provocation consisted of polite questions and statements. The perp didn’t have to bite — just as, in a police sting, the john doesn’t have to pull up next to the decoy officer and offer her money for sex. All the perp has to do, in either case, is behave properly and lawfully: no harm; no foul.
The justice will be meted out — if it is; we’ll see — in court, where the perp can, with advice of counsel, let a jury of his peers decide if his threats of violence and false charges are proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed multiple crimes.
Tender flowers who can’t handle a few polite questions and objections (and review the tape: that’s all they were) without threatening to commit assault and even naughtier felonies should probably not go into law enforcement.
Reminds me of NBC’s “To Catch a Predator,” actually. I suppose if and when this gets to court, we’ll hear from ex-Sergeant Kuehnlein that this was the first time that he did it, that he’d just had a bad day and really wasn’t going to beat the victim or frame him; he was just saying it.
I think it’s clear that, from his own history, Darrow knew that there are such nutcases with guns and badges. I don’t know how many he shopped before this particular went not only “off the reservation” and into criminal misbehavior, but perhaps there were many. That’s fine.
As to your unfortunate and — let’s be gentle — clumsy tendency to throw a whole bunch of quotes from a whole bunch of folks into a blender and dismiss them with a wave of your hand, well, I think that’s pretty damning in and of itself. Try addressing the issues, rather than changing the subject.
Or not.
Fortunately for you, you can hide behind a handle of “Krupak”. But be a bit careful — be sure that you don’t decide to “go off the reservation” when you’re on duty . . .
. . . you might just be on camera.
Just to add on: the key difference between this sort of thing and a police sting isn’t that there’s necessarily saints or angels involved in either. In a police sting, the officers can do things that would otherwise be illegal (offer sex for money in a prostitution sting; offer to buy or sell narcotics illegally). In this sort of sting — whether it’s done by Darrow or MSNBC or your local news station — the stingers are doing things that are perfectly lawful (taping a police encounter, pretending to be an underaged kid to get hit on by perverts, pretending to be vulnerable swindle victim, taking a car in for an oil change to see if a crooked mechanic will poke a hole in the radiator) . . . and then simply expose the perp to the obvious consequences of the perp’s criminality (bad press, getting fired, arrest and prosecution, etc.).
When it comes to committing these sorts of crimes, there’s a simple way to avoid getting stung: just say no. That way, you don’t have to worry about the consequences.
After reading through these postings I am left feeling like most of those posting who claim to be LEO are very scary. Hoping that people have violent encounters which they can sit back and watch? Or that they get killed because how dare they call a bad cop a bad cop. Though none more so than that angry bigot Sgt. R. W. Garrett. Anyone who refers to “your kind” and follows up with name calling, and refers to the members of the public he dealt with as “the human scum on the street” has issues too deep to address here but there is no way he should be carrying a gun and wearing a badge. I think it safe to say that if the criminal element “need to have their butt kicked” or not, that is not the job of the police. And if he was so frustrated with a system he sees as failing to do so that he takes it on himself to do so, he was only one camcorder away from staring on his on media show. He must have been a joy when responding to a domestic violence call. I can just hear him “Lets see the victim was asking for it, baiting you and pushing your buttons, but can you keep her quiet while you beat her down and teach her some respect so the busybody neighbors don’t hear and call us out again.”
I read statements like “St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes said police welcomed the cameras. “We have nothing to hide,” ” from the official channels and think yeah that should be the idea. More proof when something goes down should be a good thing and welcomed. Then read “I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over alone- and I WILL pull him over - because I will see “his gun” and place a hunk of hot lead right where it belongs. from “STL_FINEST” And I am convinced we need protection from this officer even more than from the gang banger. At least we know that the gangbanger means to hurt us, we have no way of knowing with the cop if he is the FINEST. Still this attitude of kill the messenger should come as no surprise, when my father was a cop he often said there was no more hated and distrusted group of cops than IA.
I hear Sgt. Kuehnlein was fired today, though from what his lawyer said I suspect he intends to fight it. To bad he could not do the honorable thing like Christopher Hoelscher, the officer who resigned after incident at White Castle.
“He was a guy with mission to provoke the police just for the sake of provoking the police.”
You keep asserting this but never arguing it. If an officer can’t discern the difference between an ordinary question and provocation, the “civilians” who delegated that badge will have no choice but to continue measures aimed at insuring a compliance culture. No field gets to police itself. Call this “cop bashing” if you wish; people at Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, and Global Crossing felt persecuted by “outsiders” too.
Speaking of defensiveness, you can dish out criticism, but not take it very well. Am I supposed to feel badly about a Nazi inference (a Molly Ivins reference, by the way) after being casually called a “ungrateful cockroach,” “communist bastard,” “dumbass,” etc.? (Referring to large groups of people as “human scum” earns the inference; it was not carelessly made.) Yes, I’m sure Sgt. Garrett is being hyperbolic, but the rage still shows. This is the cultural problem I’m pointing out: criticism of outsiders is allowable; criticism from outsiders is intolerable. How this organizational pathology plays out has been well documented. If the criticism is invalid, prove it, but calling Brett Darrow a “punk” or “cop baiter/basher” looks like defensiveness simpliciter.
I liked your post when it was in its original German.
It looses so much of its Reight appeal when translated to English.
Many thanks to Douglas and Joel for proving me right again. I am hopeful about the future and by the way, I never retaliated against those cop haters because I am a professional. I never said this Sergeant who was involved in this incident was innocent. I believe that it shows even cops are human too. I also feel that people who display an anti cop mentality are generally very liberal in their thinking. I hate dirty cops just like I hate criminals. The thing is I feel this officer is not “dirty” and his only mistake was losing his temper. I believe that it is you two (Joel and Douglas) who will really hate the future because the american public is sick of criminals not being brought to justice and inmate advocates such as yourselves. I wish you two gentlemen would try to see things from our side for once and maybe understanding can be achieved.
Go ahead and have your last words, though I won’t be replying, as these are mine.
I have not called anyone names, I think name calling lowers the discussion, and some people are fragile and easily frightened. Some people are cop bashers, and came here to say what they did, which they can. I would expect about the same reception with a pro-Ronald Reagan thread at MoveOn.org. But then again, as a cop I am called all sorts of things, ob a regular basis. Yawn. Sticks and stones. I digress.
I merely state facts and observations based on a lengthy career. You are free to accept or reject. I am offering education to you, our civilian visitors, since I realize you may have no experiences in this area other than TV or Hollywood; or talking points from some blog. But, the discussion has run its course; as proved by several things.
Joel is now giving me advice on the law, and implying I’m at risk for going “off the reservation”. Tender flowers indeed.
Joy STILL thinks were defending this ex-officer, and generally cops can’t take the criticism.
And Mr. Wokoun: I don’t mind being criticized by outsiders. The article by Mr. Dees was about maintining your professional cool, because its right, and civilians enjoy taping us.
What I’m saying, is that most of the civilian cop bashers have no working knowledge of law enforcement, read “make sure no one with a camera is around before you go nuts on the innocent.” They then paint us all alike, and despite repeated denials, point to a non-existant defense of this officer as proof. Do the posters not like cops and authority in general? Ok, thats their right. Its also reasonable that criticism be taken for what its worth when it is based on misconceptions, misunderstanding and prejudices.
Finally, I didn’t think I’d have to argue that the driver was trying to provoke an incident. But if I must, I must.
Do you drive around with a video camera on your dash? Except for a few storm chasers, no civilians do. No law against it, but no one else seems to feel the need.
Do you deliberately drive in a manner to attract attention, or which a reasonable person might deem suspicious given the hour and the location? No? Gee. This guy did.
When asked reasonable and lawful questions regarding your behavior do you become argumentative and confrontational, while switching on your recording devices? Hmmm.
What is the simplest explanation? Yes, thats right. This driver wanted a confrontation. Since you are fond of Latin phrases, I will say quod erat demonstrandum.
When you inexplicably make references to Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, and Global Crossing, dragging out unrelated events from private industry as illustration, well, I think its over.
“…be sure that you don’t decide to “go off the reservation” when you’re on duty . . .”
Ha! (pause for laughter) Mr. Rosenberg, if they read this, those that know me and my work would laugh until coffee came out of their noses. Never went ‘off the reservation’. I’m about as likely to be seen exhibiting the ex-officer’s bad behavior as you seeing an aircraft carrier going down your street. Its wrong — and I never defended it.
I know, I know, folks, it doesn’t fit your some individuals’ convenient stereotype. Sorry about that. Do enjoy the remainder of your visit here.
As for the actual cops here, let this one rest. I may not agree with Mr. Dees on everything, but this is his sandbox we are in, and in one of his posts he said he would prefer this be taken to the forum. Out of respect I think we should, if anything more need be said. If the cop bashers here are not fed, they will pat thenselves on their virtual cyber backs go away. (They are not listening, anyway.) Then we can go back to doing good work. Lot less stress for all.
Be safe.
“I merely state facts and observations based on a lengthy career. You are free to accept or reject. I am offering education to you, our civilian visitors, since I realize you may have no experiences in this area other than TV or Hollywood.”
Do you even have the ability to turn off the insufferable “I’m your daddy” tone, even when it’s inappropriate?
I do want to prevent the following misconceptions from persisting:
1.) No [citizen] seems to feel the need to … drive around with a video camera on [the] dash.
Mr. Darrow was solicited by a number of people wanting a similar setup. Expect to see a lot more of this, especially since it was endorsed by the MO Atty General and ACLU.
2.) When asked reasonable and lawful questions regarding your behavior do you become argumentative and confrontational, while switching on your recording devices?
Mr. Darrow’s video tape begins long before the encounter, and he claims his camera records whenever the car is running.
Well I have heard it all now! I was wrongly accused of being a nazi and now I am labeled an angry bigot. Joyleaf, with your mentality you are the one with deep seated issues here. I used the term “you kind” in reference to the criminal element and nothing else. Your mischaracterization of myself is laughable at best. It eems to me that people like yourself are the bigots here, not me! As a white male I know that there are people who will always think that because of my race that I am a bigot. But since most of my associates are not white shows how truly ignorant you are. Joyleaf needs to wake up and realize that she is on the wrong side of this discussion. I am sorry that your liberalism cloud any rationale thinking on your part. As for Mr. Wokoun and Mr. Rosenberg, Nothing I say, especially the facts, will change you opinion about the police or me and I will not try. Like Mr. Krupak, you would never see me doing anything unethical because I am a professional. Was I out of line for some so called name calling? Who knows. It angers me a great deal when people ridicule law enforcement for the smallest incident. Remember that we are people too. We have to make split second decisions while critics have a lifetime to criticize our decisions. As I always told my officers because shift change.. Be safe!!
Well, Krupak, we do have your anonymous, unverifiable word that you behave well on the job. That and four bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks — unless, of course, you get yours “on the cuff.”
I think that the majority of postings by cops on the officer.com forum and here speak for themselves: it’s clear that most posters were far more upset with the citizen for having taped the bad (now former) cop than they were with the stink that he put on the badge through his bullying and threats.
Since you seem to need some remedial latin, you might start off by translating this phrase: “Who watches the watchmen?”
At present, it’s largely the watchmen itself, and we’ve seen documentary evidence of how badly that works, and how embarassing that ought to be to folks like you.
But, no, instead you talk about “cop bashers.”
Shame, shame, shame.
big•ot
Pronunciation: (big’ut), 1. —n. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
R. W. Garrett I called you a bigot not a racist. I believe your posts and name calling here have given ample examples of your bigotry.
I am not a liberal, a term you seem to regard as an epitaph. I am in fact a conservative from a long line of people who have served their country in the military and more than a few, my father for one, have gone on to serve as civilian LEOs. Most of the times I have dealt with the police in their official capacity they have been very professional and in one notable case the DPS officers who came to my rescue went so far above and beyond to help I wrote letters not only to their supervisors but to the state headquarters as well. I hope copies of those letters reside in their jackets. I have never been arrested and aside from a fuel wasting ticket, low many years ago, I have no other tickets and have never even be questioned let alone arrested.
Yes I do have a videocam, which is not mounted on the dash but like Mr. Darrow’s is set up to film our dashboard and the view out our windshield. And it is on when ever we are driving. No nefarious reason, we were the victims of sudden stop insurance fraud which our insurance company decided to roll over on. That will not happen again. And in fact about 5 months after we installed it someone made a right on red in front of us. The camera showed clearly we were not speeding, had the green light and she pulled out to close in front of us for us to avoid hitting her, despite our attempt not to. We might have been cited if not for one witness who came back and that tape. I predict as costs continue to come down they will become more common.
Yes, I stayed awake in civics class and have read the Bill of Rights. I try to keep up with the courts decisions that impact on those rights. Since I also have family members who have died in service of this country you will not see me treating those rights lightly.
While I have not read any one say the officer did it all right I have read several LEOs say the sergeant was wrong, BUT and then make excuses for him. What I find most disturbing is the attacks on Mr. Darrow from the fairly mild, referring to him as the “victim”, to a punk up to and including death threats. Nothing I have seen in any of his posted tapes or the interviews lead me to think he deserves to be called names by those who should know better. I have no doubt he has an agenda and understand his reason for it. But engaging in lawful behavior and taping it is hardly reason to call him names or denigrate his character. These have been followed up by further name calling of posters here, a favorite tactic of yours.
I still ask my question if “ we all know of cops that are routinely abusive, and have no business being cops.” Why aren’t the cops themselves doing more to get them off the streets and off the force? Why wait for them to get caught and blacken all cops reputations unfairly?
I’d be happy if we could just get back to Bobby Peel’s Principles of Policing. Please?
Policemen and private citizens, both, seem to be (figuratively) acting as Yossarian did toward the end of Catch 22, walking around backwards looking in all directions with hand on pistol. At least on the internet.
I guess this issue may never die, thats why I’m going to throw a little more gas on this fire. If all of you civilians, I’m sorry, non-police cop bashers, can do such a better job….then sign right up. The basic fact is that no one was really attempting to “defend” this particular officer-what he did was wrong. The point I think a lot of us were trying to make is that this little kid is making money off setting up encounters with police hoping he gets one to bite. He got one the line and now the liberals have ran with it. All of these liberal type monday morning quarterbacks are only good at finger pointing. Maybe they should become police officers. There is good reason why none of them are, because they are cowards. It’s easy to point fingers and say what the police should be doing different. I wish that these people could be in a life or death situation just once…it’s no fun. It can take a toll on you in many different ways, sometimes you may not feel like having a camera stuck in your face and some goofball daring you to do something wrong. Someone made a comment to the effect that Sgt. Garrett may not like the future. I don’t think I will either, I don’t think that anyone who likes to see law and order prevail will like it. This country is becoming extremely liberal and you see the toll it has taken over the past 20 years. Violent crime is at an all time high, illegal immigration is destroying the infrastructure of our country, and all thanks to the liberal cowards who are too scared to say enough is enough. Whay can’t you see that the police need to have more support now that ever before? What are you going to do when no one will do this job anymore? Who wants to go out and barely get by so when they make one mistake they will be crucified? Maybe if start paying the police like professional athletes 200-400 million a year they will agree to have every second taped and televised so every single movement and word can be scrutinized. Or maybe we could just remember the words of an extremely wise man “…“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
“Krupak”
Let’s start out with a couple of clarifications; I’m a conservative Republican. As law-and-order as they get. I used to be a cop-beat reporter, and spent PLENTY of time seeing, hearing, and writing about the stuff cops run into.
So you can do us *both* a favor and not call me a “cop basher” for having some questions for you.
You write…:
The frustration of good cops with the behavior of bad cops is huge; if for no other reason that it gives civilian (and you are civilians in this context) cop bashers and their various sock puppets reason to come into areas like this and troll, shouting “we told you so”.
OK, fair enough.
But I’m not the first person to notice that there is a certain “us against everyone else” attitude among plenty of cops; that everyone with a badge has gotta watch out for everyone without, in a sense.
So let me as you, Krupak, as well as Sgt. Garrett, if he’s still around; what is stronger? Your frustration with the bad cops, or your loyalty to your fellow officers?
If you knew of a cop that was habitually acting the way Sgt. Kuehnlein was (and I say “habitually”, because everyone has a bad day once in a while), someone who is bait for “cop-bashers”, someone who could be fairly said to not belong in law enforcement, what would you do?
“Violent crime is at an all time high”
Not nearly: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
“…illegal immigration is destroying the infrastructure of our country, and all thanks to the liberal cowards who are too scared to say enough is enough.”
America is regarded by most of the developed world as having a draconian criminal justice system. It also has the highest incarcerated population. Maybe you are not drawing the correct conclusions.
A question for Kuehnlein’s apologists: who would you be blaming for his actions if the video were captured by a parking lot security camera rather than Mr. Darrow’s own camera?
“As for Mr. Wokoun and Mr. Rosenberg, Nothing I say, especially the facts, will change you opinion about the police or me and I will not try.”
You might try accumulating some facts as backup material for those situations where the usual emotive shibboleths and rhetorical tactics aren’t sufficient to intimidate your opponent. Did you think just telling people to keep their mouths shut would change anyone’s opinion? Present an argument that doesn’t sound like intransigent partiality to your profession, and people will listen.
A question for Kuehnlein’s apologists: who would you be blaming for his actions if the video were captured by a parking lot security camera rather than Mr. Darrow’s own camera?
Only a theoretical problem, more than likely; such evidence tends to disappear down the memory hole, like the ex-cop’s squad video.
There’s much to think about, here.
1. Trolling IRL. The kid may have been doing that, but maybe felt justified, after previous encounters. The policeman fed the troll and got caught on video.
Policemen also troll IRL. I think we’ve all had the experience of having a policeman follow our car with his in an obtrusive manner, hoping we’d get nervous enough to inadvertently do something he could cite us for.
No one should troll IRL, ideally, ’specially those who bring an unfair advantage to the game, like policemen.
2. As a person who suspects that he’s borderline autistic, and thus a bit weird, socially, I have been accosted by policemen on at least one occasion for no reason I could see, other than I was being careful to obey the law.
Being such a person, I’m short on friends to look out for me and would like to rely on the public police. Sadly, they seem more likely to pick on people whom they perceive as weird, than on the glibly sociable actual criminals.
(Not always, of course, it’s just my perception that policemen tend to pick on someone who’s unusual in some way, be he right or wrong
Wow… simply wow.
I saw the unedited tape and became sick to myself.
I reread many responses from so called “officers of the law” and I am reaching for an extra doze of malox.
Not one single cop is willing to simply say:
“This was wrong, wrong, wrong… bad cop”
I completely understand loosing you cool. It happens. Deal with it.
But, here is reality. The cameras are never going to be turned off. Sucks, don’t it!!! now you know how civ’s feel.
I carry (have a permit, thank you) and I am now going to hesitate should I need to call the police after seeing so many of the responses on this board.
Will at least one honest cop denounce this incident and not just say the kid had it coming?
Car 65 where are you?
Will at least one honest cop denounce this incident and not just say the kid had it coming?
A fair number have, but their, err, buts get in the way. It’s usually, well, the officer overreacted as though lesser forms of this hysteria are common among the badge-and-gun set and this is just an excessive case. Or it’s unjustifiable, but . . . and an immediate segue into some irrelevant discussion about why somebody would want to tape encounters with the valiant enforcers of, well, of whatever they decide to think the law might be.
Pretty disgusting, all in all.
Fortunately, cameras and DVRs are getting cheaper and smaller, and my guess is that they’ll become more and more common. Which will, I guess, minimize the number of incidents of the perps tasering observers and coming up with preposterous excuses.