It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Colorado bill would impose $15,000 fine on cops who try to stop people from filming them.

page: 2
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
You'd think that's the case, but a lot of precincts are hiring out of universities these days. The people they hire have, in most cases, no real world experience dealing with felons or extremely physical activity as part of the everyday job.

This makes them more afraid and by being afraid, are more likely to use lethal force or force in general to resolve situations, because they lack the skills otherwise.


This is correct, here is an article from 1999 outlining the beginning of the trend to hire Ivy leaguers. With jobs being harder to come by these days, the number of these kinds of people making a career on the force, has certainly increased since then:

Ivy Leaguers With a P.D.; Highly Educated Officers Fight Crime and Skepticism


originally posted by: tothetenthpower
I would imagine, and correct me if I'm wrong but most Leo's are bonded employees?

So I would imagine it would come out of their bond?

~Tenth


This is something I have been trying to find out as well, but no one seems to know the answer, even insurance companies. I once asked an underwriter to draft a policy that would specifically cover damages caused by police neglect and misconduct with private property, airline employee neglect and animal control unlawful seizure. While the underwriter did not say "no" to writing the policy, he did have concerns about local government "immunity" when a claim is made (for airlines, his concern was that lost property would eventually be returned, so filing a claim would need to wait until its deemed a total loss). His guess was that he had to write the policy in such a way that I would be paying a high premium to cover myself and that the insurance company would likely never be able to subrogate the damages from the airline LEO, government employee or their department, nor would the insurance company be willing to risk taking the matter to court.

So my question is, if LEO's are bonded, can an excessive amount of claims render them un-bondable or result in a rate so high that the LEO, nor his department can actually pay for it, essentially forcing them to leave the profession? Also if they do carry them, are they Performance Bonds, Surety Bonds, etc? I have no idea and apparently nobody else does either.

Here is a company that sells such policies, BUT how does the average citizen make a claim against an individual LEO's bond?

Bonding for Officers of the Law

Here is another, but the selling point is that the bond is protecting the LEO's during the seizure of citizens assets:

Looking For A Sheriffs Indemnity Surety Bond?

Here is an article where someone posted in the comments to lay claim to the cops Surety Bond because it will render them unbondable in the future.

Atlantic City Cop Ordered to Pay $250,000 From Own Pocket to Citizen He Abused

Lay claim to this corrupt cops SURETY BOND. .....Once a cop (and any other servant that takes an OATH OF OFFICE must be bonded with a surety bond.....once a surety bond is claimed and is paid out.. (usually insures for $10k) that person can NEVER be bonded again. ..can no longer be a cop.... -censored1


How does one go about doing that?

Here is another outline from the

Virginia Department of the Treasury Division of Risk Management

So what states require an officer to be bonded? Is there a list somwhere?
edit on 31-3-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
It's nice that this rep. is trying to do something for the people, but why not just take it that step further. MANDATE that all police officers wear body mounted cameras that work in conjunction with the dash cams already in place. They have a shifts worth of battery life cannot be turned off, spares located in the trunk. There is no reason we should have to police our police, they should be mandated to do it themselves, uphold the law for myself and them. There is no reason in this day and age to have them still running amuk, plying the old your word against mine.

So although I am all for fining those "bad apples" LoL the "few" of them, but I would rather have them know at all times they are to act within accordance of the law while they are trying to enforce it, because they are being watched by the safety net put in place for them and myself as well. And that's why it's great we can film them but it is time we took it a step further and got a civilian police force back, not just jack boot thugs not afraid of consequences.

SaneThinking



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I want to see jail-time and termination. A Cop that cant respected our legal right deserves nothing less than to permanently lose their badge and sit behind bars for 6 months, on top of a fine.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Nah you're right, it doesn't solve the overall problem. But at the very least it will make officers think twice about trying to grab my camera phone or whatever out of my hands and smash it into a million pieces because they are afraid of getting caught.


Until they take the camera, steal the memory card, slam the phone on the pavement, and say you dropped it. Right after they say those bruises you have are because you tripped.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Forget the fine and FIRE the officer.

How many times do we see an officer caught in some controversy to find out that they had previously been charged with misconduct, evidence planting, brutality,obstruction of justice etc., etc.

Why is it that officers are allowed to keep a job holding the public's trust after doing things that would get you fired from McDonald's ?

We must end the practice of Police policing themselves.

There's a reason we don't let Crips and Bloods investigate drive by shootings.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ObjectZero
The fact that this bill is even thought of as needed just goes to show how bad it is now.

I say they should keep an eye on anyone who presses for the bill not to be passed.

They might as well add theft and destruction of property to the charges along with the fine. But I figure they didn't place it in cause it would reduce the chances of the bill passing.


Ever wonder why cops don't end up charged with witness intimidation and destruction of evidence when they erase/confiscate/steal cameras at the scene? Along with theft by taking, battery and whatever else I'D be charged with were I to do something like that.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So I would imagine it would come out of their bond?

~Tenth


Ah, but here's the catch.

It will never come out of any LEOs pocketses. Not one cent.

Why? It doesn't help that there's a law. Hell, there's a law against strong arm theft. There's a law against destruction of evidence. There's a law against assault. There's laws against punitive arrest. If you were to follow the letter of the law as regards qualified immunity and the existing laws of the state, there wouldn't BE a problem, because the cops that do this sort of thing would all be in jail.

However, you've got three or four factors against it. One, my parents' generation see LEOs as being white knights with shiny armor. Well, not so much Dad, who had to work with them occasionally. But Mom thinks they can do no wrong. And when you empanel a grand jury, they're going to stuff that thing full of old ladies who would not indict if the guy had raped a 12 year old, cut her guts out with a kitchen knife, and danced around the room gnawing on them, on video.

Two, the DA will nol pros any case where a cop would have to pay it. They're not stupid. They know that the cop doesn't have it to pay, and they're not going to bring that case. Just not. You can't make them, and they won't do it. Because their income and re-election prospects are tied to the cops' co-operation, and they count on the populace to either not care or to forget it, because Dancing with the Stars and Wheel of Fortune are coming on, and there's a sale at the Walmart. Six months down the road, Jane Doe won't bother noticing that the good ol' DA lets cops get by with murder, and she'll vote for him because he has pretty hair and the cute cops all like him. They count on the apathy and ignorance of their constituents to save them. The only thing they have to really worry about are things that come up within a few weeks of election time, and they can generally delay anything controversial until after the election. You won't often see a DA really go for a cop unless he's afraid he will lose re-election if he doesn't. It has to be massive and probably unforgettable.

eta: this is why I often say that protestors are going at it the wrong way. You want action, protest at the mayor's and the DA's. And the chant ought to be something about disbarment and/or not being re-elected. THAT would get action. Protesting at the cop shop won't do a thing. They don't answer to you. They ARE afraid of the DA not staying bought by the cop union. You make the DA think his days at the swanky golf course are coming to a close, and you MIGHT see some response.

Three, any case where it can come up, there will be some way to tie the cop's behavior to his job duties, and it'll be swept under the rug of qualified immunity. "When I saw the guy point something at me, I thought it was a gun, your honor!" "Well, what you thought is all that counts. Case dismissed!" Because the judges are also elected, and a "tough on cops" judge doesn't sell to the AARP crowd. Now, if it was a federal judge, maybe. They don't care. But this is a state law. All the cop has to do is just lie. He's stealing your camera anyway. Why should he balk at saying he thought it was a cell phone gun? Or that you were two feet away instead of 20? You'll have cops from 20 miles away suddenly having been there popping up as witnesses that you were doing SOMETHING, and they'll all swear each other up.

Four, since they're going to lie anyway, if you TRY this, you can rest assured you will be charged with two dozen felonies you never thought of committing, and they'll trade that against you dropping it.
edit on 31-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Ah, but here's the catch.

It will never come out of any LEOs pocketses. Not one cent.


I agree with everything you said, but are criminal charges required to take action against a bond, especially when the bond is paid for by the individual officer, as required by some states?

Can an excessive amount of filed claims render an individual un-bondable or result in a rate so high that the LEO no longer afford to pay for it out of pocket, essentially forcing them to leave the profession?

For example, what if people collectively started making claims against a particular officers bond in civil court or by some other means? Regardless of outcome, wouldn't the company issuing the bond then need to raise that officers rates, due to the perceived increased risk of having to pay out a claim eventually on that individuals behavior?
edit on 31-3-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

This is something I have been trying to find out as well, but no one seems to know the answer, even insurance companies. I once asked an underwriter to draft a policy that would specifically cover damages caused by police neglect and misconduct with private property, airline employee neglect and animal control unlawful seizure. While the underwriter did not say "no" to writing the policy, he did have concerns about local government "immunity" when a claim is made (for airlines, his concern was that lost property would eventually be returned, so filing a claim would need to wait until its deemed a total loss). His guess was that he had to write the policy in such a way that I would be paying a high premium to cover myself and that the insurance company would likely never be able to subrogate the damages from the airline LEO, government employee or their department, nor would the insurance company be willing to risk taking the matter to court.

So my question is, if LEO's are bonded, can an excessive amount of claims render them un-bondable or result in a rate so high that the LEO, nor his department can actually pay for it, essentially forcing them to leave the profession? Also if they do carry them, are they Performance Bonds, Surety Bonds, etc? I have no idea and apparently nobody else does either.

Here is a company that sells such policies, BUT how does the average citizen make a claim against an individual LEO's bond?

Bonding for Officers of the Law

Here is another, but the selling point is that the bond is protecting the LEO's during the seizure of citizens assets:

Looking For A Sheriffs Indemnity Surety Bond?

Here is an article where someone posted in the comments to lay claim to the cops Surety Bond because it will render them unbondable in the future.

Atlantic City Cop Ordered to Pay $250,000 From Own Pocket to Citizen He Abused


How does one go about doing that?

So what states require an officer to be bonded? Is there a list somwhere?


Ah! I think I see where you are going there, a priority that a policeman should never lose his insurance under the 'old pals act' perhaps?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

For example, what if people collectively started making claims against a particular officers bond in civil court or by some other means?


I'm of the opinion that even if you took it to civil court, you're going to run up against the qualified immunity thing again, where the cop can't be legally held liable for shooting your dog to get your attention, or knocking the door in on the wrong house or whatnot.

And it's going to cost you more than the $10k in lawyer fees.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
I'm of the opinion that even if you took it to civil court, you're going to run up against the qualified immunity thing again, where the cop can't be legally held liable for shooting your dog to get your attention, or knocking the door in on the wrong house or whatnot.

And it's going to cost you more than the $10k in lawyer fees.


But is court always required to make a claim against a bond? Also what if a lawyer or paralegal were to draft up process that any laymen could used to file a claim against an officers bond? The goal being to make them un-bondable, not to "win" a case or claim (multiplied by say 100 people).
edit on 31-3-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower


Why not just fire them, because they obviously do not know their job.

I say nip it in the butt early, get rid of them.

There should also be a rule, once a police person is found guilty of committing a crime and have been fired, they should NEVER been re-hirable again in any town or city, usually they just move and get their job back somewhere else.
edit on 31-3-2015 by bullcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo
But is court always required to make a claim against a bond? Also what if a lawyer or paralegal were to draft up process that any laymen could used to file a claim against an officers bond?


Well, again in my opinion, they're an insurance company, basically. I doubt they'll just pay you if you ask for the money real nice.

That said, it would be funny to find out that was possible. You should pursue it.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Well, again in my opinion, they're an insurance company, basically. I doubt they'll just pay you if you ask for the money real nice.

That said, it would be funny to find out that was possible. You should pursue it.


Insurance companies have been known to ignore small claims summons. For example, I though government agencies, other than the Federal Government, could be sued in Small Claims court. Also, isn't small claims court a way to initiate a claim against a surety bond under normal circumstances? You basically name the officer and their bonding company as defendants. Essentially getting them through the back-door and not through the front-door, avoiding the usual lawsuit strategy.
edit on 31-3-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

It's a great start though. Now they know they're on the radar for being camera stealing, lying bastards....the bad lot anyways.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

No, it doesnt solve the problem (and isnt law at this point) but its the only positive thing regarding this issue ive seen.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Where is the support from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for this one?

Hello? First Ammendment here.

Oh that's right. That whole small government thing only applies when its giving them the right to not serve gays and black people.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
One small step on the road to a better future.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Now we know what YouTube wlll be full of...



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It ads another level of criminality to destruction of a video.

1. Criminal mischief

2. Vandalism and destruction of property

3. Assault

So, now instead of just violating citizen rights, they could end up with other charges...

These days, if you are a LEO, and you try to take someones property to suppress evidence of a crime... you're not a very bright bulb. Increasingly, we are seeing multiple cameras deployed by fed up and/or activist citizens
edit on 1-4-2015 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join