Seems like good idea. Thanks for the link.
- Thread starter Veer_G
- Start date
Gentlemen, when I first seen this the day before it was posted here I looked on this as if it could have been my daughter and how this poor girl must have felt. I still believe her rights were violated but that's just me. I would have been at her side that day and if I was right her rights had been violated I would have hired the best Civil Rights Attorney I could afford and sued them. My wife set on the right hand of a Judge in Garland County for 17 years retired court clerk and we know a lot of LEO's. I wouldn't do what you guys do nor would I want too. I hope all the LEO's here have a safe week may God be with you.
I am done with this thread.
Bob
I am done with this thread.
Bob
Last edited:
The bottom line is theirs good people and bad people in every line of work. Some people take authority overboard and some don't. The bad ones should be singled out and fired. We shouldn't paint all le as bad just because of a few nimrods. I agree with slapchop on his above post. Remember, if we're not trying to solve the problem, them were part af the problem as well.
You want a response to your comment, well here it is.
We don't support bad behavior; just get upset when people crucify officers from one sided media reports used to drum up ratings. If an investigation is done and the officer is wrong, other officers would be the first to condemn it. Maybe people should step back from all the Monday morning quarter backing and wait until the investigation is complete. A perfect example of this would be the deal going on with the Moore police department right now in Oklahoma. The media and everyone instantly cried out that the officers beat a man to death, all before anyone has seen the video. If those guys did in fact beat this man to death, then I will state how wrong and disappointing it is. I would want them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, but I won't do it without FACTS. That is the key here, FACTS. I and the people I know do not support officers who break the law, violate citizens’ rights, or heavy handed policing.
As for special favors, sure there are officers that let other officers off of speeding tickets, there are some that don't. The OHP officer that gave me a speeding ticket in uniform didn't, and that is fine, I don't expect to be given a break for not following the law. Honestly I would rather work for a car dealership and get a discount on my vehicle than getting out of a speeding ticket, or work at a bar and get the industry discount when I'm drinking some beers. It would save me a hell of a lot more money than a 100 dollar speeding ticket, but I digress.
If the crime in your town is so bad that they don't patrol the area or get out of their vehicles, that just tells me that you probably are exaggerating and don't know what you are talking about, you never go to that side of town to see them working, or your town is large enough to have multiple substations. There might be 10 officers from one substation working the bad area, but you don't see them because they are busy doing their jobs. As soon as they get on, they are taking guys to jail and doing all the paper work that is required to do so. You take a guy to jail for a DUI at the beginning of the night, and that might be all you have time to do for that shift. This isn't the show COPS; you aren't knocking out three calls in 30 minutes. If you aren't seeing them, rest assured that means they are already taking someone to jail or in the middle of a call. As for those affluent neighborhoods, they still need to be policed also, otherwise you would be crying when you called and it took 30 minutes for someone to respond from the Northside. So it's a nice neighborhood and there isn't any crime, so what should they do all day while being paid with your taxes? Should they sit in their car doing nothing? You would cry if they did that, so they enforce the laws that are being broken, speeding. Sorry this first world problem bothers you so much. If having to drive the speed limit is such a horrible problem in your life, I suggest driving over to that Northside and volunteer a little of your time with some at risk children, maybe get some perspective on what real problems are. If at risk children make you sick and the thought of getting some perspective is beyond you, maybe just leave 5 minutes earlier so you don’t have to speed, that should solve your self-induced problem.
For all the guys that have never been LEO, and have an issue with your local department, I suggest you go do a ride along one nice Friday or Saturday evening this summer. This will give you better insight into the thing you hate most. Just call them up and request it.
Victory,
Just more of the "same old same old" responses from LE on this site. God forbid anyone has a different point of view from the LE on this site.
You question my knowledge of the facts I stated and propose I do something about it, when I am not a payed servant of the civilian population.
It seems no one that is not affiliated with law enforcement has a right to post an opinion or comment on law enforcement behavior.
As far as commenting on the event without knowing all the facts, why don't you and others in law enforcement practice the same procedure? It seems that LE is always given the benefit of the doubt when responses are made by other LE posters on this site.
You act as thou I am anti law enforcement, when it is just the opposite.
Through the years I have donated enormous amount of money to them.
Just more of the "same old same old" responses from LE on this site. God forbid anyone has a different point of view from the LE on this site.
You question my knowledge of the facts I stated and propose I do something about it, when I am not a payed servant of the civilian population.
It seems no one that is not affiliated with law enforcement has a right to post an opinion or comment on law enforcement behavior.
As far as commenting on the event without knowing all the facts, why don't you and others in law enforcement practice the same procedure? It seems that LE is always given the benefit of the doubt when responses are made by other LE posters on this site.
You act as thou I am anti law enforcement, when it is just the opposite.
Through the years I have donated enormous amount of money to them.
I never asked or stated that you do anything about it, just wait to pass judgment on officers until all the FACTS are in, do a ride along, and leave earlier if you don't like speeding tickets.
I don't think you are anti-LEO, and never stated or inferred that. I simply replied to your post as you asked. If you don't like the answers, I can't help that.
As for the same old response, sorry you keep hearing the same thing. Maybe it is because most officers aren't trying to trample your rights. Sorry I couldn't go on a rant about how you don't deserve your rights because you are a dirty undeserving non-cop, and that I am such a better person than you.
You perceive officers not condemning another officer before all the facts are in as giving them the benefit of the doubt. As much as we would like to condemn some people before there is an investigation and all the facts are presented, we have been trained not to do that. Our whole profession is the gathering of facts and putting them together for others to decide. Sorry if that bothers you.
Except the reality is that that is usually not the case and coincidentally why police have such a negative portrayal in the public's eye. It's cyclic, police protect their own, the public sees it, the public calls for blood so the police rally to cover up any further negative actions and the public see it ... ad nauseum.
It's human nature, humans seek to protect their "group".
You see the few hand-picked cases the media has deemed worthy of your attention based on viewer ship; hence your view is jaded to the negative. There might be some true journalistic integrity in some local markets, but for the most part that isn't the case. LEO as a whole have lost the PR campaign due to this push for ratings and add revenue.
The public crying for blood before an investigation is complete or without all of the facts is what I see. Of course officers are going to protect their own when this is the case. Should they side with the mob and crucify a possibly innocent man/woman before the investigation is complete?
I thought most of the facts were already out on the j-walking case.
Anyway, I will just say, thank you to all LE on the performance of their duties. I also make a point to the military personnel I encounter and thank them for their service. Be safe in your duties.
Anyway, I will just say, thank you to all LE on the performance of their duties. I also make a point to the military personnel I encounter and thank them for their service. Be safe in your duties.
No one is saying that this is how the majority of cops behave, and views aren't "jaded" because of media attention, their jaded by cop's actions which are then covered by the media. If the problem didn't exist the media wouldn't have anything to cover in regards to police corruption. If you don't like the media attention, stop being corrupt. The same thing can be said for many professions (politics/media/etc.). This is not a novel concept and blaming the media is a total cop out.
I agree the media is half the problem but again as I said above, if cops would stop giving them ammunition then it wouldn't be a problem... In this case I think media only became involved after this story hit the social media anyway so...
Of course not but again we're talking about Austin police here who are notorious for being corrupt so of course people are going to pre-judge the situation and when it comes to police such as Austin's they deserve the pre-judging because their past actions show them to be cover-up artists and the like. Now in other cities that wouldn't be the case and I would tend to be one calling for waiting until an investigation is done (especially since we're dealing with a libtard drama queen jogger) but because it's a known corrupt police dept. they simply don't deserve any sort of fair treatment from the public who has been trained by the police to distrust the police. The only way for dept.s like Austin's to change their image and regain some public trust would be to suspend these cops pending an investigation and make it a VERY public investigation, but they won't and as you said, "Of course officers are going to protect their own when this is the case" so the cycle of public distrust will continue and you'll be back on here defending your profession the next time some corrupt cop does something somewhere else. Like I said before, its cyclic.
If you are holding your breath for a time that there are no mistakes made by officers, you are going to be in a world of hurt. All officers are human and are susceptible to the same emotional, environmental, and physical stresses that all humans are.
I don't know all of the facts from the case and neither do you. So maybe we wait until they finish the investigation into the issue instead of condemning a possibly innocent person, no matter what our biases are toward that individual. It isn't innocent until proven guilty, unless High Binder thinks you are corrupt and shady.
As for the Austin PD, I don't know their reputation, so I can't comment on that. I can comment that I would condemn the actions of a corrupt officer, just not before the investigation is complete and we have all the FACTS.
I don't know all of the facts from the case and neither do you. So maybe we wait until they finish the investigation into the issue instead of condemning a possibly innocent person, no matter what our biases are toward that individual. It isn't innocent until proven guilty, unless High Binder thinks you are corrupt and shady.
As for the Austin PD, I don't know their reputation, so I can't comment on that. I can comment that I would condemn the actions of a corrupt officer, just not before the investigation is complete and we have all the FACTS.
Does that mean they shouldn't be held accountable when they do make a mistake? That's all I'm saying is that there is NO accountability in many police depts. especially Austin's.
I already said this and reasoned it above and again below...
Really...? This is pretty weak and low. Is that your MO, when you can't come up with anything else you resort to slinging mud? Really speaks to your mindset and perhaps some mens rea?
But would you still fail to condemn that cop if the investigation was done by corrupt dept. who had a vested interest in finding the officer innocent such as the public is justifiably doing in this case? It's a learned behavior.
Your statements represent you and your views, I don't. I haven't slung any mud or personally attacked you this whole conversation. All I have done is addressed your points and those of others. In fact I have ignored your attempt to label me as a corrupt officer in your blanket statements like the one below.
“If you don't like the media attention, stop being corrupt.”- High Binder
Telling...
The only thing I see that we disagree on is whether the actions of a single officer should be prejudged before an investigation is complete, due to the actions of his/her department. I feel like this would be an absolute injustice, but you are entitled to your own option, just don't get upset if I don't agree with it.
As for Austin being able to conduct an investigation, like I said before, I know nothing about them. Are you saying that the Austin PD in incapable to conducting a fair investigation, and no matter the outcome, you will refuse to believe in the validity of it?
If I knew that an investigation was corrupt, I would condemn it, but I wouldn't condemn it without evidence. Past transgressions aren't evidence of a new crime. Once again, you are charging the department guilty until proven innocent. If that is your MO, they will always be guilty in your eyes.
Can you site some instances that would bring you to think that, other than hearsay? Sources and evidence are great in debates.
“If you don't like the media attention, stop being corrupt.”- High Binder
Telling...
The only thing I see that we disagree on is whether the actions of a single officer should be prejudged before an investigation is complete, due to the actions of his/her department. I feel like this would be an absolute injustice, but you are entitled to your own option, just don't get upset if I don't agree with it.
As for Austin being able to conduct an investigation, like I said before, I know nothing about them. Are you saying that the Austin PD in incapable to conducting a fair investigation, and no matter the outcome, you will refuse to believe in the validity of it?
If I knew that an investigation was corrupt, I would condemn it, but I wouldn't condemn it without evidence. Past transgressions aren't evidence of a new crime. Once again, you are charging the department guilty until proven innocent. If that is your MO, they will always be guilty in your eyes.
Can you site some instances that would bring you to think that, other than hearsay? Sources and evidence are great in debates.
It's unbelievable that you somehow managed to think the above statement was directed at you. "You" in this context was VERY clearly directed at "corrupt cops", if you took that to mean you personally than...
Sooooo way off base here man. PDs by their very nature have more accountability than any other profession out there. For you to say that tells me that you're grasping at straws. Just because you might not hear of a disposition or that the punishment wasn't up to your standards doesn't mean that there isn't any accountability.
So ALL police dept.'s in the U.S. are 100% accountable?
I can't say that all agencies 100% are accountable anymore than you can say that most aren't accountable. I do however bring a bit of experience to the table here when I say that micromanaging and accountability exists almost to a fault. Police departments and their top brass don't want to be embarassed or have their image tarnished. So when something happens, they are quick to take action. Sometimes not waiting before all the facts are out before throwing an officer under the bus.
This isn't meant as an insult or a jab but a guy like you won't ever be satisfied and there will always be some "cover up" when you don't see things go your way. You stated that the Austin guys should have been fired. And for what, because they handcuffed some girl who by all means broke a law (as petty as it might be) and decided that it was beneficial to make a scene instead of simply being cooperative? I'm not so sure that what those officers did deserves termination or even further scrutiny but then again, I guess I'm seeing things from a different perspective. But because they WON'T get fired for this, to you that is not being held accountable?
You mentioned the LAPD in a previous thread. You think that the guys who fired on that truck last year striking the innocent women delivering papers aren't being held accountable as we speak?
This isn't meant as an insult or a jab but a guy like you won't ever be satisfied and there will always be some "cover up" when you don't see things go your way. You stated that the Austin guys should have been fired. And for what, because they handcuffed some girl who by all means broke a law (as petty as it might be) and decided that it was beneficial to make a scene instead of simply being cooperative? I'm not so sure that what those officers did deserves termination or even further scrutiny but then again, I guess I'm seeing things from a different perspective. But because they WON'T get fired for this, to you that is not being held accountable?
You mentioned the LAPD in a previous thread. You think that the guys who fired on that truck last year striking the innocent women delivering papers aren't being held accountable as we speak?
A few points of law:
1) When a pedestrian crosses a city street and interrupts the flow of vehicle traffic (cars have to slow down or swerve), that's jaywalking. When there are marked pedestrian crosswalks available, it is a violation of a city ordinance in Austin, and a class C misdemeanor (like a traffic ticket). It causes accidents, and sometimes people even get killed because of it. That's why it needs to be addressed. It can be a very real public safety issue. If people ran in front of traffic regularly in your town, you would probably call and ask the police to "do something" as well.
2) When you are so plugged in to your tunes that you run out into traffic, and don't acknowledge officers trying to stop you, they will approach you and grab your arm, or whatever is necessary to get your attention. Seems reasonable to me.
3) You are not required to carry identification on you as a pedestrian. BUT (this is important). Once you violate the law and are detained, you are required to identify yourself to the officer. Again, and actual ID is not required, but verbal communication of identifying information is.
4) If you choose not to identify yourself, or identify yourself falsely, an officer no longer has the option to issue you a simple citation. By choosing not to ID, you have forced him to take you into custody and identify you by other means. (prints). He also MUST present you to the judge himself, instead of releasing you with a ticket and trusting you to do it. An officer cannot issue a citation to anyone he cannot identify. By policy in most departments, this choice is explained very carefully to offenders before they have to go to jail, specifically to avoid all this crap. This is a pain in everyone's ass, but sometimes it has to go that way.
5) If she had just said: "I'm so sorry I was being dangerous to myself and others, I will try to pay more attention" and "Yes, my name is Trixie Snugtwat, and my date of birth is blah blah"; She would have walked away with a ticket in her hand. Easy. Sometimes, certain entitled college students sometimes feel that the rule of law does not especially apply to them, and that there is no way they have done anything wrong, or need to cooperate with the police. "I go to college, and I know my rights"
6) The same rules apply when you refuse to sign a traffic ticket. You force the officer to take you into custody, and present you to the judge.
Hope this clears things up a little. TenZero out.
1) When a pedestrian crosses a city street and interrupts the flow of vehicle traffic (cars have to slow down or swerve), that's jaywalking. When there are marked pedestrian crosswalks available, it is a violation of a city ordinance in Austin, and a class C misdemeanor (like a traffic ticket). It causes accidents, and sometimes people even get killed because of it. That's why it needs to be addressed. It can be a very real public safety issue. If people ran in front of traffic regularly in your town, you would probably call and ask the police to "do something" as well.
2) When you are so plugged in to your tunes that you run out into traffic, and don't acknowledge officers trying to stop you, they will approach you and grab your arm, or whatever is necessary to get your attention. Seems reasonable to me.
3) You are not required to carry identification on you as a pedestrian. BUT (this is important). Once you violate the law and are detained, you are required to identify yourself to the officer. Again, and actual ID is not required, but verbal communication of identifying information is.
4) If you choose not to identify yourself, or identify yourself falsely, an officer no longer has the option to issue you a simple citation. By choosing not to ID, you have forced him to take you into custody and identify you by other means. (prints). He also MUST present you to the judge himself, instead of releasing you with a ticket and trusting you to do it. An officer cannot issue a citation to anyone he cannot identify. By policy in most departments, this choice is explained very carefully to offenders before they have to go to jail, specifically to avoid all this crap. This is a pain in everyone's ass, but sometimes it has to go that way.
5) If she had just said: "I'm so sorry I was being dangerous to myself and others, I will try to pay more attention" and "Yes, my name is Trixie Snugtwat, and my date of birth is blah blah"; She would have walked away with a ticket in her hand. Easy. Sometimes, certain entitled college students sometimes feel that the rule of law does not especially apply to them, and that there is no way they have done anything wrong, or need to cooperate with the police. "I go to college, and I know my rights"
6) The same rules apply when you refuse to sign a traffic ticket. You force the officer to take you into custody, and present you to the judge.
Hope this clears things up a little. TenZero out.
My position through this whole thread has been that SOME police are not held accountable. You admit (and we all know) that SOME police are not held accountable so how does that make me in your words, "off base" while you are no doubt 'on target'? We have today and for years now held the same view points, you know I'm not anti-cop but I am very anti-corruption as I know for a FACT you are, i.e. we're in the same boat here.
I know they are and the city is paying out 4.2mill to the ladies but I think you and I can both agree that LAPD is FAR from making the grade in terms of accountability at least in the public's eye. Granted it's one of the worst place on Earth to be a cop but it doesn't make it any easier when the public they 'serve' distrusts them, they have to be extra vigilant in the public's eyes which has been my point this whole thread and is most certainly is the case with Austin to whihc the police are failing in that regard. I wouldn't have even chimed in to this thread if it weren't for the fact that I lived in Austin for a decade and am very aware of APD's reputation. The simple fact here is that APD(Austin) is and has been for years known for their corruption and lack of accountability. It's a pretty safe bet that if this hadn't been caught on tape it would be swept under APD's rug and it would be business as usual over at APD with zero accountability to the people. Right or wrong, this girl's plight shines a big'ol spot-light on APD and the leadership will have to do something about it ... for once.
Well in your words which I quoted a few posts above you used the word "many". Now I'll just chalk it up to a simple play on words and if you meant to say "some" then okay. But that's where my "off base" comment stemmed from, that it seemed like you were stating that we just do whatever we please with no consequences. I'm sure there are some agencies out there that run haphazard doing what they want without impunity but I personally don't know of any. If I did I would have no problem stating it here. Personally I do know of plenty of agencies (LAPD included) which take accountability and oversight to the next level. While I agree that they (LAPD as well as some others) might not be making the grade yet in the public eye, these things don't happen overnight and it takes time to earn trust back once lost.
Not knowing anything about the Austin PD I can't really argue your claims here but what I can argue is that what exactly would have been swept under the rug regarding this particular incident? They didn't beat her, they didn't plant drugs or weapons on her. They didn't even appear to be rude. They did handcuff her and take her to the station, presumably to validate her identity and issue her the jaywalking summons. Not sure what there is to cover up here.
ETA: Yes I know that you're not anti cop and instead are anti corruption but not everything you see is corruption.
TenZero: LOLing hard at Trixie Snugtwat
Not knowing anything about the Austin PD I can't really argue your claims here but what I can argue is that what exactly would have been swept under the rug regarding this particular incident? They didn't beat her, they didn't plant drugs or weapons on her. They didn't even appear to be rude. They did handcuff her and take her to the station, presumably to validate her identity and issue her the jaywalking summons. Not sure what there is to cover up here.
ETA: Yes I know that you're not anti cop and instead are anti corruption but not everything you see is corruption.
TenZero: LOLing hard at Trixie Snugtwat
Last edited:
Was this worth it, APD?
I remember when growing up my father ALWAYS said, you can always trust a police officer. If you ever get into trouble, go to the nearest police officer.
I remember my Mother telling me that during WWII when Bloomfield (NJ) police officers could not only not get 38's and ammo was totally out of the question, my Father somehow went to New York, came back with 6 new 38's & enough ammo to both practice but for the LEO's to carry.
I was told by my Mother, when Dad was being 'escorted' home during WWII with film, camera, and 'documents' he was handed off from one police department to the next when his route in part included Route 22 here in Jersey. It later came to his attention that the Hillside Police were payed far less than other police departments in the area. Have no idea how Dad pulled it off but somehow, someway, Hillside got a raise.
Yes, Dad was born in 1894 & I am now 65, but times have changed & not for he better.
For those LEO's that grunt everyday doing the right thing & are not heard or seen my hats are off to you. I just shake my head & hope I never run across some of the jerks that I read about.
Maxwell
I remember my Mother telling me that during WWII when Bloomfield (NJ) police officers could not only not get 38's and ammo was totally out of the question, my Father somehow went to New York, came back with 6 new 38's & enough ammo to both practice but for the LEO's to carry.
I was told by my Mother, when Dad was being 'escorted' home during WWII with film, camera, and 'documents' he was handed off from one police department to the next when his route in part included Route 22 here in Jersey. It later came to his attention that the Hillside Police were payed far less than other police departments in the area. Have no idea how Dad pulled it off but somehow, someway, Hillside got a raise.
Yes, Dad was born in 1894 & I am now 65, but times have changed & not for he better.
For those LEO's that grunt everyday doing the right thing & are not heard or seen my hats are off to you. I just shake my head & hope I never run across some of the jerks that I read about.
Maxwell
So a lot more has come out about this case in the last few days. It appears, like we already knew, that this girl didn't have ID on her which wasn't the problem leading to arrest as was said in this thread. The reason she was arrested was because she failed to even give her name to the cops thinking that she could get out of her ticket by not giving the cops a name and was obviously arrested (I don't agree with this but it's the norm so...). So we were all wrong to varying degrees and obviously this isn't based on a real investigation so that could all change but for now I'm willing to admit that I was wrong on the reasoning. I still believe that Austin police are corrupt as they have a very long history of abuses so it was a good/safe bet that this girl was a victim of that but as I mentioned above, it doesn't appear that this is the case in this case. Still the chief of Austin police couldn't help but fuck up and say:
Anyway, the take away point here is that the Austin police are rotten but it doesn't appear that this girl wasn't a victim of that (but plenty of others have been).
Here's a pretty good tentative description of what went down: BBC News - Heated jaywalking arrest prompts outcry
Anyway, the take away point here is that the Austin police are rotten but it doesn't appear that this girl wasn't a victim of that (but plenty of others have been).
Here's a pretty good tentative description of what went down: BBC News - Heated jaywalking arrest prompts outcry
It speaks volumes about a man when he's able to admit when he's wrong. As far as the APD chief goes. He probably should have kept his mouth shut but sadly he isn't wrong in what he said.
LOL yeah it is true what he said and I get what he was trying to say but man he just couldn't help but throw fuel on the fire. I'm betting his days as chief are numbered.
Like I said, she had the choice to identify herself and take her jaywalking ticket like a grownup. OR, refuse to ID, which means an officer CAN'T write a ticket, and is compelled to make an arrest. Her choice. Granted, it doesn't look great on the video, but it is what it is. Sometimes, video really doesn't tell the whole story, as much as we wish it would. Other times, video does provide clues that would be unavailable otherwise. Try to keep in mind, that when you see a video on the internet, the individual who posted it usually has an agenda in mind. They wouldn't post it if it didn't fit the narrative they wanted to push. The only reason this got so much play is that is involved a medium-hot white girl, who is easy to portray as innocent of everything, in a made up example of police brutality. If she had simply listened to her options, and made rational decisions about how to proceed, none of this would have happened. She chose to be an entitled asshole, and got an extra measure of inconvenience. Nothing more.
