Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Police State - Illegal to Record On-Duty Police Officers

page: 8
89
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
I won't even attempt to guess at what a security guard is able to do - but I would expect it would not exceed the rights of a normal civilian.


I work as a security-guard/officer. And I work with off-duty peace-officers who double as security-guards in their spare time. I can tell you that a police-officer (off-duty or not) who's operating as a security-guard still retains their law-enforcement authority. Now if it's a regular security-guard (even if they have a peace-officer license---In state of Texas it is called a TCLEOSE.). You're pretty much right about right about their rights not exceeding that of a normal civilian. There's one power a security-guard has that a police-officer does not. And that is; If somebody is breaking the law or something else bad that is taking place that would require attention of police. A security guard does NOT need to intervene if they don't want to and they can't necessarily be held accountable criminally (but that doesn't mean they can't be taken to civil-court). They can intervene if they want to as long as they act on their intervention responsibly. Me? I WOULD act.

However if I'm teamed up with a police-officer operating as a security-guard and I'm backing them up & vice-versa. I have the very same authority as a police-officer. Though even without that authority. I do have a right to ask for ID from somebody as long as I'm on private property. I also have some level of rights to stop somebody with a vehicle equipped w/ emergency lights as long as their not red & blue. BUT I wouldn't do it. Unless my boss allowed it and I was given orders to utilize that right.

Now if I ask for ID from someone? And that person tells me "No" And for me to go f*** myself? Well then...I'm going to have to go f*** myself. That means that I can't legally force them to show me their ID by detaining them and searching their person, etc. Say for instance I'm pulling security at an apartment complex and I see somebody I don't like (by which I mean somebody who looks like a piece of crap and believe me if you're in my position you'll know when you see them) I ask them to stop where they are and ask. "Hello sir/maam. Are you a resident? No? What's your name? Okay. You're visiting? Who are your visiting? Okay. Your baby's momma/daddy? Okay. What's the apartment they are at? Oh. You don't know the number to the apartment? You just know where it's at? Okay. Can I see your ID please? No? You don't have ID? (OR) Oh really? You don't have to show me ID? Well I tell you what. You either present ID to me? Or I'm going to find out where the apartment is that you're going to--regardless---because I will find out! And when I do? The person you're staying with in that apartment is going to receive a lease-violation. And a lease-violation is a precursor to an eviction. And when that happens? It's going to be your fault because you refused to ID yourself. Now you either show me your ID to prove who you are or I'm going to have to ask you to get off my property. And if you refuse? Police are going to come out here and cite you for trespassing. You have ten seconds. 10...9...8... (Usually at this point they show me their ID.)

But if they're still refusing to show ID and they walk off or drive off? Well then I can follow them to the apartment they're headed to and once they go in. I write down the apartment-number. And write it down in my report-log. And once it get's e-mailed to the manager. She writes up a lease-violation for that person's apartment.

It's that simple.

Now if it's a gated-community I'm pulling security for. Somebody is coming in and I know they don't live there. They feel it's none of my business to know who they are, who they are visiting, and that they don't have to show me their ID? Guess what? It's none of their business for them to be out there. I don't have to let them in through the gate. At that point if they do anything stupid like try to crash through the gate? Well...that's a no-brainer. Their ass is going to be yanked out of their little jalopy and their ass is going to get hooked up.

It's that simple.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


here in virginia an armed security officer has the same arrest powers as a police officer within the area they are assigned to work. we also have special conservervators of the peace these are sworn law enforcement officers by the circuit court judge for usually a whole county.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 


Yeah. Rule of thumb is; you're on private property.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


i am former law enforcement and i have some questions about this video.
how do we know this isnt a staged video? i say this because I see a lone police officer with no
patches or markings on his uniform. any police officer will tell you that when they are out on a stop
you will hear the constant radio chatter of the dispatcher checking up on the officer.
i hear none. i also see three unknown guys standing around the officer and that is an officer safety issue.
where was the officers car? i didnt see one which leads me to believe this might be a staged video



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by surfnow2
 


where was his backup? you would hear the sirens in the distance and the screaming of the engines as they came in
these are not all inclusive. these are major indicators. can someone provide more information about this incident?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


i wanted to get your take on the video of the officer beating the guy in the gas station. i posted my response based off my own experience



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


i wanted to get your take on the video of the officer beating the guy in the gas station. i posted my response based off my own experience


I dont think we have all the information to make a competent argument for or against the officer and the drivers actions.

In the state of Missouri, St. Louis and Kansas City has whats called a Corporate Security Statute. This allows private security to go through some training by either agency, and they receive specialized comission that essentially gives them some LEO powers.

Law Enforcement in Missouri is considered on duty 24 hours a day, and if they carry a Class A thre authority is the entire state of missouri, in or out of uniform (although you dont piss in someone elses sandbox and make them clean it up).

I have dealt with situations like that and not called for backup. Its going to be officer discretion in that area.


As far as the comment goes about no patch, not all agencies place patches on both sleeves. St. Louis metro has a patch on their left and no patch on their right, so the uniform in the video fits in with the officer being St. Louis Police.





Aside from the above, the video does not show all of the facts, or the incident itself aside from the contact they had with each other. You have an eye witness from the gas station clerk who said the guy grabbed the officers legs. You have the guy who took the video say it was excessive use of force.

Again matter of perspective and information. The camera does not always tell the whole story, and the guy who took the video stated he did not know what happened prior to the incident he recorded.

Until the guy comes forward, or the Cop is interviewed, no crime was committed. We should wait and see hat the investigation shows and let them do their jobs.

The officer has been identified, and had permission to work security at the gas station. It looks like he has one prior incident of police brutality that resulted in a settlement. Before people jump on that keep in mind the officer was accused, and a settlement reached, but no wrong doing admitted. Cities these days are more willing to settle rather than go to court because it is cheaper that way.

Im not saying the officer was innocent, but until info from that settlement comes out, we dont know what happened.

St. Louis Police have identified the officer but will not release his name (gas station did). Their PIO said that if the complaint is sustained and charges / disciplinary action taken, hius info will be released. Prio to that, its under investigation.

Updated news information:
Updated News Info


Platke said the man was causing trouble in the store and was asked to leave by Ries, who Platke said has worked at the gas station providing security for four years.

"The guy was plainly drunk," Platke said. "Inebriated."

His friends got him outside but he continued to cause problems, struggling with this friends, Platke said. Ries intervened.

"The officer grabbed him and tried to get him to come out of the car. The guy fell onto his chest and locked his arms around this officer's ankles and would not let go," Platke said. "(The officer) was there with his feet locked together, screaming at this guy to let go. He used his baton to try to hit him to get him to let go. He finally had to use (pepper spray) and the guy finally let go."

Platke said the man was grabbing the officer's ankles and said he believes Ries acted appropriately. He said Ries hit the man in the arms with the baton to get him to let go.


edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


thanks for the information.
what the officer did hitting him with the asp is in response to
him locking his arms around the officer. i almost had this happen to me
before. i will only venture to say based off what i saw and then read in the article
it would seem he was trying to get the guy off him.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Let me put this as simple as possible.

If they had nothing to hide, then they would welcome the cameras.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by thewholepicture
Let me put this as simple as possible.

If they had nothing to hide, then they would welcome the cameras.


If you had nothing to hide, the let us search your house and car. If you had nothing to hide, let me see your bank account information. If you had nothing to hide, post your social security number here for us. If you have nothing to hide..........

The if you have nothing to hide argument is a BS argument, as well as dangerous. I dont have anything to hide, but unless the cop has a warrant to search my house, he is s.o.l. Not allowing an action is not indicative of guilt, on the contrary its indicitive of people not giving up their constitutional rights.

Let me put this as simple as possible. We are wired from head to toe with Video from our dash cams, body microphones to record, Tasers are fitted with video and auiod. States out west are placing cameras onto duty weapons, and there is a company created a video device that can go on officers uniforms.

With all of that, everyone under the sun with cellphone camers, CCTV cameras everywhere, from parking lots to buildings to streets department (they place cams at intersections for traffic flow) to ATM machines, we could care less about cameras.

The argument people are trying to make is based off a few incidents that make the news and then make there way here. People portray these incidents as an everyday standard occurence with law enforcement across the US, and not to burst anyones bubbles, is baseless. In the case of the video here, it was posted with absolutely no information, no reference, no setup and no explanation aside from the blues beat some guy down, and even then details people statedt did not even occur (beat in the back / head/ handcuffed then beat).

What we are seeing is the logical progression of technology and laws. When a lot of these laws were created, there were no cellphones present (or they were still expensive and owned by only wealthy people). The laws on the books only dealt with auido and recording in a gernal sense (phones/videocameras-VHS etc).

If anyone gets time check out their State or Municipal websites and look at the law section if they have it. A lot of these laws were put in place before a lot of us were even born, and have been adapted by either lawmakers or by case law from court rulings.

Up in the pacific northwest a police agency was driving around known drug areas using thermal imagaing to peer through houses. People who had plant growing operations were standing out for obvious reasons. Eventually it went to court and was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the 4th amendment.

Cameras these days is going through the exact same process.

99.9% of LEO's could care less about being recorded...
edit on 8-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


sweet, i do hope they get the vest/jacket cams going,
it been something ive wondered when they where going to get into the field ,

thanks for an update



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One

There's one power a security-guard has that a police-officer does not. And that is; If somebody is breaking the law or something else bad that is taking place that would require attention of police. A security guard does NOT need to intervene if they don't want to and they can't necessarily be held accountable criminally (but that doesn't mean they can't be taken to civil-court)



The Supreme Court ruled long ago a Police Officer can not be held liable for not saving someone.

Police Officers "protect society as a whole" not individual people. They can't be held liable for standing by and watching someone get killed or maimed.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


I had a police-officer tell me what I had said. And a police-officer needs to intervene by law or else they face jail-time.

For instance, say somebody said they were suicidal. A police-officer is required by law to intervene and seek help for them.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Law Enforcement is not required to act when the actions are from a third party (not started by LEO)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County - 1989

Castle Rock v. Gonzales - 2005

With that said, some agencies have policies that require action, or face a cowardice charge. Some states have laws that require intervention by Law Enforcement. The 2 cases listed above are derived from Domestic Abuse issues.

As of yet, I have never seen an Officer from any agency back down from a call and decide not to act. All the ruling does is say we are not required to act. It does not prevent agencies or states from devloping or instituting laws that require action from Law Enforcement.

I for one would not be able to do my job or sleep if someone was killed because I did not want to take action. I think almost all Officers feel the same way.

Suicidal behavior is completely different since the person is a danger to themsleves. Most states have specific laws on the books that cover suicidal behavior. Using MO as an example since it goes along with other conversations here, if there is evidence the person is a danger, they can be detained and transported to a local Hospital and placed on a 96 hour hold. Affidavidt is filled out that describes the person actions that violate the statute by the officer, or the person who directly observed the behavior or statements.

This allows the Hospital to hold the person against their will until they are seen by a Psychiatrist, who then invokes the 96, or discharges the person with referals.

RSMo 632 - Comprehensive Psychiatric Services - Missouri
edit on 8-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Fox8News - St. Louis MO update

KPLR11

** I think the 2 channels above share reporting. There reports are identical.

St. Louis Metro has launched an internal affairs investigation into the Officers use of force, and encourage any eyewitness to contact the IA division to provide information.

The new info coming out is the person was intoxicated and caused problems in the store. The owner of the store / cop told the kid to leave, and his friends took him outside. The friends apparently came back in and asked the officer for help because the drunk guys was causing issues with his friends.

(If I had to guess, because of where the drunk guy was sitting, I would wager the issue between him and his friends was his level of intoxication vs hte drunk guys argument of gimme my keys back im not drunk and I can drive fine. Thats just a guess though.).

So far, no one involved has filed a complaint against the officer. The person who recorded the mess on his cell phone does not want to be identified, wich makes things interesting since he was a witness to a possible crime. Hes gonna be pissed when he finds out that failure to ID as a witness to a crime in MIssouri is against the Law.

If I find new info I will update the thread so we can see how this progresses. I think this case is perfect for this discussion since the camera does not always show the entire story.

**************Also in the intrest of disclosure ******************

Since one article has a different version of events that other papers did not post, I will post it here. The Gas station owner who stated the kid grabbed the Officers ankles, was not present at the time of the incident. According to Mr. Platke, he was told by 2 of his employees that the kid grabbed the officers ankles.

Also, pictures of the gas station show that there is a St. Louis Police Department substation at the gas station (usually a desk for paperwork and stuff), which means officers are there all the time and know the staff fairly well.

Until the invetigation releases info, its entirely possible the actions were excessive and the eployees of the store might be giving justification where there was none.

Lets see how it plays out and go from there...
edit on 8-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


(I apologize to the OP if I'm deemed to be straying off-topic).


Hey remember that thread I started one time that you replied to? The one about the guy who got shot by a sheriff because apparently the guy tried to run him over? The reason I kept saying that I felt the sheriff might be held accountable for firing his weapon at the driver is because I had a similar experience and so did another officer I work with. (An ex-sheriff who I use to ride with on patrol every so often. But recently him and another boss of mine got their security-guard licenses pulled because of a pending case against them involving alleged corruption while working for Narcotics. And they're also the same individuals who have been targeted for assassination by the Mexican mafia.)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Talk about your chickens coming home to roost.. lol wow



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
your constitutional rights apply up to a point. the american citizens of japanese decent, lost theirs during world war 2. when they become inconvienent, rights are taken away. i wonder how many of you would have gone to bat for the american japanese during world war 2. constitutional rights are convienent priviledges granted to you, until wealth and power decide differently.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It's all false accusations though. They're in the situation they're in because of a personal vendetta being waged against them by somebody they worked with while in the sheriff's department who was envious of them. And now that person is a high-ranking official of the sheriff's department and is the one who is pushing the investigation. AND this person (along with others who are involved) could care less if the two ended up in jail or not. What mattered to them most is that the two lose their jobs. What the two are being accused of doing isn't serious enough to land them in jail. They'd just get probation.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
i see alot of back and forth going on here about what should happen in this situation and that.
the bottom line is nobody can quarterback what a police officer does in the field making assumptions.
unless you have been a police officer in some capacity doing law enforcement functions you just dont understand
the dynamics of a situation. you might have two of the same situations with different outcomes because
the events change so rapidly.

myself and 5 other troopers were sitting down on a evening shift at the county line (summer time) at a gas station. it was a busy night and things cooled down so we met with 2 others from another county to take a breather.
a Sgt from the local sherriffs office ran in (sweating and out of breath, not good) said he has a call for a mental subject with weapons at his residence and is threatening suicide. he also said he talks about gong suicide by cop.

this guy had the advantage considering he had time to prepare and we still had a 15 minute drive. we grabbed our rifles and turned on to a single lane gravel road with a pitbull loose and the house on a hill (tactical advantage). the front door was wide open with the tv on and so were all the windows. this house sits on 5 acres in a rural area and we were lit up from the fllood lights he had. we had to go in (no warrant needed, exigent circumstances) we cleared the house teams of two and at every window and door leading out there was some sort of firearm with ammo stacked on the counters. as we finished we received word this guy admitted himself to the hospital, thank god.

that being said with this situation could have ended up really, really bad. someone could go over what i typed and said you could have done this or that but what we did worked at the time and we had little information as to the inside of the house. looking back i would have suggested we stop at the house next door and at the minimum surveill the house before going up.

i guess what im saying is every situation is different and you cant blanket policy law enforcement with laws across the nation. even miranda is changing






top topics



 
89
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join