PDA

View Full Version : "Either you buy these, or I take your car"



voodoo_man
08-21-2015, 06:03 PM
http://6abc.com/news/philly-cop-to-driver-you-buy-these-or-i-take-your-car/951155/

Video of incident in link as well as description.

Seriously dude? You have one job, one job.

Will he be fired? Probably not.

He'll probably get a 5 or 10 day suspension and then transferred to the worst hell-hole the PD has to offer, while assigned to steady midnights and all possible transfers will be denied.

Before people wonder, "why is he trying so hard to sell these tickets?"

The tickets are for the "hero thrill show" - http://www.herothrillshow.org/ - Every officer in the department is given tickets to sell...make your own conclusions about that.

Dr. No
08-21-2015, 06:06 PM
Why is it that all these videos start the instant the cop is saying questionable things?

What happened before that?

Context is everything .... and something that may look really REALLY bad might not be what you think it is.

If it is true and he's extorting the driver, he will get his ass handed to him. I would think a thorough investigation would be warranted.

BehindBlueI's
08-21-2015, 07:44 PM
Selling things on duty to the public should be against policy, period. I say to the public because if you want to sell to your fellow cops at roll call or run a snack fund in the detective's office, that's fine.

You want to hock tickets, do it on your own time. There's simply too much potential for both corruption and the appearance of corruption. Even if he didn't extort them, a traffic stop is not the place to be shilling a product, and having someone detained longer than legally required so you can do your sales pitch is problematic as well.

JackRock
08-22-2015, 08:46 AM
Why is it that all these videos start the instant the cop is saying questionable things?

What happened before that?

Context is everything .... and something that may look really REALLY bad might not be what you think it is.

If it is true and he's extorting the driver, he will get his ass handed to him. I would think a thorough investigation would be warranted.

I gotta agree that that severe context is missing. However, notice that the camera is already placed and generally stationary. I'm guessing it was a phone camera (vertical video), so it was probably running before the clip that we see. That being the case, it was either edited for brevity/relevance (only including the part relevant to the story), or it was as bad as the claims say.

I did some digging, since the news story said it went viral on Facebook. I found a copy on the profile of James Coleman (I doubt that James is the original driver in the video - he just uploaded the most commonly forwarded copy that I see), which shows it from a point when the officer's walking up - and it seems that only a couple of seconds were removed for the news story.
Here's a direct link to the video in question on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kraze1134so/videos/1704876599740137/

GardoneVT
08-22-2015, 11:10 PM
Selling things on duty to the public should be against policy, period. I say to the public because if you want to sell to your fellow cops at roll call or run a snack fund in the detective's office, that's fine.

You want to hock tickets, do it on your own time. There's simply too much potential for both corruption and the appearance of corruption. Even if he didn't extort them, a traffic stop is not the place to be shilling a product, and having someone detained longer than legally required so you can do your sales pitch is problematic as well.

Agreed.

That being said, this event recalls to mind the "voluntold" nonsense I encountered in the AF. The higher ups would make the rounds at the squadron office with an offer us worker bees couldn't refuse.

Sure, you didn't HAVE to visit the Annual Air Force Spouses' Interior Decorating and Dependapottamous Social planned by the base commander's better half. Go ahead, play Call o' Duty at home.

But then again, THEY don't have to give you a 5 on your Enlisted Performance Review either...or approve your leave on Date X....or sign off your AF1314, Firearms Ownership Permission Slip.....

Paul
08-23-2015, 01:12 AM
In the video, Zagursky is heard to say, "You and your friend got any money to buy these thrill show tickets? Support your police department. Ten bucks each, man."

The incident was part of what police call a "live stop," part of crackdown on unregistered and uninsured vehicles.

Zagursky continues, "Either you buy these, or I take your car because it's unregistered. Ten bucks each man."

The driver then hands Zagursky money and takes the tickets.

Clearly out of control police corruption, lets be outraged. Buy a couple tickets and get out of several hundred dollars in fines, impound and administrative fees for operating an unregistered vehicle. That's my definition of a raw deal.

The officer shouldn't have done it, it's more of a misguided attempt to cut someone a break than a shake down. It's unprofessional and unethical and it doesn't matter if there's a camera there or not. He'll probably get in in more trouble for dereliction of duty for not citing the driver and towing the car, than he will for conducting personal business on duty.

Hambo
08-23-2015, 07:59 AM
Every officer in the department is given tickets to sell...make your own conclusions about that.

I thought this stuff went out of style a long time ago. We never sold anything on duty, but when I was a rookie we sold fundraiser tickets off duty, in uniform. Even after it was discontinued we would walk into businesses and they would ask, "Oh, time to buy tickets?"

With that in mind I see two problems. First is the corporate problem that every officer gets tickets they have to sell. I don't know what PPD's policy is on selling them, but I'd bet they look the other way if you can off them while working. Second is the individual officer's stupidity. I don't know if he was giving them a break while doing himself a favor, but the whole play was stupid. Tow the car or give them a straight up break.

LittleLebowski
08-23-2015, 08:03 AM
Clearly out of control police corruption, lets be outraged. Buy a couple tickets and get out of several hundred dollars in fines, impound and administrative fees for operating an unregistered vehicle. That's my definition of a raw deal.

The officer shouldn't have done it, it's more of a misguided attempt to cut someone a break than a shake down. It's unprofessional and unethical and it doesn't matter if there's a camera there or not. He'll probably get in in more trouble for dereliction of duty for not citing the driver and towing the car, than he will for conducting personal business on duty.

That is my impression as well. Personally, were I the motorist, I would prefer what the officer did.

Oh well, looks like the people have spoken.

BehindBlueI's
08-23-2015, 09:54 AM
Clearly out of control police corruption, lets be outraged. Buy a couple tickets and get out of several hundred dollars in fines, impound and administrative fees for operating an unregistered vehicle. That's my definition of a raw deal.

The officer shouldn't have done it, it's more of a misguided attempt to cut someone a break than a shake down. It's unprofessional and unethical and it doesn't matter if there's a camera there or not. He'll probably get in in more trouble for dereliction of duty for not citing the driver and towing the car, than he will for conducting personal business on duty.

What's the difference between cutting a break in exchange for $20 to charity and $20 in your pocket? Cutting them a break in exchange for $20 either way.

Dagga Boy
08-23-2015, 11:32 AM
Accountability starts at the top. Who decided it was a good idea to have officers selling these things and how much pressure was there? This kind of BS is usually brass driven. Funny how nobody gives a crap when how many tickets you write becomes a major part of your evaluation. Same with the Garner thing in NY....who actually made selling single cigarettes a priority, because I guarantee it wasn't any of the patrol officers there. Many officers simply "play the game" and keep the bosses happy with whatever b.s is a priority. Same year I was turned down for a Medal of Valor because "we don't give awards for shooting people", one of our detectives who was worthless (she was promoted to get her off the street to keep her from getting killed) got a big award for organizing red ribbon week, which she made a full time job rather than actual cop stuff. Same thing when we were supposed to give "POG's" to kids to make ghetto kids like the police......little urchins would run up to felony car stops hanging off you for the stupid things (I was proud of my record of not handing out a single one). To go along with this...we had a guy have his career saved after a DUI arrest and collision while coming from a Captains charity wine tasting.....an event most serious street cops missed, unless you were sucking up for promotion.

Cop in the video was likely trying to kill two birds with one stone. Cut the guys a break, and keep the boss in charge of ticket sales happy. He will pay the price for this. It is why "not giving a shit" about this stuff was part of my career survival mechanism. Was not part of the promotability program, but unlike many, I didn't care.

You care about widows and orphans, raise money elsewhere. I am sure there is some rich folks who need a tax wrote off and some influence.

voodoo_man
08-23-2015, 12:38 PM
Accountability starts at the top. Who decided it was a good idea to have officers selling these things and how much pressure was there? This kind of BS is usually brass driven. Funny how nobody gives a crap when how many tickets you write becomes a major part of your evaluation. Same with the Garner thing in NY....who actually made selling single cigarettes a priority, because I guarantee it wasn't any of the patrol officers there. Many officers simply "play the game" and keep the bosses happy with whatever b.s is a priority. Same year I was turned down for a Medal of Valor because "we don't give awards for shooting people", one of our detectives who was worthless (she was promoted to get her off the street to keep her from getting killed) got a big award for organizing red ribbon week, which she made a full time job rather than actual cop stuff. Same thing when we were supposed to give "POG's" to kids to make ghetto kids like the police......little urchins would run up to felony car stops hanging off you for the stupid things (I was proud of my record of not handing out a single one). To go along with this...we had a guy have his career saved after a DUI arrest and collision while coming from a Captains charity wine tasting.....an event most serious street cops missed, unless you were sucking up for promotion.

Cop in the video was likely trying to kill two birds with one stone. Cut the guys a break, and keep the boss in charge of ticket sales happy. He will pay the price for this. It is why "not giving a shit" about this stuff was part of my career survival mechanism. Was not part of the promotability program, but unlike many, I didn't care.

You care about widows and orphans, raise money elsewhere. I am sure there is some rich folks who need a tax wrote off and some influence.

This is 100% backed by the brass.

LittleLebowski
08-23-2015, 01:18 PM
This is 100% backed by the brass.

It's almost like you're trying to tell us something :D

Dagga Boy
08-23-2015, 02:16 PM
For those outside cop work, the "what is important" briefing from the bosses is a long standing tradition of stupidity. Those who are in positions of power use the good idea fairy, or what will make me look good program to have their personal priorities handled by their assigned minions. It is a ton of what is wrong in LE. I got bounced from a proactive crime suppression unit because I would not play the new bosses game of going to schools to read books to children and work city code violations. Our unit was absorbed into his because they needed our felony arrest numbers to justify that units federal grant money.......and then they wanted my team to do the same b.s. his team did that was essentially working a lot of citrus and floral "crimes".
This is the same with charity of the week. Someone gets a hair up their ass to do some politically special charity and all of a sudden that becomes a priority over everything so that someone can look extra caring. These folks were never around for quietly buying food for some down on their luck ghetto family, or watching a group of folks from a graveyard shift empty their wallets to help a family who you just notified that dad was killed by a DUI and their only means of income is instantly gone. If there is no "attention" to how generous you are most of the brass and politicians are disinterested. I always find it amusing that as a lowly patrol cop and my elementary teacher wife managed to give far more to charity every year than Joe Biden.

Paul
08-23-2015, 02:24 PM
What's the difference between cutting a break in exchange for $20 to charity and $20 in your pocket? Cutting them a break in exchange for $20 either way.

What's the difference between dumping out a bag of dope on the side of the road and putting it in your pocket for later? Either way you're cutting the guy a break by relieving him of his dope and illegally disposing of it.

The difference is intent.

BehindBlueI's
08-23-2015, 04:22 PM
What's the difference between dumping out a bag of dope on the side of the road and putting it in your pocket for later? Either way you're cutting the guy a break by relieving him of his dope and illegally disposing of it.

The difference is intent.

Well, the big difference would be that dumping it out would be officer discretion and no different than transporting it to the property room for disposal except for paperwork, but possessing it for use later would be a crime such as "possession of (insert type of dope here)". I think the fact the second option is a crime that can get you not only fired but charged criminally pretty well addresses that. That said, it fails to be relevant to the topic at hand. The intent in this case is the same. Take $20 to look the other way. Officer discretion allows you flexibility in not enforcing the law in every instance when the needs of justice are best served by not doing so, not when you can buy your way out of it.

LittleLebowski
08-23-2015, 04:38 PM
I hope that the guy who took the video gets the full charges he deserves by the law instead of officer discretion.

I've been a recipient of officer discretion a few times. Last winter, I witnessed a Virginia State Trooper pull over a kid (guessing near 20 yrs old) and make him empty out a case of beer on the side of the road, one by one. Then they shook hands and parted ways. I took pictures as I was delighted to see this sort of thing still occurring.

voodoo_man
08-23-2015, 04:49 PM
For those outside cop work, the "what is important" briefing from the bosses is a long standing tradition of stupidity. Those who are in positions of power use the good idea fairy, or what will make me look good program to have their personal priorities handled by their assigned minions. It is a ton of what is wrong in LE. I got bounced from a proactive crime suppression unit because I would not play the new bosses game of going to schools to read books to children and work city code violations. Our unit was absorbed into his because they needed our felony arrest numbers to justify that units federal grant money.......and then they wanted my team to do the same b.s. his team did that was essentially working a lot of citrus and floral "crimes".
This is the same with charity of the week. Someone gets a hair up their ass to do some politically special charity and all of a sudden that becomes a priority over everything so that someone can look extra caring. These folks were never around for quietly buying food for some down on their luck ghetto family, or watching a group of folks from a graveyard shift empty their wallets to help a family who you just notified that dad was killed by a DUI and their only means of income is instantly gone. If there is no "attention" to how generous you are most of the brass and politicians are disinterested. I always find it amusing that as a lowly patrol cop and my elementary teacher wife managed to give far more to charity every year than Joe Biden.

Funny, I left my narc spot because of how the bosses wanted us to do stuff that wasn't in our purview.

voodoo_man
08-23-2015, 04:50 PM
I hope that the guy who took the video gets the full charges he deserves by the law instead of officer discretion.

I've been a recipient of officer discretion a few times. Last winter, I witnessed a Virginia State Trooper pull over a kid (guessing near 20 yrs old) and make him empty out a case of beer on the side of the road, one by one. Then they shook hands and parted ways. I took pictures as I was delighted to see this sort of thing still occurring.

Can confirm, have done this.

BehindBlueI's
08-23-2015, 05:04 PM
his team did that was essentially working a lot of citrus and floral "crimes"..

What's a citrus or floral crime?

Coyotesfan97
08-23-2015, 08:31 PM
I hope that the guy who took the video gets the full charges he deserves by the law instead of officer discretion.

I've been a recipient of officer discretion a few times. Last winter, I witnessed a Virginia State Trooper pull over a kid (guessing near 20 yrs old) and make him empty out a case of beer on the side of the road, one by one. Then they shook hands and parted ways. I took pictures as I was delighted to see this sort of thing still occurring.

I've gotten the benefit of that discretion and I've given it.

Dagga Boy
08-23-2015, 10:55 PM
What's a citrus or floral crime?

Worked a massive program citing the folks who stand on the side of the freeways selling flowers or fruit. This was our version of selling single cigarettes. Most of the "offenders" were illiterate illegal aliens who were dropped at the locations with a bunch of fruit or flowers to sell. Gigantic waste of resources for writing citations to people with fake names and not likely to ever go to court, and of course the big deal was seizing all their fruit or flowers.

Meanwhile.....my team was making almost exclusively felony arrests, got tons of guns, shot bad guys, and solved some heavyweight violent felonies....which is why we got absorbed as our numbers and arrest quality was off the charts. It was obvious the federal money was more important than actually making the world a safer place. I never worked it, but we did the same thing with seatbelt tickets. Federally funded officers on overtime would go out and do nothing but wrote seatbelt tickets. Nice idea, but pathetic when we were backed up on serious calls for service and crimes in progress and you got a bunch of people out doing nothing but writing seatbelt tickets.

BehindBlueI's
08-23-2015, 11:20 PM
Worked a massive program citing the folks who stand on the side of the freeways selling flowers or fruit. This was our version of selling single cigarettes. Most of the "offenders" were illiterate illegal aliens who were dropped at the locations with a bunch of fruit or flowers to sell. Gigantic waste of resources for writing citations to people with fake names and not likely to ever go to court, and of course the big deal was seizing all their fruit or flowers.

Meanwhile.....my team was making almost exclusively felony arrests, got tons of guns, shot bad guys, and solved some heavyweight violent felonies....which is why we got absorbed as our numbers and arrest quality was off the charts. It was obvious the federal money was more important than actually making the world a safer place. I never worked it, but we did the same thing with seatbelt tickets. Federally funded officers on overtime would go out and do nothing but wrote seatbelt tickets. Nice idea, but pathetic when we were backed up on serious calls for service and crimes in progress and you got a bunch of people out doing nothing but writing seatbelt tickets.

Ah.

We had NHTSA grants as well. You had to do so many seat belt checkpoints but there was also high fatal crash intersection, work zone, school zone, and DUI grants. I worked DUI and work zone quite a bit. I can count on one hand how many seat belt tickets I've written in my career, and there were all too people in lieu of a moving violation. Somebody like a city bus driver where points on their license was going to hurt them more than the average Joe but they'd done something too stupid to just ignore. Anyway, I always figured it was a free cop on the street. If I wasn't working the work zone I'd be at home, so there was no loss to take the OT. DUI was even better, take a drunk for a district guy and he was back in service ready to do his thing while you processed the DUI. I don't know what it's like in TX but I'd guess it's similar. DUI is freaking mounds of paperwork, way more than any other type of arrest.

Beat officers were responsible for panhandlers in the intersections. I had pretty good luck explaining to them the first time I would warn them. The second time I'd cite them. The 3rd time I'd watch until they stopped a car and arrest them for obstructing traffic. I had very few people get to the 3rd time. We both new citing them was useless as they weren't going to show up to environmental court and the $40 fine was civil, so nothing was going to happen. Lock one up for obstructing traffic though, word got around, and when they saw you were 'that cop' they at least moved off your beat.

Eh, drifted off topic, sorry.

Anyway, yeah, I've given and received discretion as well. Just not bought or sold it.

Alpha Sierra
08-24-2015, 06:40 AM
Selling things on duty to the public should be against policy, period. I say to the public because if you want to sell to your fellow cops at roll call or run a snack fund in the detective's office, that's fine.

You want to hock tickets, do it on your own time. There's simply too much potential for both corruption and the appearance of corruption. Even if he didn't extort them, a traffic stop is not the place to be shilling a product, and having someone detained longer than legally required so you can do your sales pitch is problematic as well.

This.

I cannot believe that some people here think the sort of thing being discussed is OK at all, no matter the circumstance, or what happened "before the video started rolling"

Dagga Boy
08-24-2015, 06:47 AM
Just FYI, I worked in Southern California, I just left for Texas when I retired.

Your point on the problem vendors is just like any problem in a beat. Vendors, prostitutes, vacant houses, and other assorted nuisances should be handled by a good beat cop (almost an oxymoron) and it was part of taking pride in how you handled your beat. My issues with many of these programs is they are directed from elsewhere and often do not address local problems well. I have no problems doing things to reduce traffic fatalities. I guarantee that local traffic cops have a very good idea how to do it and I would rather see them given given better resources than how the federal grant programs are done. Same with the COPS stuff, which is what great beat cops do. We have just lost the art of being a great beat cop through screwed up priorities and our new high tech means of evaluation of what patrol guys do.

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 06:50 AM
Just FYI, I worked in Southern California, I just left for Texas when I retired.

Your point on the problem vendors is just like any problem in a beat. Vendors, prostitutes, vacant houses, and other assorted nuisances should be handled by a good beat cop (almost an oxymoron) and it was part of taking pride in how you handled your beat. My issues with many of these programs is they are directed from elsewhere and often do not address local problems well. I have no problems doing things to reduce traffic fatalities. I guarantee that local traffic cops have a very good idea how to do it and I would rather see them given given better resources than how the federal grant programs are done. Same with the COPS stuff, which is what great beat cops do. We have just lost the art of being a great beat cop through screwed up priorities and our new high tech means of evaluation of what patrol guys do.

"Beat" "Sector" "Area" integrity has gone by the wayside.

When I got on we were responsible for our sectors. We handled everything in/on/around them, it was our job to take care of that area and that area took care of us if we needed something done. Now a days, its just folklore. We can't even remotely do anything like that and the last time I was assigned to patrol and we had sectors or a small enough area I was in every single day was before obama took office....

Hambo
08-24-2015, 08:06 AM
This.

I cannot believe that some people here think the sort of thing being discussed is OK at all, no matter the circumstance, or what happened "before the video started rolling"

Having been on the receiving end of uninsured/unregistered drivers I can say there would be no mercy in me for them. So my video would have me hooking the minivan while the single mom and kids cry by the roadside. How's that look?

I agree that selling tickets on duty is wrong, but it's the chiefs who ignore/encourage/mandate the practice that are at fault.

JAD
08-24-2015, 08:51 AM
Selling tickets doesn't seem like any big deal to me.

Phrasing it coercively seems pretty dumb to me.

This exchange:
""What's up with the faggot ass wipers?" he asks."Breast cancer, man -- my grandma went through it," the driver responds.
Zagursky says the pink wipers make the driver look like a "fruitcake" and suggests he support breast cancer in a different way. "

Should have gotten him fired. There's no need for that in a public employee.

Alpha Sierra
08-24-2015, 08:52 AM
I agree that selling tickets on duty is wrong, but it's the chiefs who ignore/encourage/mandate the practice that are at fault.

While you'll get no argument from me about bosses mandating this kind of crap, let me ask you this....which is most likely:

1. Bosses told cop in video to threaten quid pro quo to sell tickets

2. Cop came up with improper quid pro quo offer all on his own

I'm gonna go with #2. He's probably the same guy who will offer "discretion" to some good looking chick in exchange for a hummer.

Dagga Boy
08-24-2015, 09:19 AM
"Beat" "Sector" "Area" integrity has gone by the wayside.

When I got on we were responsible for our sectors. We handled everything in/on/around them, it was our job to take care of that area and that area took care of us if we needed something done. Now a days, its just folklore. We can't even remotely do anything like that and the last time I was assigned to patrol and we had sectors or a small enough area I was in every single day was before obama took office....

Seems to be universal. The officer who ruled his beat with pride is a long gone. American cities would be far better off if that was the priority. I remember the days when there were guys in major cities who worked the same area in a metropolitan city for decades. They knew every bad guy...and their parents from when they were problems too. They knew all the merchants, every drunk and addict, etc. Detectives could always come to the neighborhood encyclopedia cop for help with cases. Many of these guys were revered for their ability to apply the iron fist and the velvet glove with learned skill. They knew the "feel" of the neighborhood and when something was "off". They knew who belonged and who didn't. Now we have books about "Left of Bang", yet the purest experts are often reviled now as lazy slugs who are not promotable. Everybody wants to be SWAT or some special cupcake. The idea of working the same area for decades is not considered a honorable and respected ability. I listen to all this b.s. Spewed by "experts" on community oriented policing when police management and policy makers killed what was the greatest community police officer with all sorts of demands for "numbers" to enter into computers rather than results earned through interaction. America's loss of HUMINT intelligence is not only happening with the military and intelligence community, but in the streets of our cities as well. If you work a beat correctly, the reward is low "productivity". This is not looked at as "good" by current evaluation methods. This is the crux of a ton of problems and fails to use a good business model of how to assess "success". The standard that I think most taxpayers would like as what they REALLY want is that when they dial 911, how fast is somebody there. This was my standard when working a beat, but was not what a vast majority of supervisors evaluated me on. Happy "customers"' will mean unhappy bosses using this model.

BehindBlueI's
08-24-2015, 10:15 AM
Seems to be universal. The officer who ruled his beat with pride is a long gone. American cities would be far better off if that was the priority.

At least here, the death knell was "do more with less". We went 5 years without hiring. Beats became zones to hide manpower shortages, each officer had a larger area to work and instead of having 1 or 2 cops per beat they merged 3-4 beats into a zone and 2-3 cops worked the whole area. Nobody knows anybody now because they are too busy going run to run to rattle doorknobs or talk with people. I was on a district channel yesterday working a person shot and nearly every dispatched run was "any 2 cars to start for..." meaning that no one in the zone or adjacent zone was in service. You can't build relationships like that, and it burns the cops out.

I loved being a beat cop. I loved being able to identify a problem and to solve it. The new way of doing things ruined a lot of it. The media ruined more of it. I'm glad I went inside when I did. Probably should have done it a few years sooner, really. We still don't have the resources we need, but at least I can triage and work the extra hours to work the ones I can work.

LittleLebowski
08-24-2015, 11:06 AM
While you'll get no argument from me about bosses mandating this kind of crap, let me ask you this....which is most likely:

1. Bosses told cop in video to threaten quid pro quo to sell tickets

2. Cop came up with improper quid pro quo offer all on his own

I'm gonna go with #2. He's probably the same guy who will offer "discretion" to some good looking chick in exchange for a hummer.

There's a guy in this thread who can positively relate what exactly happened. Whether or not he does is up to him.

Alpha Sierra
08-24-2015, 12:04 PM
There's a guy in this thread who can positively relate what exactly happened. Whether or not he does is up to him.

I'm pretty sure that there's no explaining away what I saw, regardless of the backstory. That's the kind of thing expected of cops in places like Nicaragua or Venezuela.

KevinB
08-24-2015, 12:35 PM
While you'll get no argument from me about bosses mandating this kind of crap, let me ask you this....which is most likely:

1. Bosses told cop in video to threaten quid pro quo to sell tickets

2. Cop came up with improper quid pro quo offer all on his own

I'm gonna go with #2. He's probably the same guy who will offer "discretion" to some good looking chick in exchange for a hummer.

Huge difference.

Neither is right, but at the end of the day a big difference.

LittleLebowski
08-24-2015, 12:42 PM
I'm pretty sure that there's no explaining away what I saw, regardless of the backstory. That's the kind of thing expected of cops in places like Nicaragua or Venezuela.

You're making an assumption. An incorrect one :)

Alpha Sierra
08-24-2015, 12:44 PM
You're making an assumption. An incorrect one :)
Unless that was all a practical joke on someone, there's no excuse.

How much police misconduct are you willing to tolerate?

LittleLebowski
08-24-2015, 01:07 PM
Unless that was all a practical joke on someone, there's no excuse.

How much police misconduct are you willing to tolerate?

You're still incorrect on assuming this is condoned by the guy with inside knowledge of it and with regards to my alleged toleration of police misconduct, that's you still operating off of an initial incorrect assumption.

JodyH
08-24-2015, 01:32 PM
I'm not sure how to say this diplomatically so... either give more info or stop trying to chastise someone for having incomplete info. This "I know something you don't know shtick is tiresome".

Kukuforguns
08-24-2015, 01:39 PM
What's the difference between cutting a break in exchange for $20 to charity and $20 in your pocket? Cutting them a break in exchange for $20 either way.

Ding, Ding, Ding! Winner!

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 01:43 PM
I'm not sure how to say this diplomatically so... either give more info or stop trying to chastise someone for having incomplete info. This "I know something you don't know shtick is tiresome".

Chastise?

If someone does not have all the information and decides to form an opinion based on not having enough information, possibly because a preconceived opinion of the context of the events, that is still their choice.

Or should everything be spelled out for everyone on every topic, ever?

LittleLebowski
08-24-2015, 01:51 PM
I'm not sure how to say this diplomatically so... either give more info or stop trying to chastise someone for having incomplete info. This "I know something you don't know shtick is tiresome".


Jody, I said point blank that AS's assumptions were wrong. I didn't insult him for being wrong, I told him that he is wrong with regards to folks attempting to explain the officer in the video's actions. It's right there in the thread. Do you want to turn that into "I know something you don't know" or do you see what I am saying?

BehindBlueI's
08-24-2015, 01:53 PM
Chastise?

If someone does not have all the information and decides to form an opinion based on not having enough information, possibly because a preconceived opinion of the context of the events, that is still their choice.

Or should everything be spelled out for everyone on every topic, ever?

You very seldom have all the information in life, yet you make decisions based on that incomplete and imperfect information all the time. If someone has info that exonerates the guy, present it. If not, people are going to form their opinion based on available info. I have no idea if his department pushed him to do it or he did it on his own, but either way its not the right way to conduct business.

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 01:58 PM
You very seldom have all the information in life, yet you make decisions based on that incomplete and imperfect information all the time. If someone has info that exonerates the guy, present it. If not, people are going to form their opinion based on available info. I have no idea if his department pushed him to do it or he did it on his own, but either way its not the right way to conduct business.

Not saying its right, not condoning it.

Pointing out the obvious fact, that you confirmed, no one has all the info. So why assume the negative right away? The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

Welcome to police departments of the modern times.

BehindBlueI's
08-24-2015, 02:22 PM
Not saying its right, not condoning it.

Pointing out the obvious fact, that you confirmed, no one has all the info. So why assume the negative right away? The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

Welcome to police departments of the modern times.

Well, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:


Selling things on duty to the public should be against policy, period. I say to the public because if you want to sell to your fellow cops at roll call or run a snack fund in the detective's office, that's fine.

You want to hock tickets, do it on your own time. There's simply too much potential for both corruption and the appearance of corruption. Even if he didn't extort them, a traffic stop is not the place to be shilling a product, and having someone detained longer than legally required so you can do your sales pitch is problematic as well.

In the end, to an outsider's perspective, it doesn't matter much if this copper decided to do it on his own or the brass pushed him to do it. The fact it's systematic, as seems to be what is being hinted at but not confirmed, does not make it better. I'm glad to say that it's not how business is done here. We still have merit protection and are still union, and I'd say all hell would break loose if someone pushed the beat cops to do anything like that here.

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 02:33 PM
Well, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

In the end, to an outsider's perspective, it doesn't matter much if this copper decided to do it on his own or the brass pushed him to do it. The fact it's systematic, as seems to be what is being hinted at but not confirmed, does not make it better. I'm glad to say that it's not how business is done here. We still have merit protection and are still union, and I'd say all hell would break loose if someone pushed the beat cops to do anything like that here.

Again, this is not a conversation regarding if what he did was okay in any way, it was not and he will be punished for his behavior and actions.

I was referring to other points outside the context in response to posts.

As for it being systematic. Hell yeah it is. How to change it is the question.

ssb
08-24-2015, 03:12 PM
Not saying its right, not condoning it.

Pointing out the obvious fact, that you confirmed, no one has all the info. So why assume the negative right away? The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

Welcome to police departments of the modern times.

Probably because the video presented plainly shows unprofessional conduct as well as conduct that almost certainly violates 18 Pa. Code § 3923(a)(4). There's not really a positive spin or assumption to make, regardless of the alleged benevolence of his extortion.

Are there specific facts that you are aware of that will exonerate the officer or mitigate his actions? If yes: why, specifically, is it that you believe that that information will not be released?

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 03:30 PM
Probably because the video presented plainly shows unprofessional conduct as well as conduct that almost certainly violates 18 Pa. Code § 3923(a)(4). There's not really a positive spin or assumption to make, regardless of the alleged benevolence of his extortion.

Are there specific facts that you are aware of that will exonerate the officer or mitigate his actions? If yes: why, specifically, is it that you believe that that information will not be released?

Again. I am not condoning his behavior or his actions.

Any such information or facts, are outside my purview.

Alpha Sierra
08-24-2015, 03:44 PM
The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

And thus continue to build mistrust of the police from the people they are sworn to serve

ssb
08-24-2015, 03:59 PM
Again. I am not condoning his behavior or his actions.

Any such information or facts, are outside my purview.

I never said you condoned it. My comment was specific to your question of: "why assume the negative?" I answered accordingly.

As far as other information, you/others seemed to imply otherwise. Perhaps I misread.

Paul
08-24-2015, 04:07 PM
Well, the big difference would be that dumping it out would be officer discretion and no different than transporting it to the property room for disposal except for paperwork, but possessing it for use later would be a crime such as "possession of (insert type of dope here)". I think the fact the second option is a crime that can get you not only fired but charged criminally pretty well addresses that. That said, it fails to be relevant to the topic at hand. The intent in this case is the same. Take $20 to look the other way. Officer discretion allows you flexibility in not enforcing the law in every instance when the needs of justice are best served by not doing so, not when you can buy your way out of it.

Would you document dumping dope in a police report or do it while you knew you were being filmed?

Is taking $20 to the look the other way is so much worse than destroying evidence of crime so you can look the other way? If we're playing the morality card and saying that $20 is $20 regardless of intent, then where do we draw the line on destroying evidence? If $20 is $20, then destroying evidence is destroying evidence. Depriving someone of their property, whether it can be legally possessed or not, and not disposing of it in accordance with department policy and applicable laws is denying someone their right to due process.

BehindBlueI's
08-24-2015, 04:44 PM
Would you document dumping dope in a police report or do it while you knew you were being filmed?

Is taking $20 to the look the other way is so much worse than destroying evidence of crime so you can look the other way? If we're playing the morality card and saying that $20 is $20 regardless of intent, then where do we draw the line on destroying evidence? If $20 is $20, then destroying evidence is destroying evidence. Depriving someone of their property, whether it can be legally possessed or not, and not disposing of it in accordance with department policy and applicable laws is denying someone their right to due process.

Well, let's just cut to the chase. Do you think it's ok to tell a motorist that if they buy your tickets you'll let them go?

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 05:06 PM
I never said you condoned it. My comment was specific to your question of: "why assume the negative?" I answered accordingly.

As far as other information, you/others seemed to imply otherwise. Perhaps I misread.

Your response was not in the context which I posted that question. It had very little to do with this topic/thread specifically, but a general response to JodyH's post.


Chastise?

If someone does not have all the information and decides to form an opinion based on not having enough information, possibly because a preconceived opinion of the context of the events, that is still their choice.

Or should everything be spelled out for everyone on every topic, ever?

voodoo_man
08-24-2015, 05:06 PM
And thus continue to build mistrust of the police from the people they are sworn to serve

You disapprove?

Awesome. Change it.

ssb
08-24-2015, 05:26 PM
Your response was not in the context which I posted that question. It had very little to do with this topic/thread specifically, but a general response to JodyH's post.

https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8fblwQ0aZ1r2nger.png

I can read context just fine, thank you. I also have the ability to click on the little arrows next to quoted material in order to find that context.

And yes, my answer was quite contextual to the conversation between you and BehindBlueI's (which is what I was actually quoting from). You rhetorically asked why the officer isn't being given the benefit of the doubt when other information (information that's been repeatedly suggested you have, but you claim you do not) may be out there. I answered that it's because the situation looks facially shitty, and doesn't leave a whole lot of room for all of this context you keep speaking of to change that.

Alpha Sierra
08-24-2015, 05:54 PM
You disapprove?

Awesome. Change it.
WTF does this even mean?

Trooper224
08-25-2015, 02:12 AM
WTF does this even mean?

I think he's telling you to shut the f*** up, but taking the high road in doing so. :)

Context be damned, the officer is a douche canoe.

voodoo_man
08-25-2015, 07:37 AM
Right...back on topic please as the chest thumping and pointing of fingers in attempts to claim who is more right than someone else is slowly turning into middle-school recess.

Paul
08-25-2015, 11:36 AM
Well, let's just cut to the chase. Do you think it's ok to tell a motorist that if they buy your tickets you'll let them go?

I'll answer your question even though you're clearing avoiding answering mine.

I've never condoned that kind of conduct and never will. There's a difference between thinking that what the cop in Philly did is acceptable behavior, and thinking that what he did is wrong, but being blown out of proportion. I have never condoned the officer's actions.

What I have a problem with are the hypocrites that are quick to jump on the black and white bandwagon of morality and are quick to throw another cop under the bus, when it's pretty clear that they apply a different set rules to their personal conduct and operate in a lot of gray area.

BehindBlueI's
08-25-2015, 01:12 PM
I'll answer your question even though you're clearing avoiding answering mine.

I've never condoned that kind of conduct and never will. There's a difference between thinking that what the cop in Philly did is acceptable behavior, and thinking that what he did is wrong, but being blown out of proportion. I have never condoned the officer's actions.

What I have a problem with are the hypocrites that are quick to jump on the black and white bandwagon of morality and are quick to throw another cop under the bus, when it's pretty clear that they apply a different set rules to their personal conduct and operate in a lot of gray area.

Well, I'm not sure what your issue is then. What he did was wrong. We're in agreement. What the punishment should be or if its being blown out of proportion was never something I addressed. If I was on his merit board (if they have such a thing) if he acted on his own or was pressured by the brass, etc. would be considered. What I said was selling things on duty should be against policy. He should never have been put in the position of having this be an option. However at the end of the day, you are a big boy and you have to take responsibility for your actions. If I got suspended for a decision I thought was right, then I knew the risk going in and will take my day on the beach and move on. It wouldn't be my first time at IA. You get a free mint after your interview, so it's not a bad deal. Parking is convenient, too.

There is a big difference in not enforcing the law for personal gain and not enforcing the law because you think its the fair thing to do. That's the difference in intent that I'm talking about. If that gain is financial for you or for a charity, that's still trading personal gain for looking the other way. What do I gain by not making a dope arrest for a roach in an ash tray? Nothing. I'm costing myself potential overtime for court, most likely. As for your questions about being recorded, sure. Every traffic stop I made for about 3 years before I went inside was recorded on audio. I never hid the fact I gave motorists the option to stomp a small amount of dope out instead of getting a summons or arrest. I'm on video at the end of every interview I do now asking my detainee if he has anything on him before he goes to lock up and if he has something small we can get rid of it before he eats a trafficking with an inmate charge. It's a non-violent misdemeanor and its in our general orders that officer discretion is explicitly recognized in such situations. People in my interview rooms are always looking at major felonies. A misdemeanor possession on top of their felony charges is pointless and isn't worth my time or the space in the property room for someone looking at an armed robbery or attempt murder. So, yeah, not a secret. Same as sometimes we don't arrest people until they are out of the hospital because there's no reason for the county to be on the hook for their medical bills. We are encouraged to ask "is this arrest worth the resources it will consume?" before making said arrest. We are never encouraged to ask "Am I going to gain something for not making this arrest?" and I figure there's a reason for that.

I think you're putting a lot on me that I never said or even hinted at. If you're ever in Indy you're welcome to hit me up for a beer or a coffee, as you prefer, and talk it over.