Why police don’t want you too close.

Published On May 11, 2012 | By Ademo Freeman | Articles

PSOSGT, a frequent commenter on CopBlock.org, submitted the following as a guest post. He didn’t think it would be published but after reading it I thought it would make a good blog, including my responses to his statements. PSOSGT’s statements are block quoted.

I realize this isn’t going to be posted, but I think these two stories shed SOME light as to why police don’t like people behind them, filming or just watching, while dealing someone else. Yes, we use the tired saying of “officer safety” but these are two examples that happened over 2 days that show why police get “jumpy” at times when people walk up to traffic stops, or any other investigation.

Cops can’t read minds. We don’t know if your going to talk, film, watch, or pull out a gun.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/21040-sergeant-david-enzbrenner

Sergeant David Enzbrenner was shot and killed in an unprovoked attack while assisting a code enforcement officer serve a nuisance order at a home near the intersection of 12th. and Division Streets shortly after 4:00 pm.

A person unrelated to the order suddenly approached and opened fire without warning, killing Sergeant Enzbrenner. The man then committed suicide. It is believed the man held a grudge against law enforcement officers because his father was serving a life sentence without parole in Louisiana.

Ah, it says that, “a person unrelated to the order suddenly approached and opened fire.” There was no preventing this, nor is there any one reason as to why this happened, other than some guy wanted to kill this guy. There was no camera involved in this case and a number of things can be distractions, so where do you draw the line? Or why even draw a line? If filming officers makes their job more dangerous then I suggest they stop forcing people to pay their salaries.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/21038-police-officer-i-deriek-w-crouse

Officer Deriek Crouse was shot and killed while making a traffic stop in the parking lot of the university’s Cassell Coliseum, near McComas Hall, at approximately 12:15 pm.

At some point during the stop, a suspect unrelated to the traffic stop approached his unmarked car and shot him once in the head as he sat in his vehicle. The suspect fled on foot to a nearby location on campus and changed clothes. He was located in the university’s I-Lot approximately 45 minutes after the shooting and committed suicide as a Montgomery County deputy attempted to contact him

Again, this seems to be a predetermined event. Maybe this officer was corrupt? Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Maybe, just maybe, this was a good officer who paid the ultimate price for another’s mistake. Officers who die in the line of duty are honored – parade and all – yet when officers kill someone the deceased are criminalized.

Neither of these examples prove PSOSGT’s point, that officer need to be wary of people filming. For one, both officers were preoccupied with enforcing some sort of victimless crime – code enforcement and traffic stop – which could be part of the reason for such hate towards LEO’s. Second,  if someone had been filming they would have caught these murders on video and could have helped hold those responsible. In case it wasn’t justified, like when cops kill innocent people for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

PSOSGT goes on to say,

On a personal level, and I’ve said it before. Showing only 1 side to the story, without context isn’t going to win you any favors, or bonus points with people if you truly want to change how police conduct business.

Everyone has a bias, no matter what they say. It’s natural. If there is a bias, and we show one side of policing, I think it’s obvious by the name – CopBlock.org. Atleast we don’t tell you this is the “No Spin Zone” while we jam our beliefs down your throat. Also, I encourage anyone to look at the other side of the coin, watch COPS, visit PoliceOne.com and research as much as you can about police.

How many LEO’s have ever thought about starting their own police service, without the government’s permission, that actually protects people? Are any officers out there sick of the politics involved with their jobs? Forced to do things they don’t like, told what laws/actions to arrest people for? Wouldn’t it be great to sit at home – or do routine visits to costumers – and wait for someone who actually needs help to call you? Have you ever thought of working for yourself, rather than the man?

I agree with anyone who looks at a call, video, report, or cops actions and says, “that’s fucked up” or disagree with what happened. It’s common. But the vast majority of people out there have NO IDEA what or why an officer acted or reacted in any given situation. I think it’s just as important to see what is put INTO law enforcement, that the result of an officer doing his/her job.

I think alot of us do see what’s put into law enforcement… law, which is simply words on paper that I may or may not agree with and enforce, which means if I don’t like it I’ll be punished. So, enforcement is what happens to those who don’t agree with the laws. And an officer’s job isn’t about what they believe but enforcing laws, even ones they know are bad/unconstitutional.

What do you think? Do cameras distract officers? Were these good examples to back that claim? Are people who aren’t police officers less creditable when discussing police issues? Would you hire a private company to provide you protection services if offered (instead of paying taxes to your local department)?

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Ademo Freeman is an advocate for a voluntary society, one where people are free to live their lives so long as they don't initiate force on others. Ademo has also been involved with other projects such as the MotorhomeDiaries.com, FreeKeene.com and LibertyOnTour.com You can get more content created by Ademo at his Facebook page and YouTube channel. Enjoy Ademo's post/work? Want to show him your gratitude, simply click here. Thanks in advance for your support, it's greatly appreciated.
  • http://mycountrymyass.com John

    People are killed and attacked all the time, for a reason or without a reason. The only difference between them and a cop is that a cop is always armed and has standing to pre emptively attack anyone who causes them concern. In fact, they feel REQUIRED to do this. So by this logic, regular people have cause to get just as jumpy in their everyday activities, except they can’t accost people at will. Just imagine how people would act if they could brandish weapons and assault people at will, all while being praised as a force for good. Considering the behavior of police today, they are right in perceiving an adversarial relationship between them and the public, and it is probably this relationship that cause them to want to create a bubble of total control around themselves, regardless of things like rights, liberty or the law. Deep sea fishing is still a more dangerous job than being a cop.

  • James Newport

    Dear CopBlock, I find it reasonable for police officers when detaining or arresting a subject to insist upon a zone of operations of at least 20 ft from the officer while he is performing the duty that has his attention.

    It is a good practice, any wrong doing by the officer can be observed at that distance, it lets the officer focus on the task at hand and not be distracted.

    That is essential to good policing and to a more sound manner of conducting our affairs when interacting with the police.

    Similarily persons operating inherently dangerous equipment must be free of distractions during critical operations. Just for example, crane operators, electrical repairmen, Explosive ordinance demolitions, demining operations, and other hazardous actions require a person in this case an officer to focus solely on the actions occurring with him.

    Film from 21+ feet and stop complaining about that.

  • The_Lakewood_4_are_burning_in_Hell

    How many examples have they shown of people filming from across the street where cops cross the street to acost the citizen filming. Too many.

    Cops hate being filmed. YouTube is their enemy and they know it.

  • Frank

    It doesn’t matter if they’re nervous. It doesn’t matter if their job is dangerous. The law says citizens can film them at work. This is unambiguous.

  • dougo

    make a mistake and cops fill out a criminal complaint if not flat out lie ti get their way with subject at hand.cops make a mistake and cry I.m only human.well what are we?you get the respect of the public that you earned.

  • G. Asher

    About that bias: If you go to a cop website or even a regular site that discusses LE topics, you better pretend to be a badge bunny because they will lock your account if you aren’t. Here and at a very few sites you can tell the truth about cops without fear of censure.

    Not only is there no fear of censure, but cops and holster sniffers are allowed, nay encouraged, to state their dissent. They are allowed to do this freely and without the fear of being stifled as is the case on pro-cop sites.

    That alone demonstrates our moral superiority. it also demonstrates that we actually want ideas discussed and truth displayed. We are unfraid of our positions being assailed by detractors because we know we are right. They are terrified of dissenting views and hate the truth because they are well aware that they are in the wrong.

    Evil needs to keep that mask. We keep pulling it off. They just hate that.

  • G. Asher

    James Newport, cops have gone onto private property and illegally entered homes where videoing was taking place at a greater range than 21 feet. Your ideas fall flat with the polyester goon squad. Try again.

  • Guy Fawkes

    There is a big difference between “you need to step back 20 feet” and “you can’t film me”. I would say someone filming cops is LESS of a threat than someone just standing there doing nothing, yet if there is a crowed the cops always seem to go right for the guy with the camera and start berating him. It’s pretty much agreed that cops have the right to ask people to step back a reasonable distance so they can do their jobs, that is not the issue. The issue is the plethora of officers who keep harassing people for filming them. Not for being too close, just for the act of taking video, which cops don’t like at all.

  • Rita

    If cops can’t read minds, how did they know I intended to sell that $10 worth of meth they found in my pocket?

  • Hey

    PSOSGT has the typical cop mentality “We can never do wrong thus we are always right”.

    when he states “show why police get “jumpy” at times when people walk up to traffic stops, or any other investigation.”

    It shows how suspicious of everyone the police are and that all citizens are the enemy out to get him.

    If there is a law that says a citizen must be 20 feet away from an officer, then please enlighten us.

    To assume everyone is a potential attacker, then you LEOs have real psychological problems such as being over paranoid. IS it any wonder why police goons attack innocent citizens?

    If it makes you jumpy to have citizens approach you, perhaps you should not be working in police. Part of the job is public relations and trying to get close to the community.

    If you are jumpy, you are possibly a danger to the community…please quit and do something else that is safer….for the community.

  • http://byenduranceweconquer.tumblr.com/ jake

    @Hey & G. Asher. those were good. i like it when people say my exact feelings in a way i could never describe myself.

  • Speezo

    Great posts but Rita’s was classic.

    PSO makes a great point though to defend those who film. In neither of the murders did the assailant make his presence known beforehand in the way that somebody who films would. Any reasonable person can tell the difference between somebody who films from the front and somebody who attacks from the back.

  • http://whentennesseepigsfly.wordpress.com/ WhenTennesseePigsFly

    PSOSGT,

    The facts here are simple… so simple even, that the majority of your fellow brothers and sisters in uniform can grasp them.

    Arresting people who are filming cops in public is unconstitutional. QED

    Court after court after court is finding all these local and state laws unconstitutional. Arrest after arrest after arrest is being tossed out and departments and officers are being successfully sued time and time again.

    At some point, even the dumbest of human beings will see what the cops are doing is illegal, unconstitutional and just plain wrong.

    You found one story where some nut attacked a cop. And the story fits your narrative. Perhaps the rest of us should go dig up the other 25,000 stories where the cops were the nuts, breaking the law because they didn’t want someone filming their questionable actions, arresting them, destroying the video… erasing it, etc…?

    Answer me this PSOSGT, how many cops in the past few years were arrested/convicted for crimes up to and including murder based on these videos?

    Do you honestly think those same cops would have ever been charged were it not for the video?

    Yeah, I’m sure you do… but in a world not populated by delusional cops, its just simply not the case.

    If you trace the rise of all those cases, you’ll find the rise coincides with the rise of Youtube, Twitter, cellphone cams etc… so no, had it not been for the irrefutable video evidence nearly all those cops would never have been made to answer for their crimes.

    The only reason the cops are so upset over people filming them, is because the cops are either doing something illegal, or they doubt the legality of their actions to begin with…

    As cops love to tell the public when they refuse to allow them to search their stuff.

    “If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?”

    So, PSOSGT “If you have nothing to hide, what are all these cops so afraid of?”

    The cops are in the wrong here, you are int he wrong here… but neither of those points comes as much of a shock to the rest of us.

  • http://whentennesseepigsfly.wordpress.com/ WhenTennesseePigsFly
  • paschn

    It is pointless to use logic when replying to PSOGT. Most badge-lickers as well simply ignore the evidence and continue feding of of and protecting those that command them, the ones with the money. Again, ask these S.I.B. if they will follow an illegal order to interfer with rightfully pissed off citizens excercising their constitutional rights and they will skirt it.

    It’s near impossible to get a cop to think objectively when they are paid by the very swine that are ruining this country and wiping their asses with our B.O.R. and constitution.

    These individual instances of rogue pork are upsetting, but it’s NOT the core issue of whom they DO support and whom they have taken an OATH to support.

    They don’t know and they PREFER it that way…it makes it easier on them when they round us up for the FEMA camps.

  • t.

    As usual you guys fell for the extremely edited and biased way Ademo posted Sgt.’s comment. You fell for it so bad, you missed Sgt.’s points completely.

    The problem isn’t the filming or recording. Not even the edited hatch jobs done to those videos and posted on sites such as this one. The problems come from involvement. When you decide to go from spectator to participant, the game changes. You choice to close in and distract the officer from what he is doing, it is the textbook definition of ‘resisting, delaying or OBSTRUCTING’ an officer (at least where I work).

    I can’t remember a video posted on this site that shows it differently than as I describe. The cameraman / officer contact always comes after the cameraman has engaged the officers or the other parties involved in the incident.

    Now I absolutely grant you that video doesn’t always capture the entire incident or the context of the entire incident. Often the cameraman doesn’t have the camera ready at a spilt second notice to capture everything leading up to an incident or even the beginning of the “bad”part of the incident. This leads to interpretation of what the “facts” are.

    Ademo why don’t you just post Sgt.’s entire article without the edit?

  • Hey

    @ t. and his faulty line of reasoning…..

    With you line of reasoning, anything in sight of the officer (people walking by, bicycle rider, ither cars passing by) can be interpreted by the officer as distracting, interfering, resisting, delaying or obstruction.

    Ypu still have not enlightened us where in the laws it says you can not film police close up.

    IF you can’t so your job without worrying if you are being filmed close by that is not interfering you and not being spooked by everything else that is in your line of sight, perhaps you should not be a police officer since the community does not need a trigger happy physco goon cop on the loose. <_<

  • G. Asher

    I have to agree with t. If there is an entire article then we should be able to see it all, not just the cherry picked parts. Post the whole thing.

  • Common Sense

    Yes, the entire article should be posted.

    I don’t feel its illegal to video the police. That being said, there are still states that require ‘all party’ consent. This has nothing to do with the police, its for all citizens.

    Another issue is the ‘posting’ or ‘publishing’ of said recordings. Is it legal? Ask Adam. States vary. Again, do some research before you do something illegal. Remember ‘Gilk’ only affects certain states, not all states.

    Also, apart from filming, you can still be arrested for ‘interference’ -that’s why there’s a zoom lens on your camera. Is it a vague term? Perhaps, but its on the books. And remember, that person stopped in the car (or sidewalk) may not want themselves to be filmed. They have rights to sue you just as much as you can sue the police. Remember the “Cops” show? All those on that program sign a waiver. Filming was legal in FLA but a man was recently convicted for interferring with the police, not filming the police.

    And lastly, when you film, post the entire video. That shows your credibility. No editing, not splicing. Just show the whole video (or article) since if you don’t, it appears you have something to hide.

    Just use some common sense.

  • Common Sense

    Also, on a side note, Ohio just passed a law banning the release of an officer’s personal information.

  • G. Asher

    Common Housefly, all party consent applies to wiretap laws, not video made in a public place that is not made for commerical value.

    I can stand in front of your house and video you and post it on youtube and there isn’t a thing you can do about it.

    Ohio cannot legally restrict free speech, to include a cop’s info. I wouldn’t want to be the test case, but there it is.

  • http://whentennesseepigsfly.wordpress.com/ WhenTennesseePigsFly

    WHich will be ruled unconstitutional under the standard the US Supreme Court crafted in Johnson v. United States…

    Public servants cannot statutorily prevent the public from obtaining reasonable information for purposes of identification. Allowing the police to operate under a veil of secrecy is unacceptable.

    Thankfully the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, so the Ohio law will be tossed upon its first challenge…

  • Cypherpunk

    This is an interesting topic, and I have admittedly come in late in the conversation. This is what I have got out of it: The public has the right to video or record in any manner the police or individual officers as the perform their jobs. I wholeheartedly agree with this, and it is a point of Constitutional fact that this is the law of the land thanks to the Bill of Rights.

    What I am less clear on is how close to the officer the videographer has the right to be before the filmer begins to interfere with the officer doing his job. Or rather, how close the members of this site feel they should be allowed to get.

  • Common Sense

    Which Johnson case? There are several.

    You forget that police have the same rights as you. To file complaints, protection orders, claims of slander and libel. It might be interesting to see, but I think the justices in Ohio and those at the federal level will side with the officers, not the media.

    “…The officers’ constitutional right to privacy — and personal protection — supersedes Ohio’s public-records laws, the justices ruled in the appeal of a case filed by The Cincinnati Enquirer.

    A police-union president welcomed the ruling, while the newspaper’s lawyer said it could inhibit public and news-media review of officers’ use of deadly force.

    The Enquirer had sought the names and identifying information of two police officers who were shot in a 2010 confrontation with members of the Iron Horsemen motorcycle gang at a Cincinnati bar.

    Cincinnati police refused to release the officers’ names, saying they were potential targets for retaliation by the gang because its “national enforcer” was killed in the shootout with officers.

    The Enquirer received copies of police reports and files with the names of the officers removed, but the paper argued that the redaction of the officers’ identities violated public-records laws.

    The Supreme Court justices relied on a 1998 federal-court ruling involving the Columbus Division of Police to affirm a ruling by Ohio’s 1st District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in The Enquirer’s case….”

  • G. Asher

    So then Common Cockroach, are you suggesting that online mugshots of arrestees, not convicts mind you, and the newspaper publication of such things as the event and the arrestee’s name should be considered actionable?

    Because CHA-CHING BABY! Every single LEA I am aware of publishes those things one way or another.

  • t.

    @Hey: Can you read? No really, can you? If so, try re-reading my post and tell where I said you cna’t film. I very clearly stated the problem is when you cross over from being a spectator to being a participant. You want to stand by and film, knock your socks off dick. But when you get so close and start yelling questions at the officers who are engaged in whatever action they are taking, or start urging resistance or other actions to those the officer is dealing with, you are now making yourself part of it. So you have then exposed yourself to possible criminal action. And since your filming it, I’ll seize your phone / camera to Gertrude that video as evidence of your interference.

    So again, s l o w l y this time, film away. I surely don’t care. I’m filming anyway. But when you choose to involve yourself, don’t get mad about what happens to you for exercising that free choice.

    Simple enough for you?

  • BMFC

    @t., so this is just a ‘what-if’ but lemme see if i get what ur saying…if i come across a police officer in an altercation with a citizen, and i begin recording it right as it gets physical, the officer starts assaulting this guy who is obviously peaceful and compliant, he takes him to the ground and sits on top of him and beats him unconscious, then stands up and pulls out his gun to execute this guy…you’re saying i shouldn’t try to say something to stop this madman from executing someone who might be an innocent citizen? is that what youre saying? if i see a cop breaking the law i should just keep my distance and just stand there and watch this guy get merdered without saying something, or trying to stop it? because that’s what it sounds like youre saying. youre saying dont try to interfere with a cop even if what he is doing would get a regular person thrown in prison for a very long time…i dont agree…I think if a cop is abusing his authority to victimize innocent citizens, someone should have the balls to say something…

  • BMFC

    dang i misspelled ‘murdered’ lol…

  • Hey

    Sleezy t. likes to play with words and then assumes everyone else is stupid.

    You like to describe a citizen who is filming you close by filming (let’s say 5 feet) away as a participant who is quiet and non threatening.

    You insist to call citizens (a spectator) who films you 10 feet away and not saying a word and not hindering, nor interfering and not coming into physical contact, (But it seems to you, your vivid imagination interprets this creatively that they are questioning you) which lights up your hostility to being filmed gives you the idiot hothead officer to interpret them as a participant….the enemy…

    If some citizen filming you is stupid enough to make physical contact in the middle of a police intervention, then they deserve to be arrested.

    But if someone asks you a question, what happened to ignoring them or answering politely that you are busy and please wait till intervention is over and then ignoring them if they continue with questions?

    Again…

    P l e a s e .. e n l i g h t e n .. u s .. w i t h .. w h a t ..
    l a w .. p r e v e n t s .. c i t i z e n s .. f r o m .. f i l m i n g .. y o u .. five .. f e e t .. a w a y .. q u i e t l y ??

    Bet you will avoid answering it again. ;)

  • http://wordpress.fliberty.com Steve H.

    In my case when police arrested me for filming them, the State’s Attorneys office wrote that they felt that if the videographer is lawfully present, i.e. on a sidewalk and the scene is not closed to other bystanders, 15-30 ft is acceptable. And to me 15 ft is pretty close, I never got within 50 ft and was still nicked.

    Leos just have to get over this. Videographers are just no different than another bystander holding up a potato. If you don’t want bystanders, get out your tape and close off the crime scene, but you better be able to justify an “emergency” situation later, if somebody or the ACLU sues the dept. for a violation of the 1st Amendment.

  • http://wordpress.fliberty.com Steve H.

    Also, on the subject of words being spoken by the videographer at the scene. The SAO said in my case that “the defendant was not communicating with the people being detained 2)the defendant was not threatening the leos and 3) the defendant was not inciting others with “fighting words”.

    So this is important stuff to the court. If you are a videographer, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Stand there and record, don’t communicate at all with the subjects being detained, don’t talk to the LEO’s even if they talk to you, and never ever use any fighting words. If they arrest you, go quietly, as quietly as you can.

  • http://wordpress.fliberty.com Steve H.

    “I can’t remember a video posted on this site that shows it differently than as I describe. The cameraman / officer contact always comes after the cameraman has engaged the officers or the other parties involved in the incident.”

    Oh, and t. you can watch my encounter on youtube, ‘Wrongfully arrested for filming police in Sarasota, FL’. and then you can add one to the list that shows it differently than as you describe. Also, watch the one from Emily Good and from Anthony Graber, those are different than you describe.

  • t.

    @Steve H: I’ll look your video up.

    As for you other goofs: The easy example of what I’m talking about are every video Ademo and his crew are involved in. They run up the officer who are engaged in the middle of whatever action demanding answers, closing in right on top of them. There was a video posted on this site like a month ago that showed the camera guys friend being arrested. The officers start walking him across the street to put him in the car and the camera guy who was left alone then starts running after the officers and right up behind one officer. The officer then turns, intercepts him and very appropriately charges him.

    BFMC, like most Cop Blockers wants to live at the extreme and come up with the all out crazy scenerio. Dude, the shit your try to shovel isn’t anything like I said or described. If your scenerio happens, do what you think is best. But here in the real world, when you happen along a traffic stop where someone is getting arrested (for what reason? Neither you or I know) feel free to stand back and record it. But the business of that arrest, of someone other than you, is not of your concern. The officer doesn’t owe you any answers and can stop you from interfering with his arrest.

    This really isn’t so hard.

  • Bob

    Watch COPS?? The TV show? That’s nothing but propaganda. The cops know they’re being filmed and are being coached and are on their best behavior which they never are while on normal duty.

  • Centurion

    @t shut up your uneducated trailer trash, @common Police DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as the public. Police are held higher because they SERVE in protective PUBLIC SERVICE.The regular citizen has the jurisdiction of powers unless their is a victim involved. @ common you do not impress anyone by trying to sound educated with a Police power trip mentality. You are not smart nor do you make any sense. Your job description only requires a diploma or GED wich most prisoners could get while serving time in jail. Cops have no rights, they are public servants, what do servants do? Thats right common , they do whatever they are told by their bosses and the Boss my dumb friend are the PUBLIC. The post by sgt of the PICTURE, sure looks like the same tech we used in Faluja, or Rhamadi, Miltarizing the Police HMMMMMMMM, ILLEGAL and a Travesty.

  • Rita

    Most people who approach police officers do so in the mistaken belief that the police are there to help them. On the other hand, most of us who have ever been approached by cops know that they’re there for one reason and one reason only — to damage our lives in some way. Following PGOSGT’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, we should all be ready to fire upon any officer who ventures into our comfort zone. For our own safety.

  • Guy

    Cops are cunts. Fuck’em in the neck!!!!!

  • paschn

    Occasionally, there will be a sycophant-in-blue that will gleefully crush your face or just ruin your day. There are ways to achieve justice from them for the victims or their survivors.

    You should all be MUCH more concerned with their willingness to betray their pledged oaths to defend our constitution/Bil of Rights. reason being, it affects our nation’s people as a whole, not random individuals.

    Should the voters find themselves between super bowls…the newest “reality” show or what lucky group Madonna is breeding with this month, it is to your advantage to look closely at those in CHARGE of those cops…possibly voting them out along with those that appointed/supported them.

  • certain

    T, you lie and change your story so much, it’s funny!!!

    Above, you say “I can’t remember a video posted on this site that shows it differently than as I describe.”

    Then, when somebody calls you out, you name ONE (1) video.

    Cllleeeaaaannnuuuuupppppppp on aisle 5.

  • t.

    Certain: Normally I suffer you for a little before embarrassing you but I’m just not in the mood today. Show me there a-hole, where on this or any thread that I “change my story so much”. Apparently I’ve handed you your ass so much that all you can do is spit shit. So explain what you mean.

    “CENTURION the wrong”. What? Every statement you make makes you sound even more stupid. In all of ranting that you ha e done I’ll give you credit for maybe 3 facts the are correct and true ( hell, even Flakewood, leader of the Legion of Fools, at least gets most of his facts straight….you’re just always wrong ). I don’t need to go any further than your silly statement that all cops are uneducated. I don’t believe that there are any officers in my larger medium sized department that doesn’t at least have an associates degree (and the ones with just an associates have a military background). Most have bachelors and several have masters. Almost every department in my area is similar in their makeup. The only different one would probably be the sheriffs office. It’s those kind of blatantly wrong statements that you are either a liar, have gotten some very bad intelligence, or are just an idiot. I’ll let you pick.

    If you want to think that what I described above is wrong, OK. When I go to the jail it’ll just be to drop you off so it won’t hurt my feelings.

  • G. Asher

    Centurion, cops are held to just about no standard at all by the courts and by their own agencies. Show me one instance of a cop being held to a higher standard.

  • Otto Maddox

    I’ll give PSOSGT credit for trying.

    However.. there is one big item he left out of his post. An item, it seems, a lot of police officers just don’t like to acknowledge.

    We, the people, have the RIGHT to record. The idea of “officer safety” trupming the right of anyone within recording distance is just plain silly. It doesn’t and the courts have repeatedly ruled as such.

    And while I am sad to hear about any police officer being killed the job of police officer is still, relatively speaking, a very safe job. In reality only lunatics attack police officers. It’s almost impossible to anticipate or prevent these kinds of attacks.

    You just end up taking away the rights of truly innocent people and making yourselves look bad in the process.

  • http://blog.drsuds.com Mr Suds

    Police know the law, they know that the majority of people don’t know much of the law. This leads to temptation for some or many police to abuse a scenario, especially when the public’s hearsay does not win over police hearsay or whatever they choose put down on the report.

    Videotaping police activity is about the only way the public can win over the police, it doesn’t happen frequently enough, and when it does the punishment for the police is so light, that it almost encourages abuse of power.

  • Common Sense

    My god centurion, you write like a Downs Syndrome child….

  • Centurion

    @ Common nice , I told you before its conversation text not a Novel get a life, get educated, its obvious you have never tweeted. Your a half bit moron wannabe and you insult instead of facts and by the way God is spelled with a capital G retard. @ NOCOMMONSENSE The public has jurisdiction over every public matter no matter if the police think there involved in a situation or not . Police do not have the power or the right to establish how far or close you need to be on a crime scene. Police do not have the power to tell the public where they can stand and what to say or not say that’s up to the public . Freedom of the press is a right to know as it happens law and cannot be infringed or picked apart from law dickforcement. The law was established to allow the public to ask questions in the moment without a distorted version after the facts of a matter or crime scene or accident. PUBLIC,PUBLIC,PUBLIC, has jurisdiction over police and it WILL BE REESTABLISHED OF SUCH. and when it does cops and innocent people will stop getting killed. The more cops hide their shit the more they will get shot,spit at and hated the power is ours not cops. @common youve been clinically taught,morally dissed,and disgustedly dismissed.

  • Centurion

    @ otto maddox, cops dont only get shot from lunatics , its a consequence they have to pay for the illegal mindset and training of police. Its sad yes but the way they conduct themselves and shit on our right to jurisdiction of public matters it serves them right. Give me liberty or give me death, without liberty theirs going to be death.Liberty and freedom is a right and police continually violate federal law by trying to interpret that. WE THE PEOPLE interpret that WE THE PEOPLE have power over the police . They all should be put to a grand jury for treason against the the union for violating the constitution and the bill of rights wich is punishable by death.

  • Scott

    Your all pieces of shit. That’s my 1st amendment at work for you. Go fuck yourselves. I hope u all burn in hell. I’m sure this won’t be up long but to whom ever reads this, lick a sweaty ball sac you losers. Blow me!!!!

  • Common Sense

    @centy

    Yep, you’ve got a touch of the Downs in you…

  • t.

    Common: Be easy on him. He is unarmed in the battle of wits.

  • Guy

    Centurion, pay no attention to the statists, they are wholly dependent upon the working class for their paychecks, resulting in fraudulent and criminal acts. The folks are waking up.

    And I know you won’t forget…Cops are cunts. Fuck’em in the neck!!!!

    Thanks for the teamwork.

  • wiguy

    Commoncop OH passed no such law. Just another dumb fuck uneducated comment. Fool.

  • Centurion

    @scott at least you make more sense than common. @ common If you share who you really are I would personally go to the police station you work in and put you under citizens arrest myself. Your a punk with no educated way to relay your stupid ass bullshit and I have never saw someone with down syndrome graduate from the United States Naval academy with over 9 deployments between Iraq and the Stan . To mention Mental illness 4 weeks ago and than mention downs twice not only shows everyone how dumb and stupid you really are but shows the education level needed to become a Police officer in NH LMFAO… Common you proved every point I have ever made LOL DUMB ASS…

  • Centurion

    @t I am fully mission capable but its sad you think rights and the public”s jurisdiction over the cops is a war.Its also sad you put a sketch ball cop in the category of wit especially using a syndrome for a bully put down nice t . NOTICE- t and common are the reason this website thrives dushbags like this and the rest of the corrupt dinks with badges , listen up these two uneducated morons are your advacates. NO WORRIES FREEMANS, with allys like this we all win against crips with very expensive cruisers.

  • nomad

    The only reason cops have so much power is because the people give it to them. People need to police themselves not the cops. Police are obsolete and unnecessary.

  • PSOSGT

    I think James Newport said it about as well as it can be said.

  • PSOSGT

    How many LEO’s have ever thought about starting their own police service, without the government’s permission, that actually protects people? Are any officers out there sick of the politics involved with their jobs? Forced to do things they don’t like, told what laws/actions to arrest people for? Wouldn’t it be great to sit at home – or do routine visits to costumers – and wait for someone who actually needs help to call you? Have you ever thought of working for yourself, rather than the man?

    What laws should they enforce?? Well the laws their customers want correct??? So if thier customers don’t want the to enforce drug laws, they shouldn’t right?! No stupid traffic laws?? GONE!!! But then the customer says that they don’t want them to enforce child porn laws…hmmm then what??

    Let’s even back up farther. What legal basis would a private company have to detain arrest try and the jail ANOTHER private citizen? The Constitution lists outs what the executive branch can do, and state constitutions go further.. so where, in any law out there would allow this idea? And the cost???? And what happens if we do have private companies…and someone who didn’t pay is a victim?? Who investigates then?? Anyone?

  • t.

    CENTURION the wrong: What, do tell, are you ission capable of? You rant at me about things that I didn’t say. I said that YOU aren’t armed for a battle of wits. You come back at me with something about rights and public jurisdiction (?) being a war. What???

    Your comment vindicates just how right my comment about you was. Your parade of bad Intel. just keeps continuing.

  • Centurion

    @t the even more wrong if your too stupid to get it you must be a 5 year old , so I will refrain from replying to a minor. My battle of wit is fully mission capable Moron,and the war comment wasn’t to you.
    My intel on 7 different blog sites has always been A1 prime and on target unlike yourself. I did pick on who you advacate for Cops who make fun of retards,downsyndrome, and mental health disorders. Even though all Police creeds says they will protect the week in every department. Get you panties out of your adult diaper and actually debate instead of trying to sound smart because your not , not even a little bit. Prisoners in county DOC can become a cop so shut up .

  • Reason

    I’m not sure you understand how the reason of the premise that PSOSGT presented about how cops could be cautious. As an example of distraction, if you were at work in your office and someone was staring at you through the window, you would be uncomfortable in proceeding to your work. It fully catches your attention, because the individual has fully payed his attention on you. So he is the firm definition of a distraction. People pass by the office constantly, it may catch your attention but they pass by and you go back to doing your work. Still the man in the window is staring at you.

    Cops are going to cautious because their are people out their who want to kill police spontaneously. There are some who try to distract the police officer so the individual who was stopped by the officer. These examples have good evidence in articles that can back them up. Please feel free to google, if your message is all about educating. You worry about cops have guns. We have a second amendment that allows people to carry guns. Look at the history, our nation is built by weapons and firearms.

    The problem is that you are going to be bias, which is unnatural because one should not speculate and assume. You must gather all facts of evidence to achieve an answer.

    Also, I am confused on what is this victimless crime you speak of. A traffic stop is part of the traffic laws, and “crime” is part of the criminal laws which is totally separate.

  • Common Sense

    No Centy, I’m not making fun of retards…I’m making fun of you, acting like your retarded. Making arguments like a retard.

    Hell, maybe you are retarded.

    If you were actually afflicted with Downs Syndrome, just let me know and I’ll stop picking on you and your complete lack of facts or reason. (I’m still waiting for the Greenland Police Union contact)

    And also, if you’re ‘semi-tarded’ just let me know and I’ll not make comments about your mental capacity.

    Remember, hate the game, not the player…

  • Guy

    @Reason,unless there is an accident where there is an actual damaged party, most traffic stops result in a citation for a “crime” where there is no victim. “The People of the State of…” cannot testify. End of case, if this was really the land of the free.

    Cops are cunts. Fuck’em in the neck!!!!!

  • Reason

    @Guy, No sir. You are mistaken on the word and definition of “crime”. Crime in itself has three main characteristics like a tripod. The first element of a crime is considered as an guilty and and the second element is a guilty mind which is the intent. The last element is the concurrence of the two first element to result a harm to a victim. If on of the legs breaks off in the tripod of the elements, then there is no crime. Every crime must have these elements to conclude the body of the crime, “Copus delicti”.

    The traffic laws is rules and regulations for drivers with a driver license or any operator behind a motor-vehicle must follow. When you obtain the driver license you give consent that you understand the punishments when you violate a traffic law. Keep in mind, driving a vehicle is a privilege and it is not a constitutional right.

    The DMV of your state gives the powers to law enforcement to enforce these laws to make sure people drive safely on the roads. Keep in mind, the driver license is your consent to follow these rules and regulations. When a crash occurs on any type of roadway, a traffic violation must of occurred so the police must be their to investigate on what occurred. The two parties will have (hopefully) have insurances company lawyers to fight over the damages in ‘civil’ court. Now, if the traffic crash occurs in the parking lot or private land, the officer is there only to investigate the crash but no parties get a citation because traffic laws do not have jurisdiction.

    So the very distinction of a crime and traffic law (rules/regulation) are particularly different in their characteristics.

    This whole saying “victimless crime” is very irrational to the meaning. It is similar to say “godless” religion, which has fallacy written all over it.

    I hope this helps.

  • Reason

    *** first element guilty act***** forgive the mistype. Computer lag.

  • Reason

    Also, you need stop creating straw man arguments. Especially in the article by Ademo. It could help your message without so many of them.

  • t.

    Centurion the wrong: What Intel of yours has been correct?? Certainly not your Intel on the recent shootings in N.H. where you where not only factually wrong, but wrong on each premise you stated. You informant in the A.G.’s office either lied to you, or simply doesn’t exist.

    You have been exposed as a fool and a poser.

    But please keep trying because I need the comic relief.

    To the others of you who can carry on on n educated, rational debate, I apologize. My harsher tone at the Legion of Fools and some others is that their level of foolishness is just over the top. Their calls for violence is dangerous to everyone. So, my apologies to you guys.

  • Reason

    @t, You are human and we have error. I have read your posts in the past and have respected your discussions in debates. Sometimes a harsher tone is used to get the point across but keep in mind by this:

    “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
    ― Thomas Paine

  • Guy

    @Reason:”The last element is the concurrence of the two first element to result a harm to a victim. If on of the legs breaks off in the tripod of the elements, then there is no crime.” I agree. In the vast majority of traffic cases, where is the victim?

    “Keep in mind, driving a vehicle is a privilege and it is not a constitutional right.” I, again, agree. However, using one’s private automobile in noncommercial activity on the roads is a right. I for instance,do not have a “Driver License” because I am not qualified under Title 49USC. All who use a DL and are not commercial are, also, not qualified. They have been conned into a bogus contract. 49USC is the supreme regulatory authority over transportation, I suggest you check it out.

    Thanks for the reply.

  • Reason

    @Guy “I agree. In the vast majority of traffic cases, where is the victim?” I am not fully sure you agree and understand the difference I explained the detail post I made. The victim element only applies to the crime/criminal statue, and not in traffic cases.

    Driving is going to be consider a privilege; for example. A constitutional right is given to everyone from birth to death. If this driving was a right, then there should be no legal age limit on when a child should drive. In this scenario, he/she will argue he has the right to drive any anytime he/she wants because rights give powers to everyone based on due process/Equality clause. In another example, a individual who has received his fifth OWI/DWI charge should be allowed to drive in this hypothetical scenario as well.

    In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive.

  • Guy

    @Reason: “drive” is a commercial term. Study 49USC and learn something of value, instead of spouting your half-baked ideas. Do you even know the history of the “driver license”? Did Henry Ford (or anyone else) have a DL in the early 1900′s? If not, then surely, they were exercising a right to move about by mechanical means.

    May as well get your panties in a knot, while I am at it…most units of what is percieved as “government” are, in fact, private companies (and the people are waking up to it).

    Cops are cunts!!! Fuck’em in the neck!!!!!!!!!

  • Reason

    @Guy, The word drive is suitable to mean any operator, means every person, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. I will read the 49 USC, but if you keep claiming you know about it so well, why do you not quote or post any valuable information. I presented a precedent of a US Court of appeals which gives a ruling on the issue about driving is not a fundamental right. This is a court ruling, and ignoring this legality is foolish.

    Driving is not a right because there is nothing in the Constitution mentioning it nor do any amendments to the Constitution address it. It’s a privilege because you can only drive if you meet certain requirements (passing a test)

    You question about the history of the driver license but you fail to inform any light on the matter. How are you sure that henry ford and the others were exercising a right to move about? I only ask to find the answers.

    Keep in mind, new things develop over time in hour history. The vehicle was created to find new ways of travel. The people, the government, and the law were possibly new to this invention in the past.

  • Guy

    @Reason: Thank you for your reply. The term “drive” or “driver” has specific meaning in law. Please do some research and find out for yourself.

    “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

    “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

    There are multitudes more.

    A right cannot be converted to a privilege upon the whim of a legislature.

    If I remember correctly, the state of New York implemented a “driver” license statute somewhere around 1918, which was the first, IIRC. Texas was 1937, but was overturned by the courts and was rewritten and passed in 1941.

    Before these types of unlawfull legislative (trickery upon the populace) acts, the common man exercised his RIGHT of locomotion when he pleased. On the other hand, the commercial operation upon and use of the highways has been, historically, regulated, as well it should be.

    The traffic regulations are for nothing more than wealth extraction to further the overreach of the state and it’s minions.

    Traffic regulations are civil in nature, with criminal penalties.

  • Guy

    I apologize for the hijack, however, here is a link to interesting material on the “Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel” issue:

    http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm

    Do your own research your mileage may vary.

  • t.

    Reason: Trying to argue with the “freemen” or sovereign types is pointless.

    Guy: where I am, it’s “operators license”. You need one to operate a vehicle on the roadways. If you’d like, you can speed past me and I,all stop you. When you don’t have a license and no other I’d, I’ll arrest you and tow your car. Then we can be a test case. You can testify about the flag having fringe on it and being “free to travel”

    It’ll be great fun. There’s a self proclaimed “sovereign” who lives just outside my jurisdiction. He does the whole handmade license plate and handing the card about suing if stopped and all. He’s been arrested like 7 times in the last couple of months and his car keeps getting towed. It’s costing him a fortune. Can’t wait for the case to make it to court. Nutter’s are funny

  • Guy

    @t:so you’re telling me that you have no respect for the court rulings, et al?

    Talk about a nutter!!!!!

    Like I said, “Cops are cunts!!! Fuck’em in the neck!!!!”.

  • wiguy

    Reason, Jesus Christ were you drunk when you wrote your last comment or did you just miss the day in sixth grade when they would have taught you how to structure a sentence?

    And t, if your boss saw what you write on here would you be fired? You spend so much time trying to agitate. Are you divorced and lonely? What a strange life you must lead.

  • t.

    Guy: What court case am I not respecting? Not any that tell me that you can drive where and however you’d like without a license. Just because you don’t think “man made law” is legal, doesn’t mean that it’s not.

    Wise guy: I’m sure I wouldn’t be fired. Why? Because the things that I post here are legally sound. We can differ on opinions about what things should be. But when I tell you about what the police function and mandate are, about how the use of force is implemented, about investigations, evidence and reporting are done, it’s truth. My bosses, while not about this site, consistently praise me for my constant call to officers and public for patience and calm. The through review of my use if force incidents have consistently shown excellent decision making. As a supervisor, drug investigator, trainer, and FTO I try hard to instill those ideas in younger officers. You don’t see me on this site calling for violence, that’s the Legion if Fools. When I started viewing this site, I thought then (and still do) that the concept is very good. Film the police,. Why? Because that protects everyone, both the suspect and the officer. I laughed a lot at some of the silly antics at first. But what happened is that the concept changed from simple recording the police, to trying to get involved in the incident and trying to get the police to react to your actions. Then came the Legions of Fools (Flakewood, Wolf, Chase, Certain, Centurion) who look simply to inflame people and agitate. Their constant callsfor violence are dangerous to all. With Paschn and Carlos and others you can have an exchange of ideas and conversation, you might never agree, but there is relatively civil conversation. I really don’t see where I’m “agitating” anyone. The exchange of ideas is a good thing.

    As for me being lonely or divorced. Nope. Happily married with kids. Play sports, coach, go to church (though nit as often as I should). Don’t spend that much time on this site or any other. That’s why I only comment on the really interesting topics or the truly ludicrous ones. I use a tablet to check of few things between laundry loads or while cooking dinner.

  • Guy

    @t: why don’t you start studying the cases provided in the brief and maybe you will be enlightened.

  • t.

    Guy: First…This Washington State case sets precedence where? Oh, Washington.

    Moving on from that though… As some of you Cop Blockers favorite President Obama would point out to you..everything is commerce. Therefore the commerce clause applies. Keeping that concept in mind, the gas in the tank, the gas tank it’s self, the groceries you went to buy, the cigarettes in you pocket, all commerce. That’s just one concept.

    Now, each STATE also has different constitutions and laws. Those again control what occurs in that state (why your Washington case pertains to Washington).

    Now if you want to depend on live on “freeman” doctrine, go ahead. Raise “straw man” defenses and arguments. You’ll probably have better luck the rocky mountain states then you will in the east or south.

  • Reason

    I am still researching more about it but I do believe this case :”In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive.” overrides yours based on the superiority of your state case.