Depending on the attitude received, I don't usually write the actual speed. So if I write the ticket, those people going 48/25 would get an equipment violation if they had one, or some kind of lesser speed, normally in the range of 10-14 over. In NJ, if you go 15 over, it's a whole different bracket with increased fines and points. If IA ever sat around trying to make me write tickets, I'd shut down and not write any. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle. I'd find a way to ignore just about everything, and so would most everyone else. There would still be a few that would happily slay the public, however.
My authority doesn't reach to the TSA. I've not been involved in any illegal wiretaps ala the Patriot Act either. As for weed- well, we already know how that goes. I've done my fair share of looking the other way, but I've also used a simple weed charge to open up a much larger case involving coke and heroin. It's all part of the game.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51126#msg51126 date=1300635874]
Depending on the attitude received, I don't usually write the actual speed.
[/quote]
Well, there you have it from someone who knows. The penalty of the state is not apportioned according to your violation of the law, nor even according to the damage you've done to some victim, but according to your attitude as perceived by the enforcer. And just think of all the things that can affect the enforcer's perception of your attitude: he just had a fight with the wife, has financial worries, bad headache, etc, etc. Do we even really need a legislature? I'm sure there's enough attitude to fill all the prisons to capacity and then some.
Y'know, I just had an unrelated idea. What this world needs is a system of justice. Imagine what that would be like!
So I should enforce the law without regard for anything else? I think not. Your attitude plays a huge role in how you are treated. I'm assuming you are one of those guys that 'never gets a break' because your attitude toward other people sucks. If you come off as an arrogant 'I pay your salary' type, you can guarantee that the law will be upheld to its fullest degree. That means no breaks, just lots of justice being served.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51132#msg51132 date=1300666251]So I should enforce the law without regard for anything else? I think not. Your attitude plays a huge role in how you are treated. I'm assuming you are one of those guys that 'never gets a break' because your attitude toward other people sucks. If you come off as an arrogant 'I pay your salary' type, you can guarantee that the law will be upheld to its fullest degree. That means no breaks, just lots of justice being served.[/quote]
Expecting one's servants to act servile is not arrogance.
Expecting one's masters to act servile, is the epitome of arrogance.
It's punks like this nutcase that leave my father too embarrassed to admit that he was ever a cop, half the time. Half a century in the field let him watch his "brothers in blue" turn from folks he was willing to call that, into two-bit thugs every bit as bad as the gang-bangers he used to arrest. Cops and the laws were not perfect back then, which makes it doubly disgusting to think of how far they've fallen since then. Nothing but a street gang, now.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51132#msg51132 date=1300666251]
So I should enforce the law without regard for anything else? I think not. Your attitude plays a huge role in how you are treated. I'm assuming you are one of those guys that 'never gets a break' because your attitude toward other people sucks. If you come off as an arrogant 'I pay your salary' type, you can guarantee that the law will be upheld to its fullest degree. That means no breaks, just lots of justice being served.
[/quote]
No. I expect you to help us preserve the peace. That means hunting down people who harm others, or steal their stuff, and forcing them to pay retribution. Period.
You can start with the tax collectors. Biggest extortion racket on the planet. Oh, wait. They pay your salary.
Ohcrap- You're responses are frankly terrifying, and completely confirm my negative feelings and attitudes toward law enforcement.
Those "pay your salary" types are absolutely correct. Most people treat their employers with some degree of respect. Police treat their employers with disdain and traffic tickets…
This thread deserves much wider distribution–because if I didn't hate cops before I read Crapola's panegyrics, I sure would afterward! (And if this is what he's like when he's affecting to participate in a reasonable discussion, just imagine what he sounds like when he's talking with co-thugs…)
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51126#msg51126 date=1300635874] I've also used a simple weed charge to open up a much larger case involving coke and heroin. It's all part of the game.[/quote]
No. No. No.
You don't use non-crimes to open up larger cases. If the crime itself is not bad enough to warrant an arrest or have enough evidence to convict, then spend time arresting the people who are clearly harming or defrauding others. I know, I know, they arrested Al Capone on tax evasion because they couldn't get him on other charges. That doesn't make it right.
A checkpoint stopping every car going into and out of a city might catch lots of lawbreakers, but that sure as hell doesn't make it right. I believe in gun rights for my protection, not invasive and random laws that cops can use to check out innocent and criminal alike. Innocent people should be left alone. Pure and simple.
Yes, I realize information is the way most police catch criminals. I realize that getting rid of a bunch of these laws would restrict how much access police have to information. As a innocent member of a free society, I'm okay with that. I do not want to trade my liberty for security. Stop wasting my and your time with this "game" crap.
the equivalent to stopping everyone to find a drunk is forcing every police officer to wear a camera on their person 24/7 to make sure they're not corrupt. Surely, you'd have no problem with this because you have nothing to hide, correct?
I betcha you wouldn't want that. You could quit your job if you didn't like the rules. The problem is that I have to go to work, and that includes driving on streets that we both own.
[quote author=AntonLee link=topic=4846.msg51158#msg51158 date=1300790857]the equivalent to stopping everyone to find a drunk is forcing every police officer to wear a camera on their person 24/7 to make sure they're not corrupt. Surely, you'd have no problem with this because you have nothing to hide, correct?
I betcha you wouldn't want that. You could quit your job if you didn't like the rules. The problem is that I have to go to work, and that includes driving on streets that we both own.[/quote]
Heck, some company came out with a "gun cam," that just takes a few frames, when the gun is fired. The idea being that cops would be able to prove that their shootings were "justified," since the camera would clearly show that the guy they shot was armed and pointing a gun at them, or whatever.
As far as I know, not a single department has adopted the device. It's almost like they know that many of their officers would be going up for murder, if such evidence was available…
Joe
[quote author=PaulOtt link=topic=4846.msg51156#msg51156 date=1300766882]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51126#msg51126 date=1300635874] I've also used a simple weed charge to open up a much larger case involving coke and heroin. It's all part of the game.[/quote]
No. No. No.
You don't use non-crimes to open up larger cases. If the crime itself is not bad enough to warrant an arrest or have enough evidence to convict, then spend time arresting the people who are clearly harming or defrauding others. I know, I know, they arrested Al Capone on tax evasion because they couldn't get him on other charges. That doesn't make it right.
A checkpoint stopping every car going into and out of a city might catch lots of lawbreakers, but that sure as hell doesn't make it right. I believe in gun rights for my protection, not invasive and random laws that cops can use to check out innocent and criminal alike. Innocent people should be left alone. Pure and simple.
Yes, I realize information is the way most police catch criminals. I realize that getting rid of a bunch of these laws would restrict how much access police have to information. As a innocent member of a free society, I'm okay with that. I do not want to trade my liberty for security. Stop wasting my and your time with this "game" crap.
[/quote]
But this the way the game is played. You can't break open a big case without starting small. And if a simple possession charge turns into a few pounds of powder or stolen merchandise, it's a good job on my end. Unfortunately, with the way the system is now, your opinion of a non-crime doesn't hold up. Someone, somewhere decided that this should be a law/crime. So he, and a bunch of other people representing us decided that they would put it into a book and have the police enforce it. It's a done deal unless you can find a way to repeal it.
Second, the checkpoints don't stop every car. Nor does it allow for random sobriety tests. The way it works is that you temporarily stop a predetermined vehicle, be it the 3rd, 6th, or 10th vehicle. Those vehicles with blatant violations get stopped regardless of their place in line. The stopped vehicles get nothing more than a document check unless there is something else, ie. odor of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana in the vehicle. Then the testing begins. These checkpoints are arranged well ahead of time, and public notice is given so you can avoid them. So both innocent and dirty people have the opportunity to get away either by random luck or by reading a newspaper/online notice.
[quote author=AntonLee link=topic=4846.msg51158#msg51158 date=1300790857]
the equivalent to stopping everyone to find a drunk is forcing every police officer to wear a camera on their person 24/7 to make sure they're not corrupt. Surely, you'd have no problem with this because you have nothing to hide, correct?
I betcha you wouldn't want that. You could quit your job if you didn't like the rules. The problem is that I have to go to work, and that includes driving on streets that we both own.
[/quote]
We've had cameras in cars for 12 years, where have you been?
And those cameras have protected myself and others more than a few times from people making BS complaints about racial language, rights violations, and theft. I'd never go back to the old way of no surveillance.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51161#msg51161 date=1300803911]
And those cameras have protected myself and others more than a few times from people making BS complaints about racial language, rights violations, and theft. I'd never go back to the old way of no surveillance.
[/quote]
And if the complaint isn't BS, and the person has video from their own home surveillance video, sometimes the police will charge that person with a felony or two.
And then the police can kick you out of your house, while they wait for a warrant(which they have no doubt will be issued), all so they can make sure the video of them acting bad doesn't get shown to the public.
http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html
[quote]
NASHUA – A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.
Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.
Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.[
…
After the police arrested the Gannons’ sons, Janet Gannon said, they “secured” the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.
Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.
“They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They’re security cameras,” she said, adding, “They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.”[/quote]
Please, defend that. Thanks.
[quote author=blackie link=topic=4846.msg51164#msg51164 date=1300808346]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51161#msg51161 date=1300803911]
And those cameras have protected myself and others more than a few times from people making BS complaints about racial language, rights violations, and theft. I'd never go back to the old way of no surveillance.
[/quote]
And if the complaint isn't BS, and the person has video from their own home surveillance video, sometimes the police will charge that person with a felony or two.
And then the police can kick you out of your house, while they wait for a warrant(which they have no doubt will be issued), all so they can make sure the video of them acting bad doesn't get shown to the public.
http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html
[quote]
NASHUA – A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.
Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.
Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.[
…
After the police arrested the Gannons’ sons, Janet Gannon said, they “secured” the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.
Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.
“They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They’re security cameras,” she said, adding, “They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.”[/quote]
Please, defend that. Thanks.
[/quote]
Not the rule here in NJ.
So long as ONE of the parties is aware they are being monitored, then it is legit. So here, if I want to tape record a conversation between myself and another, I can do that. What I can't do is leave the camera somewhere and record another person's conversation without a warrant. I do not believe those rules in any way affect personal/home video though, so I don't know what kind of fucked up rule that is in NH. If it is YOUR house, you should have the right to do whatever you want. There must be more to the story.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51170#msg51170 date=1300816273]
Not the rule here in NJ.[/quote]
It's not the rule in NH, but that doesn't stop the cops from arresting someone for it, kicking people out of their house, seizing and never returning property.
[quote]There must be more to the story.
[/quote]
There is. Police corruption. The charges were dropped, but the video was never returned.
Here is the search warrant application:
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/search_warrant.pdf
How strange is it that Det. Karlis was the one that was video taped and Mr. Gannon tried to file a complaint against him…but then Det. Karlis was the one who applied for and executed the search warrant.
[quote author=blackie link=topic=4846.msg51172#msg51172 date=1300818315][quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51170#msg51170 date=1300816273]Not the rule here in NJ.[/quote]It's not the rule in NH, but that doesn't stop the cops from arresting someone for it, kicking people out of their house, seizing and never returning property.[/quote]
And the scary thing is, I know dozens of folks who've fled to NH from NJ, and they always talk about how much less corrupt the cops are, here.
If our corrupt nutcases are orders of magnitude less corrupt than those in NJ, how bad must those in NJ actually be?
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51160#msg51160 d[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51131#msg51131 date=1300649058]
The way it works is that you temporarily stop a predetermined vehicle, be it the 3rd, 6th, or 10th vehicle. Those vehicles with blatant violations get stopped regardless of their place in line. The stopped vehicles get nothing more than a document check unless there is something else, ie. odor of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana in the vehicle.
[/quote]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51132#msg51132 date=1300666251]
Your attitude plays a huge role in how you are treated.
[/quote]
So don't worry, you won't get anything more than a document check unless he doesn't like your "attitude."
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51161#msg51161 date=1300803911]
And those cameras have protected myself and others more than a few times from people making BS complaints about racial language, rights violations, and theft. I'd never go back to the old way of no surveillance.
[/quote]
Of course you like those cameras. They're engineered to malfunction any time you're breaking the law. It magically turns your crime into a "BS complaint." What could be better?
[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51175#msg51175 date=1300824219]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51160#msg51160 d[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg51131#msg51131 date=1300649058]
The way it works is that you temporarily stop a predetermined vehicle, be it the 3rd, 6th, or 10th vehicle. Those vehicles with blatant violations get stopped regardless of their place in line. The stopped vehicles get nothing more than a document check unless there is something else, ie. odor of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana in the vehicle.
[/quote]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51132#msg51132 date=1300666251]
Your attitude plays a huge role in how you are treated.
[/quote]
So don't worry, you won't get anything more than a document check unless he doesn't like your "attitude."
[/quote]
So you better put on a smiley face.
[quote author=blackie link=topic=4846.msg51172#msg51172 date=1300818315]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51170#msg51170 date=1300816273]
Not the rule here in NJ.[/quote]
It's not the rule in NH, but that doesn't stop the cops from arresting someone for it, kicking people out of their house, seizing and never returning property.
[quote]There must be more to the story.
[/quote]
There is. Police corruption. The charges were dropped, but the video was never returned.
Here is the search warrant application:
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/search_warrant.pdf
How strange is it that Det. Karlis was the one that was video taped and Mr. Gannon tried to file a complaint against him…but then Det. Karlis was the one who applied for and executed the search warrant.
[/quote]
This is quite interesting.
Aside from all this, why would you be supporting a felon with a stolen gun?