Rochester Cops Resort To Retaliatory Tactics Against Citizens

Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon.

The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb.

The above video shows cops using a little purple ruler to prove their case.

Cops claimed they were responding to citizens who had complained about the cars being parked more than a foot from the curb (where is there an eyeroll smiley when you need one?).

According to Rochester Indy Media:

At approximately 5:30pm, four police cars were seen driving east on Troup St. and then turned right onto Clarissa St. The police cars parked a block down from the Flying Squirrel and got out of their cars holding clips boards and ticket books. They proceeded to walk down the line of parked cars on Clarissa St. checking registrations and inspections directly across from where the meeting was taking place. They then proceeded to pull out rulers to measure the distance from the curb to the tires of each car. They stated that they had received civilian complaints regarding cars being parked too far from the curb on Clarissa St.

The citizens who had been ticketed were attending a community meeting to discuss police accountability and to plan support for Good, whose video became a viral sensation after it was uploaded this week.

Mario Masic, the officer who arrested Good is supposedly under investigation, but it doesn’t take a detective to see he committed an unlawful arrest when he jailed Good in her front yard after she refused to go back inside her house.

The issue has sparked debate throughout the internet with most people supporting Good, including many officers on Police One.

Spskstal48 said:

She was on her own property and was not a threat to anyone. The officers clearly did not want to be observed or recorded. Welcome to an open society. This entire department needs to be retrained about OPEN societies and the rights of the citizen.He clearly did not know how to resolve the situation and only made it worse.

Majorcrimesd said:

Sorry guys and girls...........bad arrest here...this was an "Ego Arrest." If that was my daughter there would be no doubt left in her mind how disrespectful her actions were in filming the cops but, when push comes to shove, she has every right in the world to do it. To make matters worse, the cops doing to MV stop/arrest looked like they were having an uneventful, "routine" stop and arrest. Who really gives a shit if we are being filmed....make sure you get my good side.

Polfstsgt said:

The Supreme Court of America has stated that if you can film them they can film you. If your so da== worried that you may be seen on u-tube then get another Job. The officers knew who she was and had no problem tell she started filming so the ruse of officer safety was just that. They did not want her to film them and made a federal case about it. The only disruption was made by the police when they centered on her. Behind their back? Hell any person anywhere could take them out with out their knowing about it. If your so dam= paranoid then find another job. The use of Officer Safety is used way to often to justify any action where there is no officer safety involved. Are we living in a police state? Do we have to fear for our lives ( citizens) from the police? I've been on duty since the 60's and seen a great change in police officer attitudes. Some times I get scared. For my men know that if they are going to use "officer Safety" they had well be able to prove that there was a valid threat.

Ghostvet said:

I am not throwing the officer under the bus here- but we all recognize when someone takes an action we ourselves would not, or should not, have taken.

We cannot allow ourselves to take the officer's side solely on the basis of being in the officer's side. While there are many times when we might post something based more on bravado than realistic common sense or law (remember 'somethingsup'), we must also use honest critical commentary to learn what is proper, and what is not.

There are many times we do not like what we see around us, but we must temper that against what is 'right' at the time, as well as what the law is. If I had my way, I would prohibit everyone around my scene for as far back as I can make it (at least a few blocks), ESPECIALLY the media. But I do not get my way- none of us do.

We cannot simply use the phrase "I do not feel safe" as the justification for taking action against someone.

I can remember decades ago being 'taught' to present your nightstick to an aggressive offender in a way the offender might take it, arming himself with a deadly weapon, thereby allowing the use of deadly force against him. That wasn't right then, and merely saying some words doesn't make it right now.

Just my two cents- for whatever that might be worth in today's economy...

A commenter on the Boy With Grenade blog who has not learned how to unlock his caps key said that police were perhaps trying to prevent Good from videotaping them making an illegal search.

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT, YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS. EVERY TUESDAY AND THURSDAY ROCHESTER POLICE, ALONG WITH NY STATE TROOPERS AND OTHER AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CONVERGE ON THE CITY AND DO TONS OF VEHICLE STOPS AND ILLEGAL SEARCHES OF PERSONS AND VEHICLES. IF THEY RECOVER ILLEGAL CONTRABAND IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER, THEY SIMPLE LIE AND SAY THE DRIVER GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE. IN COURT ITS THEIR WORD AGAINST AN OFFICERS… WE ALL KNOW WHO WILL BE BELIEVED. IF THEY PULL YOU OVER, YOUR VEHICLE IS BEING SEARCHED, POINT BLACK. THEY MAKE UP ALL KINDS OF B.S. REASONS.FOR THE STOPS AND THEY ALWAYS END UP AS FULL SEARCHES. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME COME CHECK IT OUT. WELL, ONE OF THESE STOPS IS WHAT WAS BEING TAPED. THIS HAS BEEN A MATTER OF RPD POLICY AND APPROVED BY BRASS FOR YEARS. THEY ARE HOPING THE STORY DOES NOT TURN IN THE DIRECTION OF THIS LONGSTANDING POLICY OF STOP, FRISK AND SEARCH THAT OCCURS EVERY TUESDAY AND THURSDAY. THEY HAVE TO CODDLE MASIC OR HE IS GOING TO SPILL THE BEANS. IT WAS NOT JUST HIS DECISION TO ARREST HER, HE WAS PROTECTING THE POLICY OF THE ILLEGAL STOPS, DID NOT WANT ONE TAPED.

Good was arrested on May 12, a Thursday. The man they had handcuffed while they appeared to rummage through his car was released.

UPDATE: Below is the raw video which shows the four patrol officers ended up ticketed not more than four cars.

UPDATE II: Just got word that charges against Emily Good have been dropped and that police will investigate the officers who handed out the parking tickets for selective enforcement.

-30-

Some readers took issue with the fact that I posted Mario Masic's photo, email address and linked to his Facebook page in my last article, but those are all items he made public on the internet himself. He would have done the same thing had he been investigating one of us. CM

Comments

It would be interesting to use a public records request to get details about when the call came into the station from a "civilian"

The community needs to "police" their politicians here to see know is making these horrible policies to act this way. Record request are often ignored so send a lawyer in that isn't political bound.
Police are really abusing their power. Need to put a stop to it! I do not want to live in a police state where people are living in fear of "peace keepers" You swear to protect and to serve as a duty of their job.
Kind of wonder if a "hit list" is being made from the car registrations. to put a flag on the record. So that hte cops harass that person next time they go to register or if they are unfortunate enough to be pulled over.
Prayer are with the community there for Truth and Justice to be served.

Carlos is right, Mario Masic made this information public, Mario has no expactions of privacy.

"The transparent society" by David Brin, published a long time ago, has many discussions about the use of cameras in our society.

Borrow it from your local library, or inter-library loan.
This is obvious police harassment and intimidation of Americans exercising their 5th amendment rights of holding meetings to redress grievances.

JdL

Agreed, with minor correction: that's the 1st Amendment.

Don't illegally park your cars. If those were cop cars parked like that or off duty officers this would be an article about how cops think they are above the law and you would be demanding they get tickets. You can't have it both ways.

Now who would have thought that "Bart (Cops Can Do NO Wrong!) Keppal" would have responded any differently!? You're getting to be so predictable.. just like "Johnny Law".

Anyone.. I said ANYONE who doesn't think the "Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon" is obviously of a mindset that "Cops Can Do NO Wrong!"

As far as your comment "don't illegally park you cars", are YOU really that __________ (fill in the blank) to say something that ___________ (fill in the blank again).

And as far as off duty cops getting a ticket for parking 12.5 or 13" away from the curb? I won't even justify a response to such a ___________ (fill in the blank a third time) comment.

Your whole post above.. never mind, we all know what you are.

Rail Car Fan

Don't illegally park your cars. If those were cop cars parked like that or off duty officers this would be an article about how cops think they are above the law and you would be demanding they get tickets. You can't have it both ways.

They should have walked over with a ruler and measured the distance from the police vehicles to the curb...

At least two of the police cars are parked over 12 inches from the curb while they wrote the tickets. So yes, they are above the law, and yes, they are sending 4 squad cars to harass and intimidate people who were gathering to discuss supporting a citizen who was filming them.

The issue was never (for me) about posting his name, or his photo, per se. It was that, in the face of uncorrected threats of violence against the officer, Carlos posted first his name, then after further threats, his photo and email address. That's just irresponsible.

The website removed the threatening posts, which was the right thing to do. Carlos should have then, and now, condemned those who posted about shooting the officer. Still haven't seen that, although to be honest, I stopped reading much after the threats went ignored.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

First of all, I have no control of the comments on Pixiq, unlike I did when I hosted the blog on Wordpress. I have no power to delete or moderate comments.

Second of all, there were so many comments that day that I wasn't keeping up with them.

I was out and about that day, updating the story on my iPhone.

When I had gotten home that day, my goal was to upload the photo and do a quick rewrite with the new info.

And lastly, I really don't want to babysit my readers in telling them what they can and can't say.

This site has done a good job of self-moderating itself in the four years I've run it, especially if you compare it to comments on Youtube or even the Miami Herald.

Every once in a while, comments go overboard, but I really don't have the time to be a schoolmarm and wag my finger at my readers as the comments pop up.

I've never advocated violence against police officers on this blog or in real life. And I think most people who do are just talking out of their asses.

I've even addressed this issue in a blog post a couple of years ago, which I tried searching for but can't find it right now because I can't remember the key words to search for it.

I basically said I would delete comments if you call for violence against cops. And I have done that.

The only thing that has changed is that Pixiq editors will delete the comments instead of me.

Carlos I'm with you.

Everyone has the ability to red flag a post. I red flagged the offensive posts and in a couple of hours they were gone along with that warning from the Pixiq editor.

If you look at each post there is a thumbs up, thumbs down and a red flag at the top on the right side.

So if you see a post you think needs to be looked at by a moderator, red flag it and stop giving Carlos a hard time.

No. The author has some responsibility too. And, I notified the editors within a few minutes of the initial bad posts, and it took them a day to delete. They told me it was a technical problem in the email they sent me.

If Carlos doesn't stand up for what's right in his own stories, that's too bad, but I'll keep calling him out for it.

It's cowardice to say, "I don't control what others say." Yes, it's true, but you also don't control when police harass photographers, but you stand up for what's right. Same thing here, where you have more influence.

"If Carlos doesn't stand up for what's right in his own stories, that's too bad, but I'll keep calling him out for it.

It's cowardice to say, "I don't control what others say." Yes, it's true, but you also don't control when police harass photographers, but you stand up for what's right. Same thing here, where you have more influence."

I'm trying to figure out your point here. The vile comments were removed. Carlos didn't make them. He condemned them. What more do you want? This is a blog about photography not being a crime, not a blog about internet trolls with big mouths and bad ideas.

@bryan

That's because you're a pussy, and you believe everyone should be as politically correct and spineless as you are. Carlos has a real life outside this blog, and he shouldn't have to cater to what your OPINION is on what should and should not be posted here.

Cowardice? Are you fucking mental? Carlos might be a liberal, but he is FAR from being a coward. Carlos isn't going to hold your hand or be your babysitter, so harden the fuck up, change your tampon, and act like you've got a pair.

Ah yes, anyone who speaks up against violence is a pussy. Yes, I see.

Funny, one defends Carlos because they claim he condemn the posts and they were deleted (he didn't until after the fact, and had apparently nothing to do with the deletion) and you do whatever this is.

See, standing up for what's right isn't asking to have one's hand held, or be babysat...quite the opposite. But, you're likely just the cover account of one of the idiots who shouted for violence. Internet tough guys, typing in the dark in anonymity where they lack the courage to do what's right in the real world. At least you have "a pair" and certainly don't need tampons, am I right?!?

JdL

What part of "I have no control of the comments on Pixiq, unlike I did when I hosted the blog on Wordpress. I have no power to delete or moderate comments" don't you understand?

It's highly ironic that you choose to include "Internet tough guys, typing in the dark in anonymity where they lack the courage to do what's right in the real world." That would seem to describe YOU, not Carlos.

Or perhaps you have your own blog where you observe all these rules you would impose on Carlos? No, I didn't think so.

Didn't call Carlos that. Read closely.

Note, I sign my posts. And, he has plenty of control, he just has to go to the Pixiq folks...more than we can. Not to mention, he didn't condemn the posts either.

I act myself as I ask others to.

Cover account? lol, I've been on Pinac since just after its inception, and I only have one account here.

"Internet tough guys, typing in the dark in anonymity where they lack the courage to do what's right in the real world"

Says the anonymous internet white knight screaming for censoring other people's words because the opinions of others clash with his own. We're all anonymous here, including you since there are about 1.3 million hits on your name, so shovel that shit somewhere else.

Be right back... someone said something disparaging on another forum, need to go white knight and complain to a moderator about it!

You might want to look at white knighting...has little to do with my comments. I'm not out to protect some helpless someone, nor take the side of the bad cops here. But, being on the right side doesn't mean everything Carlos says, or his commentators, right.

I haven't been clashing with opinions, but with actions. Threats and calls for violence are bad. I say so. Sorry you seem to disagree. They have no place in this discussion, they just fuel those that defend the indefensible, like this cops actions here. But, it's easy to just keep quiet and let that go by, since that way there's no confrontation. I'd rather stick to what's right

Yeah, my time here has been very, very long...don't recall you, but that's neither here nor there. I'll take you at your word, so it comes back to this: Why don't you think the idiots calling for violence should be condemned/called out? Posting the name was easily defensible. Posting the picture and email were invitations to readers to harass. Bad move.

I don't disagree that threats of violence are a bad way to express yourself, though a simple 'thumbs down and red flag' seem to do the trick much better than the incessant complaining about it to moderators. I've never known Carlos to openly advocate violence of any kind (just don't grab his camera), but this IS a 1st amendment blog, and I have never known him to remove a comment just because one or two people thought it was over the top either.

The information Carlos posted about the officer was EASILY available to anyone with rudimentary Google skills. He didn't go out of his way to contact the officer, ask him his info, then post it for everyone. It is public information that the officer himself released, so once again, shovel that shit somewhere else.

If you want a blog that centers around your ideals, create your own. Don't come into someone else's house issuing commands like you own the place expecting civility. If you've got a complaint, go direct to Pixiq. They will either side with you or tell you to quit your bitching. I'm done.

I'm glad you're done.

Incessant complaining? One post on the original story, one post here in direct reaction to his comment. Then engaged with some insulting commentators.

I like your phrase, "shovel that shit somewhere else," since you use it when you're full of it. The fact that someone could find the picture is different from deliberately posting it in a highly charged environment like this one.

Asking Carlos to ban someone who needs banning (the site banned him) is not "issuing commands." Not to mention the fact that Carlos agreed something should have been done but he was on his phone posting so didn't keep up.

Oh, and I expect civility from those I give it to. You jumped in acting like every other "I'm brave because it's online" jerk in the world. Haven't seen anything to change that opinion.

Oh, and I did complain to Pixiq, and they did delete the comments, make of that what you will.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

I am not aware if the commenter in question was banned. If so, it was done without my approval or support.

Somebody would really have to go overboard over a long period of time for me to want them banned.

As many of you probably know, this blog has drawn its share of assholes. Usually, they stick around for a few months before getting bored and leaving.

And yes, there have been times when I get really pissed at them and want to ban them, but I usually just tell them to go fuck themselves and leave it at that.

I believe banning people goes against what this site stands for.

I write the articles the way I see them. I base them on facts but I also include my opinions. Anybody with a little intelligence should be able to tell the difference.

And I leave the comments open for people to state their opinions. And many times, readers don't agree with me.

But that's that this blog is all about. It's generating discussion about a very important topic.

This is why I appreciate Johnny Law's comments, even though I've been asked countless times to ban him.

Ban him for what? Having a different opinion?

I give him credit for coming in here knowing he is outnumbered.

And as for people making death threats against cops, that's pretty stupid and it reduces the quality of the discussion.

But as I said in my earlier comment, I don't want to babysit my readers.

When I was on Wordpress, I was the sole guy running the blog. But now I am just part of a much larger site that I have no control over.

So I recommend just calling the person out in a comment and/or clicking on the red flag icon.

And let me focus on writing the articles.

Luc

As much as I detest the disingenuous, sociopathic, and general douche bag Johnny Law, he has a right to his bent opinions. So does the other douche bag Bart Kepple.

Censorship is wrong! If you don't like what someone wrote give them a thumbs down and let them know why you think they are wrong. Or just ignore them.

If you want to ban someone for something they said, start with yourself!

Feel free to give me a thumbs down, or tell me I'm a A-Hole, but don't try to censor me.

Fine, last word:

You, and others, make the mistake of conflating disagreeing with someone's opinion (Johnny Law) and people acting egregiously (ambient fluid calling for violence). One isn't expressing an opinion, and calling for a ban isn't censorship. . . Words can also be acts, and calling for violence is an act that shouldn't be permitted. Fortunately, pixiq did act to delete as soon as they could, at least that's what they told me. They're exercising good sense, and not hindering discussion.

Carlos: You said you would write a post expressing that people shouldn't be advocating violence. I hope you don't consider this it.

As for calling them out in a comment, and clicking the red flag, well, apparently that's also something some of your readers don't like, but that's neither here nor there. I'll keep my comments and actions within the terms of service, and that's it.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

I was going to write a post about posting the cop's name, photo, website and email address as well about the over-the-top comments, but everything has already been addressed.

Sort of. Posting a comment defending yourself isn't exactly how you put it in your email...but, I guess actually addressing the issue is more confrontational than you're willing to be. Disappointing, but you already knew I felt that way.

Might want to look closer at the comments since then, since the veer towards violent rhetoric hasn't abated much. I don't think the sincerity of your condemnation is particularly clear, or maybe it is. Good thing these guys have the email address since that way they can . . . oh, wait, there's nothing legitimate they can do with that information except harass someone they've been whipped up into a frenzy over.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

If people are stupid enough to take his email address and start threatening him, then they are opening a whole new can of worms for themselves because these cops will go after them legally and will probably win.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

But having said that, I do believe people should email him their thoughts.

Most of the readers on this blog are rational, intelligent people.

I don't think they should harass him endlessly, but if somebody decides to do that, then they are leaving a trail leading up to them that can be used against them in court.

However, it is not illegal to send a public official an email voicing your displeasure.

To many times, these cops are insulated to how the citizens they serve really feel about them.

This cop clearly had no clue on the laws he is paid to enforce or if he did have a clue, he decided to abuse his power.

Either way, he has no business wearing a badge.

I'm personally sick and tired of these cops abusing their badges.

If I can expose them, then I will do just that.

Banning someone for voicing opinons is never a good idea. If a user is unreasonably disruptive, that's a different case.

Speaking as a professional moderator of internet debates.

Luc

When have you ever seen 4 Police cars show up to write parking tickets on a short block.

This parking harassment needs to be investigated also, because it was done to intimidate and silence the residents.

This is clear intimidation. If you dare speak out against us we will f**k with you. If you had witnessed the arrest of Emily Good, you would now think twice before speaking out.

It's bad cops like this that make the other 5% of cops look bad.

JdL

It's bad cops like this that make the other 5% of cops look bad.

Good one! Though, do you really think that as many as 5% of cops aren't total assholes?

Yes technically the cars were parked illegally but the law in question is rarely if ever enforced.
So prove that the law is rarely if ever enforced.
The people who where ticketed have 30~60 days until their court date use that time to "gathering evidence" of cop cars parked in the same technically illegally manner.

"The people who where ticketed have 30~60 days until their court date use that time to "gathering evidence" of cop cars parked in the same technically illegally manner."

How does that change anything? Is speeding ticket invalid just because some cops speed themselves?

The title of this story should be changed to "Police do their job and enforce parking laws."

In your professional experience as a police officer, how many cars are usually dispatched to the scene of first degree parking violations?

Do excuse my sarcasm, but you do know I'm not exactly your worst enemy here, so it should say something when I get sarcastic..

:)

@ Norwegian

I don't know what a "first degree" parking violation is but it is actually fairly common for police to be called about improperly parked cars.

This is especially true if it is an unusual gathering in a residential area. The residents don't appreciate the large number of cars hogging spots and they tend to call in about it.

The PD's explanation about the ticketing is totally reasonable.

Parking violation = parking violation

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

Four patrol officers to do the job of a meter maid?

That's an answer to a question, but not the one I put forward.

How many patrol cars would usually be dispatched when a parking violation is reported?

You see, I feel, as I am sure a lot others do, that four cars to ticket a few wrongly parked cars, seem a bit of a stretch.

Do you disagree?

What does it matter how many cars were dispatched? Would you be less outraged if only two cars were sent? Would one lone officer make you happy?

Typically at least two officers are sent to all calls. That is pretty much standard police procedure. Since this was the location of an anti-police meeting, it makes perfect sense to send additional units in case they get a hostile response.

So yes I do disagree in this case. Four police cars are reasonable in this situation.

If there's a hostile response, it would be more reasonable to make an orderly retreat, wouldn't it? Or to put a different, perhaps even finer point on it, isn't there a chance that an increased police presence might itself be provocative?

However, I don't give a rats arse about the damned parking tickets. What I find potentially problematic is wether or not this was a "popular" call to take because it was directed towards a meeting of this sort.

It's not a question about the tickets, it's a question of wether or not there even was a telephone call, and wether or not the police presence was hightened to intimidate people attending this meeting.

It's a question about wether or not the police in this situation wanted to give them a hard time.

There's an old saying that if police go through your home, they'll find something to pin on you nine out of ten times, if they really look. That's what I'm hinting at, the fact that police can make life difficult for you if they want, even over small issues as a parking ticket.

I'm sorry, four cars tend to move me to think that this was a case of harassment, even if the tickets themselves are perfectly reasonable.

Norwegian said "I'm sorry, four cars tend to move me to think that this was a case of harassment, even if the tickets themselves are perfectly reasonable."

You are getting to the point I've been trying to make as well. Just because the tickets itself, "a parking violation is a parking violation", might be perfectly reasonalbe doesn't mean that the act of giving it is not retaliation or harassement of some type.

When you write a ticket for a particular parking violation only to the cars of people likely to be attending a particular meeting it is not equal enforcement of the law and that is a form of harassment.

So attending a meeting to support a neighbor they felt was wrongly arrested = anti police?

And to answer your other question Johnny. Yes I think 1 car would have been just fine as there was no reason to suspect a problem.

As for the tickets 100% yes they broke the law you deserve a ticket but 100% no way do I buy they were responding to a call. Yes cops are called for improper parked cars all the time I've even called a few and thanked them for their help. However the cars people call in over are not 1 inch over the 12 inch limit. They are blocking people in, blocking driveways or stopping normal usage of the street or area.

Now if the police also did several blocks in all directions and did the same thing to everyone then again I would say 100% cops were right the law is simple next time park better but I don't think that is the case. These people/this area was singled out for enforcement of a law as punishment. Any other time or place a 1 inch violation would have been totally ignored by any passing patrol car

"So attending a meeting to support a neighbor they felt was wrongly arrested = anti police?"

Yep. I think there were probably anti-police sentiments at that meeting. Do you think they were all big time police supporters?

"And to answer your other question Johnny. Yes I think 1 car would have been just fine as there was no reason to suspect a problem."

It's awesome that you think 1 car would have been enough. Of course you are not the one going to that situation so it's easy for you to dismiss officer safety concerns. Monday morning quarterbacking at it's finest.

"As for the tickets 100% yes they broke the law you deserve a ticket"

Awesome. So we agree the police were doing their job and the people getting the ticket deserve it. Not sure what we are talking about then.

"100% no way do I buy they were responding to a call. Yes cops are called for improper parked cars all the time I've even called a few and thanked them for their help. However the cars people call in over are not 1 inch over the 12 inch limit. They are blocking people in, blocking driveways or stopping normal usage of the street or area.'

You don't know if someone called or not so you are talking out of your ass. However it doesn't matter if anyone called in or not. As you said earlier, "As for the tickets 100% yes they broke the law you deserve a ticket"

"Now if the police also did several blocks in all directions and did the same thing to everyone then again I would say 100% cops were right"

So how many blocks would they need to cover to satisfy you? I am sure that no matter how far out they went, there are still other people committing the same traffic violation that the police didn't get to. Does that mean they shouldn't enforce any since they can't catch them all?

"Yep. I think there were probably anti-police sentiments at that meeting. Do you think they were all big time police supporters?"

IDK I wasn't there and neither were you. However I don't see that even anti-police sentiments = being anti-police.

I myself have uttered many "anti-police sentiments" and when someone who is supposed to uphold the law thumbs their nose at it with a I can do whatever I want attitude they deserve it but that does not make me anti-police. Law and order are a necessary part of a civilized society but even it if was though, so what? Even if they were in there saying storm the station and burn it to the ground. Does that really matter in this case? Is that the kind of police you and country you want. Is this the kind of cop you are? Only dutiful sheep and cows giving the party line deserve equal protection and punishment from the law?

"Of course you are not the one going to that situation so it's easy for you to dismiss officer safety concerns."

Can you tell me ONE valid reasonable, and that's REASONABLE to the average citizen, (not some made up on the spot crap of "I don't feel safe" because some little girl has a camera) safety concern for that number of cops? Such as it's a violent, high crime neighborhood or credible threats made against officers.

"Not sure what we are talking about then"

I thought it was quite clear in most of the posts selective and retaliatory enforcement of a law is not right. One law for all. It's so simple I thought everyone should be able to understand it.

"You don't know if someone called or not so you are talking out of your ass."

Do you? No, you don't. So you sir, are also talking out of your ass.

"So how many blocks would they need to cover to satisfy you.."

Enough to prove this was not selective enforcement. Enough so the police can hold their head high and can show to the people who might raise a suspicious eyebrow that they did a sweep of the area we didn't target this one block and behave like spoiled children. That's how many. That's the police I can respect and support.

Sadly I do not believe that is what we have here.

"IDK I wasn't there and neither were you. However I don't see that even anti-police sentiments = being anti-police.

I myself have uttered many "anti-police sentiments" and when someone who is supposed to uphold the law thumbs their nose at it with a I can do whatever I want attitude they deserve it but that does not make me anti-police. Law and order are a necessary part of a civilized society but even it if was though, so what? Even if they were in there saying storm the station and burn it to the ground. Does that really matter in this case? Is that the kind of police you and country you want. Is this the kind of cop you are? Only dutiful sheep and cows giving the party line deserve equal protection and punishment from the law?"

Oh so very dramatic. Be anti-police or pro-criminal or whatever you want. The officers were taking reasonable precautions based on the likely hood of the sentiments of at least some of the people at this meeting. If they only sent one cop and a shitstorm broke out, the same people crying here about four officers would then be condemning the police for being reckless and not sending enough back-up.

"The officers were taking reasonable precautions based on the likely hood of the sentiments of at least some of the people at this meeting."

Horseshit

"If they only sent one cop and a shitstorm broke out, the same people crying here about four officers would then be condemning the police for being reckless and not sending enough back-up."

Your imaginary "shitstorm" is nothing more than your attempt to make excuses over a case of flagrant harassment from your cops can do no wrong attitude.

JL is right. Monday morning quarterbacking at it's finest. They need to have four officers there so the officers can escalate the encounter and make an arrest for something like disorderly conduct, or assaulting a police officer. If there was only one officer there he wouldn't have backup and would act respectful and try to defuse the situation instead of escalating into something.

Once again it's "Johnny Law" with his..

"Cops Can Do NO Wrong!"

Let's face it "JL", your unwillingness to admit it was retaliation, just confirms to us what we already know about you through your posts. Why is it that only YOU (oh.. I forgot about your partner in crime Bart), seem to be the the only ones here who sees this as something other than what it really was?

It's sad that the public has to put up with Cops who are bullies behind the badge. I guess we know which side of the thin blue line you're on!.. don't we?

Rail Car Fan

Laws some times need to change. The judge may decide the law needs changed or not.
But if a law is not enforced for everyone there is a problem.

Every time a cop thinks a law or the laws do not apply to them just because there a cop there wrong.
You're not special.

Just like you Johnny Law when you run red lights because you don't want to sit through them like the rest of us.

Johnny, your past comments, and this one causes me to classify you in the same group as these cops. You can wear that association proudly but the stench is getting a bit much. With people like you and them posing as cops, I will now rejoice at the news of police officers getting their just rewards.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10192 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.