Pixiq

how about cops paying attention to ACTUAL crimes instead of fantasy ones?

as if PHX is a shangri-la and photographers are going around terrorizing poor, defenseless public buildings

Great, so when a Phoenix cop sees a photographer, they see a whole bunch of paperwork that they’ll have to do later. It will feel as if the photographer has made work for him/her. That does not bode well for the photographer.

Bah, urge to move as far away from Arizona as possible rising…. then again, it seems to be like this everywhere. So much for freedom, dead and buried in the United States.

That is the problem. Just becaue we carry a camera and take a photo we have been branded. You’d be surprised at the things I’ve been told by cops. It seems they get these memo’s and other training that makes them suspicious of people with cameras.

The people that write these memo’s don’t know th rules. If they did they wouldn’t writing the memos in the first place.

Forget about flickr or other sites to get photography from. The agiencies themselves publish plans and photos on their own websites and in information that they give away so people can find their way around.

People allowed this to happen out of fear. It’s going to take a bunch of fearless people to correct it.

If the memo directs that people be questioned “without giving the impression we are interrogating them,” how is that harassment?

Asking questions of citizens is part of an officer’s job 24/7. It’s perfectly appropriate to ask someone why they are someplace and what they’re doing. It’s also perfectly legal too. If the citizen responds with a reasonable answer, that’s all we need. When the citizen acts suspicious or is hostile for no reason, there’s often a reason why — they are engaged in some kind of unlawful activity.

A police station can be a target for any number of reasons. Keeping the facility secure is a high priority. Remember, to a police officer, a photographer and someone only posing as a photographer look exactly the same.

If you come into our station and start to take photos, we’re going to want to know why. We will ask your name and address. You’re free to take pictures in any public area once you provide that information.

“Acting suspicious” means any behavior that’s not normal or customary given the circumstances. If a guy starts screaming when someone asks why he’s taking photos, that’s suspicious. Normal people don’t blow up for no reason.

O.F.,

Central Station is a transportation hub not a police station.

Furthermore,

Then why should the memo single out photographers?

Why not mothers with baby strollers or businessmen with cell phones or students with backpacks or senior citizens with canes?

Oregon Flatfoot,

Carlos your right we can’t forget, “the bomb in the baby carriage was wired to the radio”. Why aren’t you asking for the name and address of everyone with a baby carriage?

When you start asking people’s names and addresses for legal behaviour it becomes a form of prior restraint and chills the activity, so it’s not really ‘allowed’ any more. That’s why the asking of names to take photos can’t be allowed.

Taking photos of all kinds is a normal and customary activity in all transportation centers. Asking people why they are taking photos is suspicious government activity. Asking them for their names and addresses is also suspicious because it’s not normal and customary to have to provide such information to be in the space.

Getting annoyed, blowing up and even screaming when being accused of doing something nefarious when you aren’t is normal and customary.

Remember I’m talking about publicly accesable areas here.

The whole security thing is way out of control.

Mr. Miller, a baby carriage or a briefcase is not something that can be used for surveillance purposes but a camera is. Bus stations and train stations are just like police stations; they are potential targets of criminal activity. The headlines are regularly filled with reports of people who commit mass mayhem at public facilities like schools and churches and, recently, an immigration center. A bus or train station could very likely be a target too and sometimes are. Persons bent on criminal activity have been known to case their crime scenes in advance, and a camera is the ideal means to assist them in that activity. For that reason, someone taking photographs in such a facility is of greater interest than a woman with a baby carriage or a man with a briefcase. Remember, police officers are privy to considerable confidential information that you know nothing about. They may know a public place is a target based on recent intelligence, so they’re watching it more closely than you may realize. Someone taking photographs is potentially of interest. Anyone is free to take photographs, but a police officer also has a duty to inquire more about a photographer if he feels it’s necessary. A responsible citizen will cooperate and shortly be able to resume his photography.

Mr. Kerzic, a police officer is not accusing anyone of anything by asking questions. That’s part of a police officer’s job — to ask questions. Unless a citizen happens to be a Supreme Court justice, his personal opinions about constitutional law and any possible chilling effect are of no interest to a law enforcement officer. That’s viewed as nothing more than what it is: being uncooperative. The officer is allowed by law to stop and question anyone briefly in a public place simply if he has a reasonable suspicion that person is engaged in some type of criminal activity. Photography can be ancillary to criminal activity; therefore, a police officer has good cause to investigate anyone taking photographs in public. Stopping and questioning a person like this is known as a “Terry stop,” so named for a Supreme Court decision from forty years ago. Most people cooperate freely with Terry stops and are soon on their way. Many police departments require a police officer to complete an information card for anyone detained in a Terry stop, often an activity that does not occur until after the stop is completed. If the person stopped is uncooperative and starts screaming and shouting, by law the officer may take further action, including a longer hold on the person with further questioning, frisking the individual, handcuffing the individual, and possibly arresting the individual for breach of the peace or similar violation. The photographer can easily avoid problems by simply cooperating with the officer and soon will be able to his photography.

This is the bottom line: cooperating is less suspicious; failing to cooperate is more suspicious. By failing to cooperate, a photographer only makes himself more suspicious and subject to greater scrutiny.

Cops,

GOD help us if photographers decide to go undercover and leave their cameras at home and use their eyes as a weapon of mass destruction. Hint, that's called sarcasm.

When the budget crisis makes politicians campaign on outlawing police unions and liquidating pensions, they will get my vote.

COPS are glorified garbage collectors, and you smell like shit.

O.F.,

If I am not mistaken, you are a police officer, right?

Have you honestly seen cases of terrorism or mass murders where the suspect first photographed the target beforehand?

It didn’t happen in 9/11.

It didn’t happen in Oklahoma City.

It didn’t happen with the London subway bombings.

It didn’t happen with the recent slaying of three cops in Pittsburgh.

It didn’t happen in Columbine.

It didn’t happen at Virginia Tech.

Please, just give me one example where these criminals photographed their target beforehand.

Please read this article.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html

How is it harassment? Try to substitute the word ‘photographer’ with ‘people of middle-eastern appearance’. In other words, it’s just unwarranted profiling. It isn’t affecting a large enough demographic, or a politically-powerful enough demographic to hardly matter (it seems) at the moment, but don’t think for even a moment there isn’t a difference between this sort of profiling and racial profiling.
It is true that police can have a conversation with anyone they see; note, a conversation – the same sort of one that requires zero courtesy from me, even if the person is an officer. The same type I can walk away from without fear of retribution – rudeness and the act of ignoring another person are intimate to the human condition, they aren’t “suspicious” – they just offend your sensibilities.
I hate to break it to you, Oregon Flatfoot, but just because you don’t think it is normal makes it suspicious. Just because an officer thinks it isn’t normal doesn’t make it suspicious. Every person is an individual, with their own unique quirks.
“Ah! he isn’t acting as I believe the circumstances dictate he should be! He must be committing a crime!” Get off your bloody high-horse and fix your logical fallacy, then please return and provide something useful to the debate.

OF,

Having a baby carriage can be ancillary to criminal activity. So can having a briefcase.

If you spent the time and did your research I’m sure you’d find many, many cases of baby carriages being used for terrorist activities and for shop lifting. Baby carriages can also be used to transport illicit substances. Again I’m sure you can find many cases in which they have been found to be used in this way. I want to know why cops aren’t milling around making “Terry Stops” on woman with baby carriages? I have just demonstrated how baby carriages are ancillary to criminal activity and if you do some research you’ll see they are often used for that.

Yet while all the cops that post here want to tell us how in fantasy-land cameras are being used in these criminal activities not a single one has come up with a factual example. Yet they insist on bothering people with cameras. To make a “Terry stop” there has to be a certain articuable suspicion. Holding a camera or using one does not rise to the level of suspicion even to make a “Terry stop”. That’s been the point here.

When you start making “terry stops” for having a baby carriage I’ll accept you making a “terry stop” on me for having a camera.

Go chase some real criminals. We all come and take photos of it and make you look like heroes. Then we can all go home happy.

Oy, and I should have refreshed the page before posting, and apologies in advance for double-posting.
Oregon Flatfoot, does everything that you see, hear, and process through your five sense leave you body immediately thereafter? I didn’t think they did; oops, it seems every human being on the planet is a surveillance tool. Bother. Also, isn’t everything a possible criminal target? I mean, someone might want to steal the parking sign, or some poor lady’s wig right off her head, or someone might even want to slander someone in front of another; oh, wait, yeah, applying the sort of logic you supplied does get kind of silly when you explore it.
Here is the thing, I can take pictures in public, nearly without exception. True, a police officer can approach me in public, without exception. Not “cooperating” with unreasonable demands isn’t suspicious, it is called self-worth.
Last time I had a Terry Stop on foot, I showed my (film) camera, explained why I was in an industrial area (pretty light, so forth). Unfortunately, because I exercised my rights, (its perfectly legal to refuse to ID in Texas, provided you aren’t already under arrest. I wasn’t breaking any laws, thus had no reason to ID myself) I was labeled a “smart ***” (verbally), and the sheriff deputy called the bloody FBI and said I was “probing police officers for their reactions.”
A responsible citizenry will respect the rights their forefathers gave their lives for, not freely give them to be pillaged.
A responsible officer will respect the rights of the citizenry while remaining vigilant against threats to the aforementioned, not causing an undue burden upon the same.

Mr. Miller, yes I am a police officer, hence the “flatfoot.” I am aware of numerous incidents where casing photography proceeded an actual crime. I am not at liberty nor would it be prudent to discuss those matters further in a public forum. Whatever self-styled “security guru” Bruce Schneier thinks is of no particular interest to me nor to any other police officer. What a private citizen like he, or you, may glean from news sources is irrelevant as well.

Mr. (?) Diomedesxx, a citizen is not on equal footing when stopped by a police officer. The citizen’s opinions on what the officer may or may not do are irrelevant to the officer at that moment in time. If the citizen attempts to walk away or otherwise flee before the officer is finished speaking with him, by law the officer may therefore physically detain him and even arrest him. That’s why officers carry handcuffs, firearms, mace, pepper spray, batons, tasers, and more. They’re not interested in an uncooperative citizens’ personal opinions about police procedures.

If a citizen tells me he thinks I shouldn’t stop him, that’s of no interest to me and just white noise. I’m not stopping him to inquire about his opinions on anything, specifically policing; therefore, his opinions are irrelevant, and I’m not interested in hearing them. If he is uncooperative, I will take all necessary and lawful action accordingly.

O.F.,

But I am a journalist so I believe in facts. Citing a few cases where criminals photographed their targets before destroying them would go a long way in helping people like me understand the mentality of an officer.

But I have not seen a single example, so I am skeptical.

What does Flatfoot have to do with police officers?

Bravo DK
as a matter of fact i was stopped from taking Photo’s of the BOONE county court house by a sharifs deputy making a TERRY STOP…
when i asked him to show me the law he FLAT OUT REFUSED to do so…..
in the heat of an argument I walked away into the court house to talk to the County DA
LOW AND BEHOLD the DA walked out of the building and CHEWWD UP THE DEP. ASS
it was kinda funny the way he did it it sound like HE( the DA) was going to file charges on the Dep. But any way saying THE DA here in boone county wont stand for that crap is a good thing he has my vote and the vote of many here who witnessed it ………………..THANKS BOONE COUNTY FOR STANDING UP FOR CITIZANES

O.F
that is rediculace i wont nor should any other citizan give you the time of day enless they want to …… I have been to oragan and YOU CANT ARESST ME FOR NOT TALKING TO YOU
PERIOD … thats in the constitution its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH so now you arrest me cause i wont UNLAWFULY BE INTERIGATED
guess who would win that fight in court it would be well ill let you guess …. I have been aressted for such a crime where no crime egsists and they where forced to let me go with in 30 mins of the booking cause the DA didnt want a lawsuit on his hands and the officer was fired ( guess he has done this befor ) so befor you say IT IS lawfull check your laws one more time and post a link where it says that an officer can aresst someone for NOT talking to them also might i add that i also have the FITH amendment witch BARS ME FROM ANSWERING YOU to protect myself …………………..HMMM wonder why that was put in there

Mr. Miller, yes I am a police officer, hence the “flatfoot.” I am aware of numerous incidents where casing photography proceeded an actual crime. I am not at liberty nor would it be prudent to discuss those matters further in a public forum. Whatever self-styled “security guru” Bruce Schneier thinks is of no particular interest to me nor to any other police officer. What a private citizen like he, or you, may glean from news sources is irrelevant as well.

Gee, you don’t have any closed cases where it was used as evidence and is part of the public record. Well from what you said I guess not. Yup, we got all the weapons so we are in charge and you’ll do what we tell you. OF I hope to meet you in a professional sense sometime while I’m taking photos.

You’re one of the reasons that police have a bad name in this country.

Mr. Miller, a police officer does not have to justify his actions to a member of the public nor cite prior examples before he acts as long as he is operating within the law. He is operating under what is known as “the color of authority,” and questioning people in public is within the scope of that authority. I know of examples or possible scenarios and that’s all that matters before I act. I have no lawful responsibility to tell you what I know. Policing is not the same as journalism. What you need and what I need are two different things.

Please also note I didn’t say the individuals were bent on “destroying” the location of criminal activity while photographing them, only that casing photography was part of an entire criminal endeavor.

Flatfoot is slang for a police officer. It was first made popular in the classic Studs Lonigan novels.

O.F.

So, you are saying that a police officer who does not have probable cause may walk up to me and interrogate me? And when I decline to identify myself with ID, you may at your recognizance arrest me?

You would not have to be in the process of a Terry investigation?

What about Hiibel Vs. The State of Nevada?

What is it you are hiding “Officer Flatfoot”? You’re not telling us everything. What is it you have up your sleeve?

Mr. Kerzic, I’ll simply repeat what I said in my previous comment: “a citizen is not on equal footing when stopped by a police officer. The citizen’s opinions on what the officer may or may not do are irrelevant to the officer at that moment in time.”

I could care less what a person with a misinformed opinion of the police thinks. It’s not a game or contest on the street. If a citizen is uncooperative, I take whatever action the law allows me. I am armed with numerous tools and resources to deal with an uncooperative person. That may include further detention, arrest, and referral for prosecution as facts and circumstances warrant.

Carlos,

This is kind of like the gun disguised as a camera that we have been hearing about. Police Officer, “I know of an instance where a gun was disguised as a camera so I’m concerned your camera might be a gun in disguise.” So that the police use this to justify their actions. Yet the only people known to have a gun disguised as a camera are the police. But hey it could happen.

Well he might not have to justify his actions to a member of the public during the stop but he does have to justify them to the public eventually. Like when he gets sued for harassing someone by questioning them when he doesn’t have the power to do so. Carlos as your case is a perfect example sooner or later there is a public tribunal where they have to answer to the public. As much as they might like to think they are above the law they aren’t.

Like I said everyone knows of instances where baby carriages have been used in crimes. It’s part of the public record and it’s been recorded. So when you start treating baby carriages as suspicious items I’ll be willing to accept you treating my camera as a suspicious item.

Oregon Flatfoot, there is no need to feign politeness, as this is an online debate, and nearly all of us are using pseudonyms here to maintain anonymity. Though, do brush up on your Greek mythology if you’re confused on the gender – Diomedes had two separate myths associated, a different person altogether in each, and a man in both instances.
I do well assume you understands there are three textbook type of citizen-police encounters: Conversation (what I was talking about prior to my terry stop), Detention (Terry Stop, for instance), and Arrest. When we are in conversation, you bet your badge we are at equal footing – though you can legally carry weapons that would get me arrested for carrying them, and have a shiny badge. I’m assuming response 14 is referring to a Detention, not the Conversation I was referring to. Point of fact, walking away from someone, even if it is an officer, is not fleeing provided they were not detained or under arrest. You, as a person might not like being slighted as such, but you are an officer to perform a duty, not salve an ego.
Now for a bit of snark.
It’s refreshing to see you take your job seriously and you are correct in every assessment you make. You are a pinnacle of ethos and are unquestionable as an officer of the law. Everyone (unless they are a Judge) should quiver at your feet in thankfulness that they were allowed to enjoy their rights as citizens due to your diligence.
End-snanrk. My apologies for my rudeness ahead of time, but your response in 14 didn’t ring very different than my snark did.
Unfortunately, you must remember you are an officer of the law – a position of an extremely public nature. If you don’t think you need to explain why you do what you do to those you are responsible to, please have your head examined. Though, you will not have to explain yourself prior to doing anything, you will have to explain yourself to that very public which you just spurned when charges such as “abuse of official authority” are brought forth. Though, the tendency for a less virtuous judge to hesitate to bring charges against an officer who seems to be behaving suspiciously is a boon to your kind (i.e., police).
And here I was naive enough to believe I would never hear an officer say “if someone doesn’t behave how I want them do when I want them to, I have the tools to make them.”

Mr. Jester, the operative standard on a citizen stop is not “probable cause” but the lesser threshold of “reasonable suspicion.”

So taking pictures is a reasonable suspicion?

Not in this country.

Mr. Flatfoot,

You’ve still not addressed what is your agenda. Who are you, or rather, should I ask, who do you work for?

It’s interesting how this is a story about how the police finally realized that they have gone over board with bothering photographers.
Phoenix police are in the process of softening the directive slightly since media reports about the photographer who was questioned, says Phoenix police Lt. Anthony Lopez

I say congratulations to the Phoenix police for after a year figuring out that they are bothering and harassing people and are changing what they are doing.

You see flatfoot, just because you might think something is suspicious doesn’t mean it is. It’s time to leave cop fantasyland and return to earth. Taking photos isn’t suspicious, it’s a common and normal activity in just about every country in the world.

In this country it, taking photos in public of things in the public view, happens to be according to the Supreme Court, which you said you listen to, an act of protected speech. So until you have read as many court decisions about this subject as I have I suggest that you start listening. You just might save yourself a bunch of trouble.

O.F.,

While most people in this country will take your word on it simply on the basis that you are a police officer, most people on this site are a little more skeptical than that.

It’s not that we’re anti-police, it’s just that we’ve seen too many examples of police trying to create their own laws or making up facts to justify an arrest.

In preparing my appeal, I spent many days and hours in the law library researching “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” and the act of taking photos does not fall into either of those categories.

These apply to instances where a police officer believes a crime is about to take place or has taken place, even though he hasn’t seen a crime take place.

For example, a guy walking into a store with a mask and gun in his hand.

There has to be strong evidence to support an arrest on reasonable suspicion or probable cause and the act of taking a photo simply isn’t strong enough.

Mr. Miller, as previously noted, in certain circumstances and settings, taking photographs would give me reasonable suspicion of possible criminal behavior and I would therefore investigate. As a matter of law, I need not discuss with the citizen nor reveal those suspicions if I choose not to at that time. At the scene, it’s my judgment that counts, not the citizen’s.

Mr. Diomedesxx, again, at the scene, the citizen is not on equal footing with the police officer and the citizen’s opinion is therefore irrelevant and of no interest to me. Someone can spin hypotheticals and cite court cases until they’re blue in the face and it doesn’t matter to me. I have lawful means to deal with uncooperative citizens and I know how to make a lawful arrest stick. Arresting people is part of my job; I do it nearly every day I’m on duty.

People constantly threaten to sue police officers. It’s an empty threat 99.99 percent of the time. It’s just white noise. My response here is exactly what it is in the street: to ignore it.

It’s been interesting ladies and gentlemen, but now I’m off to suit up and protect the law-abiding citizens of my fine city. Have a pleasant evening.

Flatfoot,

Why are you dodging my questions? Who are you?

What are you hiding?

What is your agenda?

What is it you’ve got to hide?

Why are your running away if you are innocent?

Who do you work for?

Oregon flatfoot,

Can you please define what ‘normal’ behavior for a member of our species is with the unending multitudes of variety in culture, language nuance and body language is please? One cultures approach to confrontation is diametrically opposed to another’s response and yet you expect all people to just roll over like fido obeying a command. Perhaps when you were a child, police acted differently, treated people with respect first and suspicion was based on observed actual dubious activity (you know, proof, facts, that kind of crazy thing) as such, they earned respect, deserved to be listened to and were given the honor they had earned. Just because you wear a uniform does not mean you automatically are given respect, this has to be earned. I learned that when I was 5 years old. Did you not attend that day at kindergarten? The mistreatment dealt out by persons in your profession, a uniform these days, especially in America, generates instant mistrust. Brutal and unwarranted police behavior planted that seed, continual reinforcement by continual abuses of power that comes with that uniform served to only reinforce this suspicion and grow that suspicion. So now, here were are, police do not trust citizens and citizens do not trust they will be treated fairly by uniformed police.

Someone, anyone orders me to do anything, my autonomic response (in the Greek sense: adjective, Greek auto = self, and nomos = law, hence self- regulating.) is to say NO. I have yet to meet two human beings who react in an identical manner in an identical situation, sure there are some similarities but come on… I also have the ability to self regulate, know the difference between right and wrong and obey the letter of the law. Can the same be said for all police offices, that is purely rhetorical. As a result, can you blame me for being cautiously defiant in the face of undeserved attention?

Human beings are not so rigidly defined into some police handbook and its brief description, much less some creepy internal memo directing singling out law abiding citizens or visiting foreign persons who happen to have a wish to capture some memories of a great vacation (which you and your cronies then ruin and leave a sour taste in the mouth, diluting the already low opinion globally of American police) or reduce a professionals ability to make their honest living. Arrest me, for what? trying to pay my bills? Arrest me, for what, trying to snap a shot of my girlfriend posing in front of some architectural oddity downtown or anywhere and I find it bizarre that a uniform harasses me for taking that picture or my girlfriend because some grand court house is in the background or even, shock horror, of that building all on its lonesome?

Insanity run amok, in a uniform, with a gun, tazer, pepper spray, cuffs. Playground bullies grown up with no other way to vent and overly paranoid that we ae all out to get them, the infrastructure etc.

This is the bottom line: police harassment of photographers is a prime example of the abuse of power that increases with each passing day by so call law enforcement officers. My grandfather was a Garda Siochana, an Irish police man, the difference in his approach to his calling is staggering : he actually went after … wait for it… and I know this will come as a shock to you but this is what police officers used to do: he focused his time and efforts on actual criminals. I suppose those times are long gone. Current day police officers have simply lost the plot, we the public are not all out to get you, we are not terrorists planning some public mayhem.
How paranoid are you all really? Is that part of your training, become paranoid, trust no one other than fellow officers, you are right and we are automatically wrong? Its one set of rules for the police and veritable nazi levels of fascist control exerted over the general populous by the police for the non police human contingent. It is sickening that history is repeating itself, you belong in Germany several decades ago. The way in which the police enforce control is a crime in itself. Get over yourselves, you are supposed to be here to serve and protect, not to choke civil liberties and abuse at every opportunity. Your answer to understandable defiance in the face of raw abuse? You (the collective you) resort to violence, we have no choice when we are being punched in the face by several officers and having our faces smashed off the ground, shattering our teeth or expensive camera lenses, fragmenting our own ability to trust other human beings and assuredly damaging levels of trust in those who witness the abuses dealt out. Would you fight back if you were cornered like a animal? I bet you would, I bet you wouldn’t lay down and invite the violence to continue. All animals react on instinct, you corner me, I will react, you abuse me or my freedom, I react to defend my person and property. What else do you honestly expect? You are definitely the problem, collectively when you subscribe to the current mentality that it is acceptable and even required to harass me, her, him, them and us.
I know there are good cops out there, you see I am not stereotyping you all into the same light, perhaps its time that the ‘select number’ of abusive police followed suit and stopped assuming (and we all know how flawed it is to approach anything based off of an assumption) bad things about law abiding persons. What I have seen has left an indelible mark on my opinion. Nothing you say to attempt to justify harassing innocent people will change that. To repair this would rent in our society, you must be better police, every day, for the rest of your lives. Serve us. Protect us. Don’t cause us disservice; don’t make us feel there is a necessity to be protected from our so called protectors.

OBEY. CONSUME. WATCH TV. CONFORM. STAY ASLEEP.

I think not

Well that was good for a laugh.

Dude, I never threaten to sue someone. As a matter of fact I have never sued anyone. I just know what my rights are and I don’t allow them to be violated by anyone.

I take my time. I’ve got two years or more to file a suit if that’s what’s needed. No need to let anyone know what I’m going to do ahead of time.

Now you might try being nice. You might get more out of it.

I still want to know what he is hiding.

Oregon Flatfoot, despite being rather patient (an quite obviously a bit verbose), I must point out that you are not debating; you are leveling a rhetoric. You are not addressing the concerns raised, and one cannot call a debate such with it. Can you please tell us why it is that if we do not behave how you dictate (without even bothering to provide justification) you can blithely threaten to force us. Keeping in mind, this is not a confrontation, it’s a hypothetical, thus one must provide logic and reasoning to back up such statements.
Lets keep the circumloqution going. I’ve answered the concerns you raised up, and provided more as a response.
Here is another idea: gloss over the cases where an officer has been tried for abusing his authority, versus the actual amount of times authority has been abused (what, maybe in the lower teens, as far as a percentage goes?). Only a small fraction of people, less than 2-3% have the means by which to back up such a statement. Now imagine a citizenry that doesn’t have to pay out of pocket to take a cop to court for injustice. Why not behave as if this is the hear-and-now? It would only make you a better officer.
Lastly, do you realize these hypotheticals and court cases dictate the legislation that tells you precisely how to do your job?

All of these NAZI COPS should be reported to their mothers,their Children,their neighborhood.Their children should also be informed about what their parents are really doing to their country,their future in America.
It`s plain too see what kind of people they are,the Cop`s in Arizona.
Show their faces to all!
Push them out of the dark,into the light..so we can see who they are..and their own children can see what their parents are doing to our country…TAKE OFF THE MASK…LETS SEE WHO THEY ARE,THESE COMI COPS.

Don`t you people get it..yet?
Cops have no brain of their own..they have been “Brain Washed”.They will do what ever they are told to do..Constitutional,or not.
These people don`t even care about their own families,not even their own children.
Who`s future are they looking out for..their children`s,Americas? I don`t think so.
Look at the faces in the pic above..do they look like they really give a dam about your children…or their own children…Hell No they don`t.
Their just waiting to be told what to do next,regardless of the truth,and,or,the outcome of their actions…then they go home and hug their wife and children…and then lie to them over dinner about what wonderful Americans they are…..”Brainwashed Indeed!
I say infiltrate the Police Academy`s.See just what these NAZI`S are being taught.See what kind of person the Police Academy is look for.See what type of person they prefer.
Oh Yeah!! see what really in the “Salt Peter”,or,the water cooler.

To the person calling himself “Officer Flatfoot”;

You correctly identify this as a public forum. In this context, you are not a cop. When you stop someone on the street in your uniform, perhaps it is good enough for you to simply say a thing, but in a public forum you have to substantiate your points if you wish to participate. Otherwise you are “white noise.”

So far you have just said, “I know something you don’t know, and I’m not going to tell you what it is.” Perhaps that’s how it works on the force, but this is civil society. We can’t possibly accept that. When, in the same breath, you discount everything written by Bruce Schneier, implying he also does not know what you know, but you won’t tell us what, it does not carry a lot of water.

I think you should read what he has to say. You seem proud to be providing us with the appearance of security.

Nerdbeard,

Bravo. Well said, I couldn’t agree more.

Here’s an insight for you people into how cops think: we are sheepdogs, you are sheep. We protect you against the wolves. If you think I’m making this up, google it.

This is an analogy we use all the time. Our job is to herd and protect you sheep. Sheepdogs don’t debate with sheep. If the sheep act out, we nip the back of their legs to keep moving along. If they really act out, we pull them out of the herd and deal with them.

You do what we tell you, we’ll get along just fine. We don’t give a shit about your opinions on what you think we should be doing because you have no idea what policing takes. You’re sheep and you don’t know any better. Chatter among yourselves all you want, fine. Snap all the pretty snapshots you want, fine. We’ll do our job, you stay out of our way and you’ll be fine. Most sheep understand this, that’s why they support the police and cooperate with us.

Only foolish sheep tangle with sheepdogs. We’re armed, we’re bigger, we’re stronger, we have the law on our side. End of story.

Sheepdog, nice litany, except we are not animals. We have logic, reasons and emotions. We have laws, and all are expected to act within these laws, even those tasked with enforcement.
This is really quite disturbing to hear so-called officers honestly saying this is they way they think it is. There are restrictions upon what you can do, and believe it or not, you cannot order us around just because you’re police. Under certain circumstances, sure, but not “just because of your position”, as you analogy alludes to.
If this is “how cops think” we need to follow the lead of what a particular New York politician was suggesting: disband the police forces, bring in the National Guard, temporarily declare martial law, and start over with new cops and train them correctly.

Excuse me while I fall on the floor laughing. Your solution to the police supposedly cracking down on your civil liberties is to declare MARTIAL LAW?

There are some 700,000 sworn cops in this country, all armed to the teeth. Good luck with your disbanding bucko.

Thanks for a good laugh. I nearly pee’d myself laughing so hard.

You made me laugh with your analogy as well, Sheepdog.

While some people might be sheep and take whatever you feed them, some of us are not.

And while you may be armed to the teeth with guns, we have cameras.

And obviously a camera is not going to beat a gun in a gunfight, but it sure as hell will beat it in a courtroom.

Lets see, 700,000 sworn cops in this country all armed to the teeth.

Seems to me they are sworn to up hold the law and the will of the people. This is exactly the problem we are having. Police threatening to use there weapons against us. Sheepdog you need to read your oath again.

Sheepdog it’s time for you to leave your job.

Perhaps Carlos will use your IP to find out who you are and report your conduct.

Duane,

There is no reason to report anybody’s IP.

Sheepdog is just telling us how he see’s the world.

It’s ignorant, but it’s honest.

He has not committed any crimes or misconduct by simply writing his opinion.

The First Amendment protects him as well as it does us.

But I would hope he thinks twice about carrying that attitude on the streets because as I said, we are armed with cameras and we have the technology and ability to show the world.

Interesting analogy. And as others have stated, I too am not a sheep.

This is evidenced by the fact that not only do I carry a camera, but I am licensed to carry a gun. Nip me back into the herd at your own risk.

It is the job of a LEO to enforce the law. But it is your job.

It is my job and duty as a Citizen of the United States to uphold the Constitution. When you go home, you take off your badge, but in my job, I never, ever take a break from my duties.

I had to look this up. Here is a great article that I’ve not completely read yet, http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Unsorted/OATH%20...

Here is a sample oath of a police officer
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ______ according to the best of abability.”

As I said sheepdog has violated his oath and if he can’t fulfil that oath needs to leave his position.

Oh please, just when I stopped laughing. You people are whining about the first amendment and you want to “report” me for having an opinion. What, you’re going to report me to the thought police?

You need a subpoena to get my IP bucko. Plus I use an anonymizer through a secure police department computer. Good luck with that.

The sheepdog thing is not my analogy. Nearly every cop uses it. Click on my name to link to a site where you can read more. Like I said, Google it. Until you understand how a cop thinks, you people are just wasting your time and breath. Once you understand how a cop thinks, you’ll just submit because you realize how you were wasting your time.

Anonymizer? What are you hiding?

And he doesn’t need a subpoena to get the IP recorded on his own website.

Also, I’ll never ‘submit’ to the likes of you. Every cop I know is the polar opposite of you. The are nice, considerate, professional and human.

Sheepdog,

The reason the sheepdog analogy fails is because it is too generic.

It insinuates that all police officers are good and just want to protect and serve, that all civilians are helpless and naive, and that all those who don’t fall into line with the rest of the sheep are wolves who need to be dealt with.

The truth is, it is not all black and white.

For one thing, there are too many officers who are nothing but wolves in sheepdog’s clothing.

And for another, there are too many black sheep who are able to think for themselves.

But because they are able to think for themselves, the sheepdog automatically considers them wolves, even if they have not broken any actual laws.

So it might be an inspiring analogy for those naive recruits who are graduating from the police academy but reality is something completely different.