|
Friendly Bear
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2007, 02:41:49 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't want to generalize all police officials based on what an officer in another state does. I am sure there are some officers with improper attitudes, but I am certain that most of the Tulsa Police are respectful of the citizen and their rights.
Now the Glenpool police...that is a different matter.
It's hardly isolated to one police jurisdiction.
After TPD Officer Gus Spanoff was shot and killed in the line of duty some years ago, the citizens of Tulsa donated money for video-camcorders to be installed in all police cars.
Curiously, they didn't last long.......
All field police officers should have a streaming video camera attached to their forehead for our protection.
And theirs, too.
$400,000 was donated and the 'best of the time' systems were purchased. But, at the time, it was relatively new technology, and the systems started breaking down almost immediately. You can't buy an off-the-shelf camcorder and put it in a police car and expect it to last long. Anything technology wise has to be ruggidized before installation, which makes it very expensive.
Most officers would love to have some sort of camera system in their cars, but, as usual, expense is the problem. Most systems (worth anything) now are running around $5K-$8K each. So, come up with $3,000,000 and you've got a deal.
Wait, I know. How about another tax!
As the policeman weighs the pros and cons of a video camera in their patrol vehicle, their major negative is that is provides an impartial witness to police misconduct.
They know from experience, if there is only the policeman's testimony, and a civilian allegeding police misconduct, the judge will side with the police 999 out of 1,000 times.
So, they generally would prefer to not have those pesky impartial witnesses around.
Even if it also can document when the civilian is lying about police misconduct.
[8D]
I know of no FOP union that is advocating cell phone jammers. Maybe you have us mistaken with those people that fly the "black helicopters".
As in our other discussion, most officers want to have cameras and sound recordings in their vehicle but the city can't afford it.
The main negative with cameras in vehicles is there is only one angle that the situation is recorded from. This angle could only show part of the situation and not capture the entire event as it is seen by the officer. There are new camera devices that officers can wear that records what the officer sees. These would be great but they are ultra expensive. Maybe the mayor or the county will float another tax to pay for them ]
In a previous discussion that we had you advocated cell phone jammers for police, in case some bad guys were coordinating doing something when the police stop one of their gang. And, obviously to jam a civilian's transmission of officer conduct. Just a coincidental benefit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Friendly Bear
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2007, 02:43:15 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I would like to point out that the police seem to be in the biggest hurry just before their shift ends. Zooming down the BA to downtown or up Harvard to 36th N. Wish there was something citizens could do to hold them accountable, but complaining is just putting a big "X" on the back of your car.
Well, considering officers don't go back to their divisions at the end of their shift, pretty well blows that bogus theory right out of the water.
And I won't even address Mr. Bear's comments since he obviously doesn't have one bit of fact to back that crazy comment up with.
You'll have to narrow down which crazy comment of mine you're referring to before I respond. Some Forum Detractors think there are so many.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MH2010
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2007, 02:59:19 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't want to generalize all police officials based on what an officer in another state does. I am sure there are some officers with improper attitudes, but I am certain that most of the Tulsa Police are respectful of the citizen and their rights.
Now the Glenpool police...that is a different matter.
It's hardly isolated to one police jurisdiction.
After TPD Officer Gus Spanoff was shot and killed in the line of duty some years ago, the citizens of Tulsa donated money for video-camcorders to be installed in all police cars.
Curiously, they didn't last long.......
All field police officers should have a streaming video camera attached to their forehead for our protection.
And theirs, too.
$400,000 was donated and the 'best of the time' systems were purchased. But, at the time, it was relatively new technology, and the systems started breaking down almost immediately. You can't buy an off-the-shelf camcorder and put it in a police car and expect it to last long. Anything technology wise has to be ruggidized before installation, which makes it very expensive.
Most officers would love to have some sort of camera system in their cars, but, as usual, expense is the problem. Most systems (worth anything) now are running around $5K-$8K each. So, come up with $3,000,000 and you've got a deal.
Wait, I know. How about another tax!
As the policeman weighs the pros and cons of a video camera in their patrol vehicle, their major negative is that is provides an impartial witness to police misconduct.
They know from experience, if there is only the policeman's testimony, and a civilian allegeding police misconduct, the judge will side with the police 999 out of 1,000 times.
So, they generally would prefer to not have those pesky impartial witnesses around.
Even if it also can document when the civilian is lying about police misconduct.
[8D]
I know of no FOP union that is advocating cell phone jammers. Maybe you have us mistaken with those people that fly the "black helicopters".
As in our other discussion, most officers want to have cameras and sound recordings in their vehicle but the city can't afford it.
The main negative with cameras in vehicles is there is only one angle that the situation is recorded from. This angle could only show part of the situation and not capture the entire event as it is seen by the officer. There are new camera devices that officers can wear that records what the officer sees. These would be great but they are ultra expensive. Maybe the mayor or the county will float another tax to pay for them![]
In a previous discussion that we had you advocated cell phone jammers for police, in case some bad guys were coordinating doing something when the police stop one of their gang.
And, obviously to jam a civilian's transmission of officer conduct.
Just a coincidental benefit.
I advocated not letting people talk on cell phones while the car stop is being conducted because it was an officer safety issue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Friendly Bear
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2007, 03:48:44 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't want to generalize all police officials based on what an officer in another state does. I am sure there are some officers with improper attitudes, but I am certain that most of the Tulsa Police are respectful of the citizen and their rights.
Now the Glenpool police...that is a different matter.
It's hardly isolated to one police jurisdiction.
After TPD Officer Gus Spanoff was shot and killed in the line of duty some years ago, the citizens of Tulsa donated money for video-camcorders to be installed in all police cars.
Curiously, they didn't last long.......
All field police officers should have a streaming video camera attached to their forehead for our protection.
And theirs, too.
$400,000 was donated and the 'best of the time' systems were purchased. But, at the time, it was relatively new technology, and the systems started breaking down almost immediately. You can't buy an off-the-shelf camcorder and put it in a police car and expect it to last long. Anything technology wise has to be ruggidized before installation, which makes it very expensive.
Most officers would love to have some sort of camera system in their cars, but, as usual, expense is the problem. Most systems (worth anything) now are running around $5K-$8K each. So, come up with $3,000,000 and you've got a deal.
Wait, I know. How about another tax!
As the policeman weighs the pros and cons of a video camera in their patrol vehicle, their major negative is that is provides an impartial witness to police misconduct.
They know from experience, if there is only the policeman's testimony, and a civilian allegeding police misconduct, the judge will side with the police 999 out of 1,000 times.
So, they generally would prefer to not have those pesky impartial witnesses around.
Even if it also can document when the civilian is lying about police misconduct.
[8D]
I know of no FOP union that is advocating cell phone jammers. Maybe you have us mistaken with those people that fly the "black helicopters".
As in our other discussion, most officers want to have cameras and sound recordings in their vehicle but the city can't afford it.
The main negative with cameras in vehicles is there is only one angle that the situation is recorded from. This angle could only show part of the situation and not capture the entire event as it is seen by the officer. There are new camera devices that officers can wear that records what the officer sees. These would be great but they are ultra expensive. Maybe the mayor or the county will float another tax to pay for them![]
In a previous discussion that we had you advocated cell phone jammers for police, in case some bad guys were coordinating doing something when the police stop one of their gang.
And, obviously to jam a civilian's transmission of officer conduct.
Just a coincidental benefit.
I advocated not letting people talk on cell phones while the car stop is being conducted because it was an officer safety issue.
Maybe the person is calling for LEGAL advice. Like, is this policeman permitted to search my car without a search warrant? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MH2010
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2007, 06:05:15 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't want to generalize all police officials based on what an officer in another state does. I am sure there are some officers with improper attitudes, but I am certain that most of the Tulsa Police are respectful of the citizen and their rights.
Now the Glenpool police...that is a different matter.
It's hardly isolated to one police jurisdiction.
After TPD Officer Gus Spanoff was shot and killed in the line of duty some years ago, the citizens of Tulsa donated money for video-camcorders to be installed in all police cars.
Curiously, they didn't last long.......
All field police officers should have a streaming video camera attached to their forehead for our protection.
And theirs, too.
$400,000 was donated and the 'best of the time' systems were purchased. But, at the time, it was relatively new technology, and the systems started breaking down almost immediately. You can't buy an off-the-shelf camcorder and put it in a police car and expect it to last long. Anything technology wise has to be ruggidized before installation, which makes it very expensive.
Most officers would love to have some sort of camera system in their cars, but, as usual, expense is the problem. Most systems (worth anything) now are running around $5K-$8K each. So, come up with $3,000,000 and you've got a deal.
Wait, I know. How about another tax!
As the policeman weighs the pros and cons of a video camera in their patrol vehicle, their major negative is that is provides an impartial witness to police misconduct.
They know from experience, if there is only the policeman's testimony, and a civilian allegeding police misconduct, the judge will side with the police 999 out of 1,000 times.
So, they generally would prefer to not have those pesky impartial witnesses around.
Even if it also can document when the civilian is lying about police misconduct.
[8D]
I know of no FOP union that is advocating cell phone jammers. Maybe you have us mistaken with those people that fly the "black helicopters".
As in our other discussion, most officers want to have cameras and sound recordings in their vehicle but the city can't afford it.
The main negative with cameras in vehicles is there is only one angle that the situation is recorded from. This angle could only show part of the situation and not capture the entire event as it is seen by the officer. There are new camera devices that officers can wear that records what the officer sees. These would be great but they are ultra expensive. Maybe the mayor or the county will float another tax to pay for them![]
In a previous discussion that we had you advocated cell phone jammers for police, in case some bad guys were coordinating doing something when the police stop one of their gang.
And, obviously to jam a civilian's transmission of officer conduct.
Just a coincidental benefit.
I advocated not letting people talk on cell phones while the car stop is being conducted because it was an officer safety issue.
Maybe the person is calling for LEGAL advice.
Like, is this policeman permitted to search my car without a search warrant?
Then their LAWYER will understand what is happening and would have no problem speaking to the law enforcement officer. They would LOVE to bill the person an hour to speak to an officer for 30 seconds. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Friendly Bear
|
|
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2007, 06:21:33 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't want to generalize all police officials based on what an officer in another state does. I am sure there are some officers with improper attitudes, but I am certain that most of the Tulsa Police are respectful of the citizen and their rights.
Now the Glenpool police...that is a different matter.
It's hardly isolated to one police jurisdiction.
After TPD Officer Gus Spanoff was shot and killed in the line of duty some years ago, the citizens of Tulsa donated money for video-camcorders to be installed in all police cars.
Curiously, they didn't last long.......
All field police officers should have a streaming video camera attached to their forehead for our protection.
And theirs, too.
$400,000 was donated and the 'best of the time' systems were purchased. But, at the time, it was relatively new technology, and the systems started breaking down almost immediately. You can't buy an off-the-shelf camcorder and put it in a police car and expect it to last long. Anything technology wise has to be ruggidized before installation, which makes it very expensive.
Most officers would love to have some sort of camera system in their cars, but, as usual, expense is the problem. Most systems (worth anything) now are running around $5K-$8K each. So, come up with $3,000,000 and you've got a deal.
Wait, I know. How about another tax!
As the policeman weighs the pros and cons of a video camera in their patrol vehicle, their major negative is that is provides an impartial witness to police misconduct.
They know from experience, if there is only the policeman's testimony, and a civilian allegeding police misconduct, the judge will side with the police 999 out of 1,000 times.
So, they generally would prefer to not have those pesky impartial witnesses around.
Even if it also can document when the civilian is lying about police misconduct.
[8D]
I know of no FOP union that is advocating cell phone jammers. Maybe you have us mistaken with those people that fly the "black helicopters".
As in our other discussion, most officers want to have cameras and sound recordings in their vehicle but the city can't afford it.
The main negative with cameras in vehicles is there is only one angle that the situation is recorded from. This angle could only show part of the situation and not capture the entire event as it is seen by the officer. There are new camera devices that officers can wear that records what the officer sees. These would be great but they are ultra expensive. Maybe the mayor or the county will float another tax to pay for them![]
In a previous discussion that we had you advocated cell phone jammers for police, in case some bad guys were coordinating doing something when the police stop one of their gang.
And, obviously to jam a civilian's transmission of officer conduct.
Just a coincidental benefit.
I advocated not letting people talk on cell phones while the car stop is being conducted because it was an officer safety issue.
Maybe the person is calling for LEGAL advice.
Like, is this policeman permitted to search my car without a search warrant?
Then their LAWYER will understand what is happening and would have no problem speaking to the law enforcement officer.
They would LOVE to bill the person an hour to speak to an officer for 30 seconds.
No, that would violate Attorney-Client privilege. On the other hand, if the attorney tells his client to PRETTY PLEASE put the policeman on the phone, then THAT would be another matter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MH2010
|
|
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2007, 07:13:25 pm » |
|
Do you actually know what attorney-client privilege is? I think your guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Friendly Bear
|
|
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2007, 07:20:39 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Do you actually know what attorney-client privilege is? I think your guessing.
Why don't YOU tell us what it is?? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Friendly Bear
|
|
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2007, 07:26:46 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't want to generalize all police officials based on what an officer in another state does. I am sure there are some officers with improper attitudes, but I am certain that most of the Tulsa Police are respectful of the citizen and their rights.
Now the Glenpool police...that is a different matter.
It's hardly isolated to one police jurisdiction.
After TPD Officer Gus Spanoff was shot and killed in the line of duty some years ago, the citizens of Tulsa donated money for video-camcorders to be installed in all police cars.
Curiously, they didn't last long.......
All field police officers should have a streaming video camera attached to their forehead for our protection.
And theirs, too.
$400,000 was donated and the 'best of the time' systems were purchased. But, at the time, it was relatively new technology, and the systems started breaking down almost immediately. You can't buy an off-the-shelf camcorder and put it in a police car and expect it to last long. Anything technology wise has to be ruggidized before installation, which makes it very expensive.
Most officers would love to have some sort of camera system in their cars, but, as usual, expense is the problem. Most systems (worth anything) now are running around $5K-$8K each. So, come up with $3,000,000 and you've got a deal.
Wait, I know. How about another tax!
As the policeman weighs the pros and cons of a video camera in their patrol vehicle, their major negative is that is provides an impartial witness to police misconduct.
They know from experience, if there is only the policeman's testimony, and a civilian allegeding police misconduct, the judge will side with the police 999 out of 1,000 times.
So, they generally would prefer to not have those pesky impartial witnesses around.
Even if it also can document when the civilian is lying about police misconduct.
[8D]
I know of no FOP union that is advocating cell phone jammers. Maybe you have us mistaken with those people that fly the "black helicopters".
As in our other discussion, most officers want to have cameras and sound recordings in their vehicle but the city can't afford it.
The main negative with cameras in vehicles is there is only one angle that the situation is recorded from. This angle could only show part of the situation and not capture the entire event as it is seen by the officer. There are new camera devices that officers can wear that records what the officer sees. These would be great but they are ultra expensive. Maybe the mayor or the county will float another tax to pay for them![]
In a previous discussion that we had you advocated cell phone jammers for police, in case some bad guys were coordinating doing something when the police stop one of their gang.
And, obviously to jam a civilian's transmission of officer conduct.
Just a coincidental benefit.
I advocated not letting people talk on cell phones while the car stop is being conducted because it was an officer safety issue.
How about CITIZEN safety? Video phones keep police honest. Nothing else does. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MH2010
|
|
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2007, 07:41:32 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tulsa_fan
|
|
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2007, 08:48:25 pm » |
|
Did someone recently post about how worthless this forum had become? This tread is point and case.
I'm not going to defend or crucify the St. Louis officer, I wasn't there. I'm fairly confident no one on here has seen all the evidence and knows all the facts.
I just put my two year old to bed and we said our prayers, as every night, one of them is, please keep daddy safe. See that's what my husband does every night, he puts on a bullet proof vest to product ungrateful citizens like some of those posting here.
Gus Spanos is a hero no matter what, he was doing his job and was shot and killed for it. As I have taken time for the last 7 years to attend Tulsa and State memorial services, I know what its like to look an officer's family in the face and see their grief, regardless of how long it has been since their officer made the ultimate sacrifice.
Most officers would be happy to have some kind of equipment to document what they do. See you like to take a small percentage of a huge group and assume they are all like that. I have never pretended there are not officers on the force that shouldn't be. But this number is small. I'm so sick of hearing so many of you *****ing about their driving, their tone of voice, crap, you probably don't like their uniforms either.
How many of you have actually taken the time to ride along with an officer?? Not an officer who hasn't sniffed the streets in years, or an FOP Groupie who has lost their own common sense, but an officer who works the street night after night. See what they see. See why they might be speeding without their lights on. You make such assumptions and have no idea what you are talking about. There is a huge majority of officers out there that took their oath seriously, they are Police Officers 24/7, their oath says they will do their job and sacrifice with their life if need be.
How many of you have had to leave a store, or a dinner out or a movie because someone comes in that your spouse has recently dealt with, and although he was only enforcing the law, that person spit in their face and said I hope I never find your family? See I have.
Again, get off your soap box and take time to ride around with an officer, see what its like. No one is perfect, but you are lucky to have so many good officers in Tulsa who put that uniform on each day and work their asses off for your safety, only to be kicked around. Don't you think they get that enough from the thugs they are keeping away from you.
I'm just as annoyed as the next person when an officer does something stupid to make them all look bad, but I take offense when everyone jumps on board and leaps to the conclusion that police officers are authority hungry, power gurus whose whole purpose is to be asses to everyone they run into.
/vent over . . . it not like the people who are idiots would appreciate this anyway. Thanks to those of you who are reasonable. I'm proud of what my husband does. He's one (of hundreds here who are) of the good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike G
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2007, 03:38:25 am » |
|
Curious, how about you guys post where you work and let us generalize about 'your job' and what all is done wrong. cannon_fodder is absolutely correct, people assume that an officer is just speeding for no good reason, or is being a prick just because. Maybe there's a hostage situation a few blocks away and it's the first officer in the area. If you had a gun to your head by a robber at a bank, would you want officers screaming in lights and sirens?
Remember, if you don't like the police, next time you're in trouble, call a crack head!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2007, 08:26:47 am » |
|
Please try to read the entire post, its long... but its long because I'm trying to be very clear in my position.
- - -
Mike:
According to the law - which the officer is sworn to enforce, the police may only violate traffic ordinances in the case of an emergency, in which case they must utilize lights and a siren when practical (ie. no siren if zooming in for a sting).
They are not free to go 85 miles per hour over lunch down HWY 75 after leaving the 36th N. precinct without lights on. Oh, but they do and they did. Yesterday, just after I posted this message. This happens ALL THE TIME. Its the norm. I travel at +5 the speed limit and more often than not cops pass me. I consistently flip out my cell phone and video their car #s as they ZOOOOOM by me. Usually I can't get close enough even by flooring it to get the car # on video.
Blatently illegal and extremely hazardous action by someone who is supposed to stop such things. Swerving in and out of traffic, tailgating people until they get out of the way. This particular car exited on Pine and went to McDonalds (I went across the way to Popeye's, mmmm). What an emergency! If I did such a thing I would be arrest for reckless driving and public endangerment. I was tempted to pull a "citizens arrest" but we all know how that would end.
Wilbur:
I realize police in Tulsa keep their cars at home. I also know what I see. Maybe they are going in to do paper work, maybe when I worked downtown they were zooming to a court date. I have no idea their reasons. The one time I followed a guy to the 36th North location and pulled into the lot to ask him "Excuse me? What was the emergency that you passed me at 85+ MPH on HWY 11?" he ignored me and walked directly into the building.
There is no point in trying to actually do anything but complain. The aforementioned kid actually had it on video and they still feel free to harass him. No way I could get anything done and would certainly face the same treatment. But every time I see a cop zoom by me it makes me extremely angry, to me its an expression of "I'm above the law." Perhaps there is a reason I do not know about.
Are you honestly telling me you don't see cops fly by you on city streets and expressways commonly? If you see a cop with no lights pass you at +15 the speed limit with no lights does that stand out as unusual? Unfortunately for me, it doesnt.
and another thing. I do not hide my real name on here. I seriously questioned the intelligence of posting this complaint for fear of reprisals. I do not think it will happen, but I know that it can.
Tulsa_Fan
1) Forums are worthless if they have opinions I disagree with. I disagree with cannon_fodder's opinion. This forum is worthless.
In my humblest of opinions, forums are worthless if there is nothing on there worth discussing. If everyone thought the same thing with no discourse, disagreement, or discussion there would be no point in a forum nor debate. Topics like this, that evoke strong emotion and disagreement, are the POINT of discussion.
2) You refuse to blame the St. Louis officer at all? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for an officer to threaten to fabricate charges, falsely impound someones car, threaten them with personal injury, threaten to destroy evidence or scream belittling comments into their face?
Seems to be the answer to all of the above would be never. Police are supposed to BE THE LAW, they should be an example of what to do. All the above behavior is a crime for which an officer could lawfully arrest someone (screaming in face would be questionable).
If you refuse to condemn this behavior as caught on video by this kid and the officer, then I assume you will not condemn any activity short of something extreme. All the facts are out. The officer's own tape has been obtained and he has been fired after a peer review. An overt threat to abuse your authority is the worst action a person entrusted with the power of the law can take - the prosecutors office is looking into the possibility of criminal prosecution.
One has to assume that this was not the first such incident by this officer. Just the first time he was caught. In any event, we can absolutely not tolerate such abuses or the police will lose all public support. That quickly leads to a collapse of society (see "ghettos" in LA or Detroit where the police get no help. When the police lose control bad things happen).
3) Ride Along
Yes, as part of my Criminal Procedures class I did a ride along in North Tulsa. As explained in class, there is a "legal" way of doing things (what you put down on a law school essay) and then there is the "real way" of doing things. I certainly saw the real way on my ride along.
Officer's are not stupid people, most are very smart and very well trained. And more often than not they are doing things the way that makes their job the easiest (everyone does their job the easiest). More often than not the procedure was to find a car that looked suspicious, find an excuse to pull them over (failure to turn into near lane was an easy one), then say they are acting funny and search the car. On my ride along this scenario took place twice, and twice they found marijuana in the car (one guy was arrested because he was on probation, the other was lectured and let go after they made him call his parents - that ruled).
They also broke up a domestic fight and hauled the woman to jail (apparently the dude was cheating, but that's not an excuse to beat him with a mop handle - he was HUGE). Responded to an injury hit and run. And answered a call for a prowler at an older ladies house.
4) Leave
I have never had to leave because of my spouses action, but I'm an attorney... I have left restaurants or exited the grocery store because someone I had sued, deposed, or examined was in there. Even though I was just doing my job.
I imagine foreclosing on someones house, or repossessing their assets in Bankruptcy, or filing a divorce renders similar emotions. I also imagine your husband has the misfortune of many more such encounters.
5) Kicked Around
Yes, Tulsa has many good officers. The vast majority of encounters I have had were pleasant. The one exception was when the officer got the speed limit wrong on Harvard and I had to tell him he was wrong as politely as possible. Long story, but 30 minutes later I was let off with a warning (for going 40 in a 40, he thought it was a 35 from 31st to 21st).
I have also called the police when someone drove by and shot at me. When I caught a car thief (saw a hit and run, tried to catch up and get the guys plate and he bolted... seemed strange. Turns out the truck was stolen, but he left his motel key in the truck. And for good measure, the car he hit was also stolen AND it was the same intersection I later got shot at). When some kids broke into my neighbors house. And I encounter them at the TU game, at Oktoberfest and out and about. Every time they have been polite and professional.
6) I'd also like to point out I'm not an idiot and I do not appreciate the personal attack. If you read my entire post you would see that I NEVER attacked anyone on a personal level. I acknowledged the police have a difficult job and that they largely do the best they can. However, they need to serve as the best examples that they can - and I believe they can do better.
- - - - - - -
The police in Tulsa have always done a very good job as far as I can tell. They have a difficult task and deal with people everyday that I would rather not. I teach my son to treat them with the utmost respect and I do so myself. I appreciate the vital job they perform for society and am fully aware that there is a staggering LACK of corruption and misconduct by police across the United States. Compared to most nations our police officers are absolute saints.
However, they are not perfect and they are not above criticism. The small act of traffic infringements taints their entire image. Other than that, I would not have any real complaints with the TPD. Its such an easy thing to understand - if you are violating the traffic laws have your lights on. Otherwise, the impression is that they are simply doing so because they can - because they ARE the law and do not have to follow it.
In a traffic scenario it really isnt that big of a deal. But it is the attitude that it conveys that is alarming.
and it is entirely possible that I misunderstand the scenario. Maybe the ordinances and state laws that I understand have exceptions that I do not know of. I am not attempting to be trite, but if this is the case please enlighten me. Clearly your husband would know more about this than I would. However, it should be understood that the majority of people see and think the same thing. It simply is not good for their image nor public relations.
I suspect he would watch the above posted videos and have two comments: #1 Screw that stupid little kid (who was trying to be a jerk). and #2 How stupid of the officer to respond that way.
Anyway, thank your husband for me. In spite of my criticism I greatly appreciate the job he does. If you feel like it, I would appreciate a possible explanation. Perhaps I am totally missing something and jumping to a horrible conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
jne
|
|
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2007, 09:15:30 am » |
|
A small box of laser jet labels, just cost me $130 including my speeding ticket (where the officer clearly exaggerated my speed - u know I'm gonna take this down to less than 10 over so you won't incur points) B.S., maybe 8 over for a few seconds max. I was thinking my tag may have just expired. On the positive side, that was the fasted ticket I've ever received. Aside from the BS'ng on the speed, he was polite and respectful. He took my info wrote it, threw it my window and I sped off (within the limit) I hope the money goes to something productive as it will replace my contribution to the Community Food bank for the next 2 months.
And yes, it is hard to swallow when I have to see officers in patrol cars abusing their privilege on nearly a daily basis. I understand there are circumstance that warrant breaking traffic laws with no lights or siren, but lets be real here. We all know it is more than that,and talking straight about it does not mean we don't respect the work that officers do.
Note to officers and their families: Getting on a sentimental soap box is not going to win the rapport that simply respecting the law you or your loved one is sworn to uphold. We do realize that not everyone is an abuser, but it has clearly gotten out of hand. How many more officer involved accidents do we have to see before there is a big response from all law enforcement agencies to reign in this practice?
In Tulsa, all of this flies in the face of the argument to take home patrol cars. I think it is a benefit for the city to have take home cars (the ones parked in Tulsa), but I will find it hard to feel sorry for the officers if they lose them. Same as I find it difficult to feel sorry for Robby Bell for losing his park. Tulsa is the one who's been short changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vote for the two party system!
-one one Friday and one on Saturday.
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2007, 10:03:54 am » |
|
I understand your anger...but were you speeding?
If you were, the police officer was doing his job to make the streets safer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
