# Police Brutality??



## MJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Saw this article and video clip online.  Supposedly the students are claiming police brutality, although I'm not seeing it.

***Warning:  Some strong language on the video clip***




> NEW HAVEN  The incident was over in a matter of minutes. But just days after the controversial arrest of a Quinnipiac University student by New Haven policemen was videotaped by an eyewitness, it has led to a contentious debate over police brutality and students rights.
> 
> It began when an unidentified Quinnipiac University student tried to enter Toads Place, a popular college hangout in New Haven. According to eyewitnesses, he had a bloody finger and was not allowed inside the bar. At some point, several police officers were called over by the bouncer.
> 
> The matter might have ended there had not a bystander captured several minutes of the Sept. 25 incident with his cell phone camera. Within hours, Kenneth Hartfordthe one who filmed his friends arrestfound himself behind bars charged with disorderly conduct and interfering with a police investigation. Within days, the unsettling scene had infiltrated classrooms, was replayed for professors, students and lawyers. It was also posted online by the universitys newspaper, the Chronicle.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 29, 2010)

What as "brutal" about any of that? Im supposing something happened after the video cut out?

The one thing I did notice here, and I see this all the time:

I don't have to tell any bystander why I am arresting someone. I only have to tell the person I am arresting. Some random person with a camera demanding to know why Im arresting someone can go pound sand.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 29, 2010)

and people who want to stand on the "Im free to video a cop" soapbox (which I agree with BTW) have to realize that there is a difference between video taping a cop from a distance and inserting yourself into an arrest situation while video taping. Keep distracting me and/or placing yourself into my arrest situation and you start flirting with obstruction/dis con arrest yourself.

and...while Im not saying this is "right"...when the cops start telling you "get the **** out of here" and you dont? Well you would think the signs that nothing good is going to happen here would be obvious.


----------



## Jdokan (Sep 29, 2010)

I don't the see the "brutality" here...Each situation is different and can always erupt without warning...Even the language doesn't bother me...I did/do think that though videoing is ok and legal I thought taping audio was not...not without the consent of the individual....I thought that was federally controlled...I think the officers handled this fine....
my opinion...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 29, 2010)

Should have taken the clown to jail for interference.

As I said in another thread, where some morons get themselves in trouble is crossing the line between 'peacefully observing and recording' and in to 'active interference'. 

This clown crossed over in to, tried to actively intervene, and should have been arrested and charged, instead of, completely legitimately, being told to get the **** out of there!

Booze+buddy in trouble+moron know it all with camera='s criminal interference.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 29, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> and people who want to stand on the "Im free to video a cop" soapbox (which I agree with BTW) have to realize that there is a difference between video taping a cop from a distance and inserting yourself into an arrest situation while video taping. Keep distracting me and/or placing yourself into my arrest situation and you start flirting with obstruction/dis con arrest yourself.
> 
> and...while Im not saying this is "right"...when the cops start telling you "get the **** out of here" and you dont? Well you would think the signs that nothing good is going to happen here would be obvious.


 
Mommy and Daddy failed little junior at some point on his path when they told him that he was completely above and beyond rules and laws because he was a unique and special snowflake!


----------



## Hudson69 (Sep 30, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Mommy and Daddy failed little junior at some point on his path when they told him that he was completely above and beyond rules and laws because he was a unique and special snowflake!


 
HA!..... you said snowflake:roflmao:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 1, 2010)

I don't understand the perspective of some folks who don't obey the law.

Let me make that point clear.......I understand the mindset of a criminal, who knows that there is a law against his activity, he engages in it brazenly, but understands that the police will attempt to thwart his activities if he is caught. 

I understand the mindset of a criminal that will flee, fight and even kill to keep from getting caught.

I understand that.

What I don't understand are the clowns who, somehow, don't think the law applies to them. They have the mentality that they can do whatever they want, and are actually both surprised and righteously indignant when the lawful authority goes to prevent them from doing it.

It is that entitlement mindset I don't understand.  The kind that doesn't actually believe the cops are serious when they issue a warning to cease and decist.  Do not believe they will use force.  And then when force is used, view themselves as VICTIMS!  That 'don't you know who I am? I'm special!' mindset that completely boggles me.

Now, i'm not going to say that circumstances couldn't be such that I would become a criminal.  Perhaps the whole world could change and I could find myself as an outlaw.  But I would never have that mentality.   I would always view the 'lawful authority' as a tool of force, and would respect their capacity for enforcing the law through force, even if I resisted it.  I understand the nature of law and force, and it would be the same, even if he laws themselves I had determined to be unjust.  I would resist, KNOWING full well that the appointed enforces of that law can and will use force to that end.


----------



## MJS (Oct 1, 2010)

I too, am a bit lost on where the brutality comes in.  I mean, do these kids honestly think that because the kid who was using the cell cam, was arrested, that it was brutality?  

As usual, these kids brought all their headaches on themselves.  Why is that Chris Rock video coming to mind here.


----------



## Carol (Oct 1, 2010)

I think "Police Brutality" is a term much like "Hostile Work Environment".

Many people don't know, or care, that such a thing has a specific legal definition.  They hear the term being used, and then apply it to a police encounter, or work environment, that they simply do not like.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 2, 2010)

Carol said:


> I think "Police Brutality" is a term much like "Hostile Work Environment".
> 
> Many people don't know, or care, that such a thing has a specific legal definition. They hear the term being used, and then apply it to a police encounter, or work environment, that they simply do not like.


 
Exactly!

Another even more used term is 'Police Harassment'......I hear that from every two bit thug who gets intensive police attention as a result of their criminal behavior.

'This is police harassment!  I'm going to sue the department!'  Righto, skippy, you just get your high powered lawyer on it.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I don't understand the perspective of some folks who don't obey the law.
> 
> Let me make that point clear.......I understand the mindset of a criminal, who knows that there is a law against his activity, he engages in it brazenly, but understands that the police will attempt to thwart his activities if he is caught.
> 
> ...


 

i agree... to a point. In this case the police officer was unprofessional, kid just annoying. The entire situation probably could have been avoided it looks like a waste of tax dollars. Now we got to pay for them to bring the kid in and process him as well and the court date. Yippee!! (sarcasm).

On the other hand sometimes i think people should have more respect for police. They have familys to go home to as well. They have to consider their safety and have the unfortunate experience of dealing with the bottom scum of society on the regular basis.

i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i agree... to a point. In this case the police officer was unprofessional, kid just annoying. The entire situation probably could have been avoided it looks like a waste of tax dollars. Now we got to pay for them to bring the kid in and process him as well and the court date. Yippee!! (sarcasm).


 
I disagree.  The kid was egging the cop on by standing there.  He wanted to see how far he could get, and he stepped over the line.  The cops were conducting an investigation.  Whether or not this kid with the phone was a friend of the other or not, the situation did not involve him...period.  



> On the other hand sometimes i think people should have more respect for police. They have familys to go home to as well. They have to consider their safety and have the unfortunate experience of dealing with the bottom scum of society on the regular basis.


 
This I agree with.  



> i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.


 
Regardless of who the cops supposedly 'work for' that does not give people the green light to be *******s.  People need to start taking responsibility for their actions!  People blame the cops for the bill....ok...well, if we follow the chain here, the person ultimately responsible for the lawsuit, is the person being the *******.  If the person wasn't an *******, the cop would be able to do their job and the town wouldnt have to pay for someone elses actions.  Lets place the blame where it really lies.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i agree... to a point. In this case the police officer was unprofessional, kid just annoying. The entire situation probably could have been avoided it looks like a waste of tax dollars. Now we got to pay for them to bring the kid in and process him as well and the court date. Yippee!! (sarcasm).
> 
> On the other hand sometimes i think people should have more respect for police. They have familys to go home to as well. They have to consider their safety and have the unfortunate experience of dealing with the bottom scum of society on the regular basis.
> 
> i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.


 I never forget who works for who.......but it is entirely a misunderstanding of that situation to believe that I work for you, as an individual. And that is what causes many of these 'I pay your salary' problems. 

The role of law enforcement is to enforce the laws, as written by the legislators, not to answer to the whims of individual citizens, especially when those particular citizens are the ones that have caused the problem to begin with.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 2, 2010)

The reality is that I can live just fine in a society where there is no law or order.  It really doesn't matter to me either way.  It seems to be the same folks demanding law and order, however, that complain the most.

A perfect example are the folks we get all the time who complain about speeding on a given street or road and the fact that police never go there.  Then when we send an officer to run radar and write some tickets, surprise surprise, guess who usually ends up speeding through and getting the first tickets?  The very folks who complained in the first place, and boy are they angry about it!


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The reality is that I can live just fine in a society where there is no law or order. It really doesn't matter to me either way. It seems to be the same folks demanding law and order, however, that complain the most.
> 
> A perfect example are the folks we get all the time who complain about speeding on a given street or road and the fact that police never go there. Then when we send an officer to run radar and write some tickets, surprise surprise, guess who usually ends up speeding through and getting the first tickets? The very folks who complained in the first place, and boy are they angry about it!


 

yeah, i have seen that as well. the cop callers. They call the cops for some of the dumbest things you can think of. I think they should bill them for the cost of sending a officer out when they do that. That isn't how the department explains it for budget purposes. They go simply by the number of calls they get and response time. And try to use it to get more people hired and a larger budget. They consider pulling the person over speeding 8 mph a useful task. They dont say the lack of coverage caused a twenty minute reponse time on A LOOSE DOG call. Most of it isn't realistic. Realistic is the community (not the individual) does not want to pay the two hundred k a year it costs for the wages and insurance and employer contributions to maintain three cops to arrest a kid with a cellphone, speeding 8 mph, over or going to a loose dog call. But they dont want to pay a officer for sitting in his cruiser all night talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone either and if he doesn't look like he does something he will get some hell.

There are the repetitive callers out there, wasting tax money as well, it isn't just the police. however the department doesn't mind that it justifys a bigger budget.  The lawsuits have to stop though. It is rediculious. Our town just settled another one. No reason for it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> yeah, i have seen that as well. the cop callers. They call the cops for some of the dumbest things you can think of. I think they should bill them for the cost of sending a officer out when they do that. That isn't how the department explains it for budget purposes. They go simply by the number of calls they get and response time. And try to use it to get more people hired and a larger budget. They consider pulling the person over speeding 8 mph a useful task. They dont say the lack of coverage caused a twenty minute reponse time on A LOOSE DOG call. Most of it isn't realistic. Realistic is the community (not the individual) does not want to pay the two hundred k a year it costs for the wages and insurance and employer contributions to maintain three cops to arrest a kid with a cellphone, speeding 8 mph, over or going to a loose dog call. But they dont want to pay a officer for sitting in his cruiser all night talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone either and if he doesn't look like he does something he will get some hell.
> 
> There are the repetitive callers out there, wasting tax money as well, it isn't just the police. however the department doesn't mind that it justifys a bigger budget. The lawsuits have to stop though. It is rediculious. Our town just settled another one. No reason for it.


 
Like most issues in life, things often look different from the outside than from in.

The issue with the cellphone, for instance. He didn't get arrested for the cellphone. They weren't there in the first place because he had a cellphone. 

There was a disturbance that precipitated the whole situation. The police were called there because these individuals, who were not doubt inebriated, were causing a disturbance and the lawful representatives of the establishment, the bouncers, called the police to deal with disorderly conduct.

Individual one was the key instigator to begin with, but then his buddy inserted himself in it as well, and became part of the disturbance.

Not only were these cops NOT doing something 'unimportant'.......they were engaged in the NUMBER ONE duty of law enforcement.......the maintenance of peace and order. 

These two clowns created a disturbance that resulted in the police having to be called, and they got arrested, which was the most efficient and expeditious course of action in ending that disturbance and maintaining peace and order.

The fact is, leaving these two drunken college kids at the location they were causing a disturbance at in the first place, resulting in a continued disturbance, would have been a failure of their duty to maintain peace and order.

It never fails that every drunken frat kid is a lawyer and official spokesman and council for whatever buddy is currently being questioned by the police.  The fastest way to restore order, however, is arrest the drunken mouth piece of the group.  Drunken group dynamics 101.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=2149&year=


http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/10/01/news/doc4ca568a1083e1761499858.txt

if nothing happend before the camera film the department will lose this, or it will be settled. My guess. 
There isn't enough in that film to show the reason for arrest and going by the article the eyewitnesses will be testifying and making statements it was false arrest. Disorderly conduct and interfereing there just isnt enough in that tape to show that imo. 
The d.a. may not even follow through on charges i bet they get dropped and negotiations begin.

The dancing and saying "watch this" sure doesn't help.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=2149&year=
> 
> 
> http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/10/01/news/doc4ca568a1083e1761499858.txt
> ...


 
What is it that you think they are going to 'lose'?  The case against this kid?  50/50.  A lawsuit?  Not a snowball's chance in hell does this even go to a court for review.  By no stretch of even the most hungry trial lawyers imagination would this ever go to a civil suit.  Oh, there'll be barking in that direction, but there's not a jury that would declare it objectively unreasonable.  It's silly.

They won't lose anything......likely not even the charges they have against this guy. Something obviously happened before 'filming' otherwise the bouncers wouldn't have called about a disturbance. At it's face this is obvious. The police just didn't show up and start hassling college students.

It's very simple, actually.

Drunken idiot is denied entry. Starts hassling the bouncers. This is a private establishment.

Bouncers call police to have idiot removed.

Idiot is talking with the police when idiots friend starts trying to interfere with a police investigation, actively, not just by standing by and minding his own business filming.

Arrest is made and peace is restored.

There's nothing complicated or nuanced about what happened, and the facts aren't even in dispute.



> It began when Ryan Lally, a senior at Quinnipiac University, tried to enter Toad&#8217;s Place, a popular college hangout in New Haven. According to eyewitnesses, he had a bloody finger and was not allowed inside the bar. At some point, several police officers were called over by the bouncer and Lally was asked to leave.


 
The police were lawfully investigating a disturbance. He should have stayed out of it. Nothing more.

The redherring here is that he was arrested for 'filming'. That is most obviously not what he was arrested for. As i've said on this forum before on the matter, 'simply filming' is standing at a distance and keeping your mouth shut, and not actively trying to interfer or intercede........filming is a passive act, interference is an active act, and a crime.



> *Connecticut General Statutes > Title 53a > Chapter 952 > § 53a-167a - Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor*
> 
> 
> (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person *obstructs*, resists, *hinders* or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's or firefighter's duties.
> ...


 
When a subject is being detained, quite lawfully as drunken clown A here most definitely was. Actively inserting yourself in to the situation, thereby making it more difficult to deal with clown A, most definitely falls under the heading of 'hinders' and 'obstructs'.



The moral of the story is if you're a drunken college student, make your little cellphone film, stand across the room, think how you're going to make these cops look bad on youtube, but keep your mouth shut and don't get arrested for active interference.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i cant fully agree with your apparent force/law/special thinking. Let us not forget who works for who. They should do away with police officer and call them peace officer or something. They are civil servants. The day our govt. decides to run the people is the day it has ceased to serve its purpose. peace officer, serve and protect.... sounds much better and prerable in action and philosophy. There have been lots of lawsuits won on towns, municipalitys and states over police activity. The taxpayers eat the bill everytime a cop gets a big head or police department forgets its purpose. The taxpayers pay the restitution and lawsuit settlements because the police department or cop foregets exactly what he is. I suggest any officer or department head that seems to think they are something else quit. I come from a town where our police budget is through the roof and lawsuits paid from just plain stupidy on behalf of certain officers. The heads at the department swelled, budget through the roof, and the elected officials are fighting amongst themselves. I see some heads rolling soon.


I generally try to ignore this sort of commentary.  It's ill-informed.

I don't work for "the people."  I work for the government of the municipality/county/state that employs me.  My role is that of POLICE: 
_1. Also called police force. an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws. 
 2. ( used with a plural verb 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) members of such a force: Several police are patrolling the neighborhood. 

 3. the regulation and control of a community, esp. for the maintenance of public order, safety, health, morals, etc. 

 4. the department of the government concerned with this, esp. with the maintenance of order. 

 5. any body of people officially maintained or employed to keep order, enforce regulations, etc. 
_​ My job is more than merely "ensuring peace."  And I don't "serve", though I do my best to "protect."  Service implies that I'm at the bidding of the public when the simple truth is that, quite often, my job is to do anything but what someone wants.  I'm doing what needs to be done to maximize EVERYONE's freedom and safety.

The sooner people understand and accept that the crap foisted by the Officer Friendlies and bend-over-backward-because-I-lack-a-spine administrators is not accurate, the sooner we'll all get along.  Role confusion, in any activity, leads to problems, whether it's parents trying to run the dojo or people trying to understand why the cops are threatening to arrest them when they "didn't do anything wrong".


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> What is it that you think they are going to 'lose'? The case against this kid? 50/50. A lawsuit? Not a snowball's chance in hell does this even go to a court for review. By no stretch of even the most hungry trial lawyers imagination would this ever go to a civil suit. Oh, there'll be barking in that direction, but there's not a jury that would declare it objectively unreasonable. It's silly.
> 
> They won't lose anything......likely not even the charges they have against this guy. Something obviously happened before 'filming' otherwise the bouncers wouldn't have called about a disturbance. At it's face this is obvious. The police just didn't show up and start hassling college students.
> 
> ...


 
guess we will see. 

Here is one for you. Someone i know once was in a chase. He on a motorcycle, cop in cruiser.  He stops. cop gets out and walks up to the him. He spits in the cops face and takes off on the bike again.  They catch him a few days later.

Few months after that he is a passenger in my car and i am driving somewhere. The same officer follows us to another town (on duty and in a cruiser) and pulls me over. Walks up to the passenger side and pulls this guy out and puts him up against my car. Tells him if he ever does anything again like that then he will run him over with the car (the cruiser).  Then he lets him go and we drive off again.  Later on this guy goes to the police station and files a complaint against the officer, of course me stuck as a witness. I never had to do anything though it never went to that level. i would have though, just because i was pissed he pulled me over in a whole different district for the sake of who my passenger was just because he was pissed off at him.

Was the officer wrong?  HELL YEAH. But as i tried to tell the guy i know. "Dude, if you spit in my face you dont think i would be pissed?  You spit in his face and made him look like a moron taking off. what did you think his reaction would be??"  I had to feel bad for the cop. Not sure what came out of it but think it was settle as well.  I have a cousin, brother in law that are cops. In many ways i am happy to not be one. But it is a fine line, if you hear me....between protecting and going beyond.  Between being Professional and being as dumb as the people you are arresting....


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> guess we will see.
> 
> Here is one for you. Someone i know once was in a chase. He on a motorcycle, cop in cruiser.  He stops. cop gets out and walks up to the him. He spits in the cops face and takes off on the bike again.  They catch him a few days later.
> 
> ...


And, now, we go down the whole anecdote of police misconduct route... almost on schedule.

Guess what?  The conduct you describe your friend doing would have led to him being arrested for eluding (a felony), and assault on a law enforcement officer (another felony) in my state.  If I've got a good enough read on who he is to identify him in an unidentified 3rd party's car -- I can get the warrant.  So, I'm kind of skeptical of your account.  He filed a complaint that didn't go anywhere... and you, a witness, were never interviewed...

That said -- I've never claimed all cops were perfect or behave perfectly all the time.  Hell, I've made mistakes and even done a few things of questionable professionalism over my career.  I'm a human being, after all.  It just might be that your buddy was advised that he can be quite thankful that he's not in custody, and allowed the opportunity to be satisfied with the sergeant warning the officer about his conduct.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 2, 2010)

bribrius said:


> guess we will see.
> 
> Here is one for you. Someone i know once was in a chase. He on a motorcycle, cop in cruiser. He stops. cop gets out and walks up to the him. He spits in the cops face and takes off on the bike again. They catch him a few days later.
> 
> ...


 
I can't really deal with anecdotes with an opinion, because I wasn't there........though I get them all the time from friends and relatives.  

99 times out of 1, though, the anecdote I get told is a very biased and distorted version of what actually happened.  I've gotten very good at reading between the lines as to what actually occurred, but I won't attempt that here as I don't know you, and that would be unfair.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> And, now, we go down the whole anecdote of police misconduct route... almost on schedule.
> 
> Guess what? The conduct you describe your friend doing would have led to him being arrested for eluding (a felony), and assault on a law enforcement officer (another felony) in my state. If I've got a good enough read on who he is to identify him in an unidentified 3rd party's car -- I can get the warrant. So, I'm kind of skeptical of your account. He filed a complaint that didn't go anywhere... and you, a witness, were never interviewed...
> 
> That said -- I've never claimed all cops were perfect or behave perfectly all the time. Hell, I've made mistakes and even done a few things of questionable professionalism over my career. I'm a human being, after all. It just might be that your buddy was advised that he can be quite thankful that he's not in custody, and allowed the opportunity to be satisfied with the sergeant warning the officer about his conduct.


 i said "they catch up with him a few days later". He was arrested for that perhaps i should have been more specific. They picked him up a few days later at someones house, the bike stashed behind it in the woods.

Then i said "a few months later" speaking of when he was a passenger in my vehicle.

The officer pulled me over with him in the passenger seat after the chase and him being arrested and released again. I Never had to do anything as far as testifying. That is why i said it "never went to that level". I never had to testify, heard nothing after that. Not sure what happend after that. I did end up down at the station myself over it. Just as a witness that didnt have to testify.

so what do you find skeptical?

BTW. HE WAS NOT AND IS NOT a friend or a "buddy".  Acquaintance. 

I just put this up because i thought it was a good example of crossing that line. And yeah, i was pissed. I had no idea what was going on. It wasn't until the officer let him get back in the car and we were on the road again that i put 2  and 2 together. I had thought it had been all resolved.

you have my curiousity though, what mistakes have you made or done unprofessional?  

but back on topic.  If the officers in this case let them both go they would have been wrong if the subjects did something else that night. But they would have avoided the problem. Maybe just a simple "it is a private establishment they dont have to let you in" would have solved the problem. The officers followed the bouncers lead on moving along and putting away the cellphone. This i am curious about because in the article i posted it says the the bars are picking up a large portion of the tab for the police patrol there.  
so maybe they are listening a little to well to these particuliar night club owners since they are picking up much of the tab. For example how quick the officer follows the bouncers lead. I wonder also if this will be part of any potential court case as it seems a conflict of interest having the night clubs kick in for a public police force to act like a private security force, though i know it happens elsewhere i wonder of the legality of it and how the finances are worked for that in this case.

You can't have officers listening particuliarly well to club owners based on them paying more or directing certain officers and funds to particuliar establishments without a potential conflict.  sounds like a court case waiting to happen.

i like sgt.mac's synopsis but i am not so sure that is how the court would see it, or if the govt. would take the risk of letting it go that far with lots of college kids filling out witness statements against the officers..  They may prefer a quick payout and sweep it under the rug.

It is a very simple case really, but with the press and all those college kids and the special team to police this particuliar district that is paying additional money i wonder if it will become more complex. And yeah, the kid was annoying. Just not sure if i see any lawbreaking there. ON TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE!!!!!


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I can't really deal with anecdotes with an opinion, because I wasn't there........though I get them all the time from friends and relatives.
> 
> 99 times out of 1, though, the anecdote I get told is a very biased and distorted version of what actually happened. I've gotten very good at reading between the lines as to what actually occurred, but I won't attempt that here as I don't know you, and that would be unfair.


 
fair enough. But we are commenting on the two kids in the bar in the article but we weren't there either.

Far as what i wrote above, i wish i wasn't there. I considered it **** luck. He just happend to be in my car at the time, i just happend to drive by the officer, the officer just happend to still have a grudge against him. **** luck.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 2, 2010)

In the case at hand -- we have relatively factual accounts.  We have the one kid's video.  It's pretty clear that the officers were trying to work through the situation, and that the idiot with the camera was ignoring their requests, then their orders...  and even LIED outright about not recording it (ironically, captured in his own recording).  He ignored several orders to leave; he got hooked.  His buddy?  Don't know.  The video doesn't show, but it may just have been that he was drunk, and not listening.  Or maybe his dumb buddy with the camera put the cops in a situation where they felt boxed into arresting him...

But nothing I say will convince you.  I've been down this road before.  Have fun.

(And I'll air my mistakes when you air yours. EVERYONE makes mistakes as they learn.)


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> In the case at hand -- we have relatively factual accounts. We have the one kid's video. It's pretty clear that the officers were trying to work through the situation, and that the idiot with the camera was ignoring their requests, then their orders... and even LIED outright about not recording it (ironically, captured in his own recording). He ignored several orders to leave; he got hooked. His buddy? Don't know. The video doesn't show, but it may just have been that he was drunk, and not listening. Or maybe his dumb buddy with the camera put the cops in a situation where they felt boxed into arresting him...
> 
> But nothing I say will convince you. I've been down this road before. Have fun.
> 
> (And I'll air my mistakes when you air yours. EVERYONE makes mistakes as they learn.)


you dont have to convince me of anything. We are just having a friendly discussion. This is for the d.a. to decide to proceed, court to decide to judge and sentence, police commissioner to decide to reprimand, and the town this took place in to decide to bring it all the way to court in the civil case or settle it out of court.  I really dont know. I am not a judge, d.a., or lawyer, or run the pd, mayor or manager of the place this took place in.  It is interesting to think about just wondering the outcome....

really like sgtmac46's responses as well. You can tell he is right by the book and knows his ****.  I tend to agree with him, just not sure if everyone else in that chain would.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 2, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I generally try to ignore this sort of commentary. It's ill-informed.
> 
> I don't work for "the people." I work for the government of the municipality/county/state that employs me. My role is that of POLICE:
> _1. Also called police force. an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws. _
> ...


 
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Tremoglie/police_and_public_opinion.htm

i hear what you are saying. Technically you are correct. But there is nothing wrong with "to serve and protect". I actually thought it was quite honorable. The military is a service as well. Nothing wrong with that. Many municpalitys have "to serve and protect" on their equipment and on the cruisers. More once did, then the policing training changed, something happend and it started gong away. Now it seems to be coming back again. The military serves its country, the police serve its community. I think police and community relations are a key thing. It is far different than the military in which as police you are dealing with the community daily.  It isn't like your fighting a war away from home. You are in your community, visible, and a part of it.

Far as who police work for, it becomes apparent all too quickly when public opinion turns the tide against them. i don't know what happend but it seems the older generation of sheriffs got along much better than some of the newer cops. And i am not sure what happend with the new philosophy in policing. I would think the officer friendly approach would go over much better since it is always easier having the community you are policing support you instead of filing complaints against you. And this is the same community that elects the people that control how many cops are on the payroll and what is received for a budget. Some departments are researching and concentrating on community ties just to rebuild that connection, and are smart enough to go back to "serving the community" realizing without community support they were out on the street in the cold.

interesting vid and the comments are worth reading.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...arass-citizens-who-record-them-102826639.html


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 3, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I don't work for "the people."  I work for the government of the municipality/county/state that employs me.



IMO That's part of the attitude that is wrecking the nation.  The Government of the municipality/county/state works for the people. Even if they don't wish to acknowledge it anymore. So I'd say If you are an employee of  the government of the municipality/county/state, then yes... you work for the people.   They may not be your direct employers; but you certainly work for them.  When they stop paying for you to be there, you certainly won't be, just ask any officer in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.

Wait... you can't.  Muskegon Heights no longer has any cops. :angel:


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

Wow, New Haven seems to be infested with people who act like jerks and then claim the cops were the bad guys.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/03/news/doc4ca80b7e64ba3342354946.txt

"NEW HAVEN  Yale University students caught in a raid Saturday of a private dance party at a nightclub on Crown Street are upset over the way they were treated by police.

But Police Chief Frank Limon defended the raid, saying the club was over capacity, creating a dangerous situation. Limon said that according to the fire marshal, the capacity is 150 people and the compliance check revealed 256 people in the club."

"Police said while they were checking the ages of the clubs occupants at Elevate, two customers, later identified as Zachary Fuhrer and Jordan Jefferson refused to comply with officers verbal commands and were arrested for interfering with police. As officers were attempting to place Jefferson in custody, he struck an officer and had to be tased to be brought under control, police said."

So, these 2 jerks refused to comply, then one of them hit a cop, and now people are complaining?  Funny how the cops are always to blame...what about these 2 punks?


----------



## Carol (Oct 3, 2010)

Other than the areas surrounding the colleges, is there a part of New Haven that's "good"?    That is one nasty, run down, economically depressed city.  Last time I went through there was last Thanksgiving on my way to my folks.  I stopped in for a coffee at a Dunkins right off I-95 and someone tried to rob me on the way out the door.  At 6am!!


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> Wow, New Haven seems to be infested with people who act like jerks and then claim the cops were the bad guys.
> 
> http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/03/news/doc4ca80b7e64ba3342354946.txt
> 
> ...


 
read the comments. wth is a police department doing sending in swat to a college semiformal for underage drinkers. And only one person was underage. Saying it is above capacity but instead of going to the club manager and doing it properly they have everyone lay on the floor instead of evacuating the club.

seriously. They should have just emptied it and id'd at the door. i agree with the comments. Lying on the floor to check id's? automatics? if this is true i would say nh needs to lay the smack down on its pd for out right, blatantly being morons. Tax payers money at work............
another lawsuit.....


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 3, 2010)

It's called college students who haven't been held to be responsible for anything in their lives.

Somewhere over the last 50 years or so, we've shifted from college being a place populated by adults to college is 4 more years of high school shenanigans -- but the record is for real now.  Whether it's the insistence on getting an A for simply meeting the course requirements, or outrage that disorderly behavior leads to arrests and conviction... college students today seem intent on setting new records for doing stupid crap.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i like sgt.mac's synopsis but i am not so sure that is how the court would see it, or if the govt. would take the risk of letting it go that far with lots of college kids filling out witness statements against the officers.. They may prefer a quick payout and sweep it under the rug.


 Actually, the first thing those college students will be warned when filling out a statement, is that they better be 100% true.......or they WILL face criminal prosecution for filling a false police report and perjury.

These guys are going to sue anyone.........anyone who sues me or my department would have to survive the 3 hour deposition mine and the cities attorneys would put them through.




bribrius said:


> It is a very simple case really, but with the press and all those college kids and the special team to police this particuliar district that is paying additional money i wonder if it will become more complex. And yeah, the kid was annoying. Just not sure if i see any lawbreaking there. ON TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE!!!!!


 The press and the college kids don't decide these things. And the courts almost always find in favor of the officers in cases like this.  Courts actually require things like evidence and proof, not the innuendo and false statements allowed in the media.

This won't go to a law suit, and this WILL result in a conviction for interference for this kid.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> fair enough. But we are commenting on the two kids in the bar in the article but we weren't there either.


 The video is pretty clear, though. It clearly demonstrates active interference. 

Judges tend to have little tolerance for the kind of behavior demonstrated on video on the part of these kids. In fact, try that in a courtroom, and you'll spend the next 30 days in jail on a contempt of court charge. Judges, of all people, understand the need to maintain order while attempting to conduct business.

Court is a very structured and organized process, and the prosecutor and defense attorney are required to follow certain procedures in presenting their case.  The process won't be good for those attempting to argue that 'maybe this wasn't justified'.  As the questions will be straight forward.

In a criminal trial against the suspect these will be the basic questions.

1) Were the officers conducting a lawful investigation.
2) Is there a law against interferring with a lawful investigation.
3) Did the officers have probable cause to believe that the suspect was interferring with a lawful investigation.
4) Has the state met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect intentionally and knowingly interferred with a lawful investigation.

It appears clear that the answer to all four questions will be 'yes'.

In a civil trial against the officers the defendant here would have to prove.

1) That the officers had no lawful authority to conduct an investigation.
2) That the officers willfully and knowingly violated his rights by arresting him.
3) That the officers were not acting in good faith in doing so.

They clearly won't be able to prove any of the three.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 3, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> IMO That's part of the attitude that is wrecking the nation. The Government of the municipality/county/state works for the people. Even if they don't wish to acknowledge it anymore. So I'd say If you are an employee of the government of the municipality/county/state, then yes... you work for the people. They may not be your direct employers; but you certainly work for them. When they stop paying for you to be there, you certainly won't be, just ask any officer in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.
> 
> Wait... you can't. Muskegon Heights no longer has any cops. :angel:


 Burglary opportunities if anyone is looking for a career change!


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> It's called college students who haven't been held to be responsible for anything in their lives.
> 
> Somewhere over the last 50 years or so, we've shifted from college being a place populated by adults to college is 4 more years of high school shenanigans -- but the record is for real now. Whether it's the insistence on getting an A for simply meeting the course requirements, or outrage that disorderly behavior leads to arrests and conviction... college students today seem intent on setting new records for doing stupid crap.


 
forget the college kids, you dont see anything wrong with this raid of the club? Sounds like you have a vandetta against college kids.  The college kids are the next generation of the country. Personally i think they have more sense than the baby boomers who ran the country into the ******* and by the looks of this we are on the slippery slope going toward a "police state". They sure have more sense than whoever decided to raid that club. what a mastermind of strategy that was.

All these college kids in that club the pd just proved them correct. In doing that raid they just created a hundred more liberals and a couple will probably end up working for the aclu suing police deparments. It did NO GOOD.


i could see doing a drug raid that way, happens all the time, it should be that way.  college kids and id checks for underage drinkers in this way is a tad excessive. I am sure they could have found a much more intelligent, prudent way to go about this than raiding it and jacking up college kids with swat gear. This kind of thing is meant for dictatorship countrys. Not this one. If you can't see that i am not sure what to tell you.

Around here they tend to have a little more sense. They work with the club owners, warn them if need be, and make sure bouncers and owners are checking id's and not violating codes. They dont raid clubs and jack everyone up and tell them to lay on the floor. And if swat is called out it is because of a gun man or a drug raid. Not college kids. 
what a wast of friggn money just to make the department look like fruitcakes.  And it doesn't matter if it were college kids or older people. YOu think older people would be impressed if you walked into and jacked up their blues club and told everyone to lay on the friggn floor your checking id's? I can't picture that going over well.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

Carol said:


> Other than the areas surrounding the colleges, is there a part of New Haven that's "good"? That is one nasty, run down, economically depressed city. Last time I went through there was last Thanksgiving on my way to my folks. I stopped in for a coffee at a Dunkins right off I-95 and someone tried to rob me on the way out the door. At 6am!!


 
Is there a part of NH thats good?  In a nutshell...no. LOL.  I hate the thought of walking back to the parking garage at night, when I get back from NY.  Always seems the less desireables come out at dark. LOL.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Burglary opportunities if anyone is looking for a career change!


wouldnt' matter. Police officers dont stop most crimes last i knew. They can act as a semi-deterrent, but most often than not they show up after the crime was committed. Good lighting, private security cameras, a dog, there are many things that would probably have better results than the after the fact police call.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> forget the college kids, you dont see anything wrong with this raid of the club? Sounds like you have a vandetta against college kids. The college kids are the next generation of the country. Personally i think they have more sense than the baby boomers who ran the country into the ******* and by the looks of this we are on the slippery slope going toward a "police state". They sure have more sense than whoever decided to raid that club. what a mastermind of strategy that was.
> 
> All these college kids in that club the pd just proved them correct. In doing that raid they just created a hundred more liberals and a couple will probably end up working for the aclu suing police deparments. It did NO GOOD.
> 
> ...


 
You're kidding me right?  Its clear these kids were *******s.  As I've said a thousand times....99.9% of the time, people bring the issues on themselves.  Why did these kids resist?  If you feel like you're being wrongly done, file the complaint later, but being a dick at the time, isn't helping.  The raid....well, IMO, nobody did anything wrong.  The FM was there checking on the capacity of the building.  As for the comments and the article....if you read the article, you'll see that there was a shooting not long ago.  Recently there has been alot of gun activity in NH, so perhaps the NHPD is taking a stronger stance on things in the area.  

I doubt anyone here was there, and unless we know the rules/regs. for the NHPD, and any other details that were not included in the article, we can speculate at best.  I say this, because I take what I read in the papers with a grain of salt.  

People tend to throw the lawsuit garbage around, as an attempt at grabbing straws.  I'm gonna sue because...because....because.....because I was an *******, and made you use more force than you really had to.  See, thats the main issue here...people can't admit when they're wrong, so they pass the blame to someone else.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> wouldnt' matter. Police officers dont stop most crimes last i knew. They can act as a semi-deterrent, but most often than not they show up after the crime was committed. Good lighting, private security cameras, a dog, there are many things that would probably have better results than the after the fact police call.



And for every case of showing up after the fact, there are numerous cases of them showing up while the crime is in progress.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> And for every case of showing up after the fact, there are numerous cases of them showing up while the crime is in progress.


 i think you got that backwards. :barf:


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> forget the college kids, you dont see anything wrong with this raid of the club? Sounds like you have a vandetta against college kids.  The college kids are the next generation of the country. Personally i think they have more sense than the baby boomers who ran the country into the ******* and by the looks of this we are on the slippery slope going toward a "police state". They sure have more sense than whoever decided to raid that club. what a mastermind of strategy that was.
> 
> All these college kids in that club the pd just proved them correct. In doing that raid they just created a hundred more liberals and a couple will probably end up working for the aclu suing police deparments. It did NO GOOD.
> 
> ...


Let me drop the kid gloves here...

They had more than 100 people over capacity.  I think we can take it as given that at least some were drinking or high -- but that's almost immaterial in a crowd like that.  The article notes that the enhanced and high visibility enforcement in the area was in response to a shooting incident recently.  The article describes the officers as "SWAT"... what I suspect is that the were they as a riot control unit.  Which kind of makes sense given what they were dealing with.  

Have you ever tried to control a crowd of 100+?  All it takes is one asshat, and you've got a full scale riot on your hands.  Out of 256 people identified (I guarantee some slipped out without being counted or identified), there were 5 or 6 arrested; the article  is a little fuzzy as to whether it was 5 arrests with an additional person who took the Taser's ride, or whether that person was one of the 5.  That's not bad, really...

You don't like the way the cops do their job.  There just might be reasons that you don't understand.  I'm going to make a suggestion to you that I've made more than once before:  Do a ride along.  Go to a citizen's academy.  In short -- inform your opinion.

In the mean time -- what I want is for ADULTS under the law to accept responsibility for their own actions, and to accept that actions do have consequences.  If you're going to play like an adult, you have to pay like an adult, too.  Of course, after more than a decade of law enforcement experience, coupled with several times that in life experience -- I'm not exactly hopeful that it's going to happen.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> You're kidding me right? Its clear these kids were *******s. As I've said a thousand times....99.9% of the time, people bring the issues on themselves. Why did these kids resist? If you feel like you're being wrongly done, file the complaint later, but being a dick at the time, isn't helping. The raid....well, IMO, nobody did anything wrong. The FM was there checking on the capacity of the building. As for the comments and the article....if you read the article, you'll see that there was a shooting not long ago. Recently there has been alot of gun activity in NH, so perhaps the NHPD is taking a stronger stance on things in the area.
> 
> I doubt anyone here was there, and unless we know the rules/regs. for the NHPD, and any other details that were not included in the article, we can speculate at best. I say this, because I take what I read in the papers with a grain of salt.
> 
> People tend to throw the lawsuit garbage around, as an attempt at grabbing straws. I'm gonna sue because...because....because.....because I was an *******, and made you use more force than you really had to. See, thats the main issue here...people can't admit when they're wrong, so they pass the blame to someone else.


 

i am over the kids. Dont care about the kids. They are college kids. i dont care if one of them kicked one of the swat team in the head. Dont care if they swore, put up a fight etc. Doesn't matter to me. The problem started with whoever came up with the brilliant idea of using swat to jack up a club for underage drinking. Most kids do drink underage. I did, you probably did, about everyone does. calling in swat for underage drinking isn't acceptable. By the time they got there the party was almost over. It isn't like they were concerned over the kids safety and the occupancy violation. And drunk people tend to not cooperate. No shocker there.

I am more concerned swat was used to jack up the establishment than the college kids and what they were doing. 

strange, when i was sixteen i was nabbed for under age drinking. one time was a summons if i recall and a fine. The other the cop just told me to dump it out and stop walking down the sidewalk with it. Oh yeah, and transportaton of liquor by a minor....another fine

I dont recall a swat team...

lots of gun activity. okay. so did they find any on the students?  Doesnt look like it. I see nothing about weapons. Was the shooting that took place in that establishment? No.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i think you got that backwards. :barf:


 
Well, whether you believe it or not, is really no concern of mine.  However, I've seen it first hand at my job.  

BTW, speaking as a member here, not as an Admin, due to the fact that mods/admins that post in threads, are not allowed to moderate them, I'd just like to point out the rules for this section, as they differ slightly from the regular area.  I say this, because some posts here are close to crossing the line.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i am over the kids. Dont care about the kids. They are college kids. i dont care if one of them kicked one of the swat team in the head. Dont care if they swore, put up a fight etc. Doesn't matter to me. The problem started with whoever came up with the brilliant idea of using swat to jack up a club for underage drinking. Most kids do drink underage. I did, you probably did, about everyone does. calling in swat for underage drinking isn't acceptable. By the time they got there the party was almost over. It isn't like they were concerned over the kids safety and the occupancy violation. And drunk people tend to not cooperate. No shocker there.


 
And as I said, which you may've missed...unless you know the policies for the NHPD, nobody here has the right to say if they were right or wrong with what they did.  Something tells me, judging by your posts, that you have something against cops.  Maybe you were the 'victim' at one point, I dont know.



> I am more concerned swat was used to jack up the establishment than the college kids and what they were doing.


 
Again, unless you know the NHPD rules, whether you feel they were right or wrong to use swat, is really a moot point.  



> strange, when i was sixteen i was nabbed for under age drinking. one time was a summons if i recall and a fine. The other the cop just told me to dump it out and stop walking down the sidewalk with it. Oh yeah, and transportaton of liquor by a minor....another fine


 
And now we have it....your ill harbored, pent up feelings of hate for the cops.  



> I dont recall a swat team...


 
Already addressed this above.



> lots of gun activity. okay. so did they find any on the students? Doesnt look like it. I see nothing about weapons. Was the shooting that took place in that establishment? No.


 
The majoirty of clubs in NH are pretty much in the same general area.  As of late, there has been an increase in gun violence.  Whether they found any on the kids is moot.  Fact is, many of these clubs are in crappy areas, areas of which the violence takes place.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> Well, whether you believe it or not, is really no concern of mine. However, I've seen it first hand at my job.
> 
> BTW, speaking as a member here, not as an Admin, due to the fact that mods/admins that post in threads, are not allowed to moderate them, I'd just like to point out the rules for this section, as they differ slightly from the regular area. I say this, because some posts here are close to crossing the line.


 
Welcome to the Law Enforcement Forum.
This forum is designed to discuss LEO techniques, strategies, training, etc. However this forum is *not to discuss the social political aspects of Law Enforcement (the op probably broke this just with the article ) if not i we all have now. *nor is this forum in any way for bashing Law Enforcement!

MartialTalk's Law Enforcement Forum operates under the following simple rules and policies:
- All normal rules of behavior apply here.
- Law Enforcement Officers are welcome, however must comply with our simple "Law Enforcement Officer Policy" not a leo
- Use of derogatory terms such as "pig" are not welcome. wouldn't do that
- Discussion of active investigations or cases in a trial state are not allowed. hasn't occurred
- Bashing of LEO's and LEO agencies is not acceptable. yeah, i am on that line with nh and this last article... lol

Thank you.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> Welcome to the Law Enforcement Forum.
> This forum is designed to discuss LEO techniques, strategies, training, etc. However this forum is *not to discuss the social political aspects of Law Enforcement (the op probably broke this just with the article ) if not i we all have now. *nor is this forum in any way for bashing Law Enforcement!


 
Then RTM the thread smart ***.  BTW, the topic is discussing just what the rules say....the strategies that were used.  



> MartialTalk's Law Enforcement Forum operates under the following simple rules and policies:
> - All normal rules of behavior apply here.
> - Law Enforcement Officers are welcome, however must comply with our simple "Law Enforcement Officer Policy" not a leo
> - Use of derogatory terms such as "pig" are not welcome. wouldn't do that
> ...


 
Then perhaps, unless you want yourself booted from the forum, you should change your tone!  Speaking of RTMing posts, I think I'll RTM a few of yours.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> And as I said, which you may've missed...unless you know the policies for the NHPD, nobody here has the right to say if they were right or wrong with what they did. Something tells me, judging by your posts, that you have something against cops. Maybe you were the 'victim' at one point, I dont know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 not at all. some officers i like very much, have some in the family if you read my posts, other officers i (can't complete it would be a violation of forum rules). They are like anyone else, there is good and bad.

what you are probably seeing in my post is my political ideology.  I wont say what it is, (could be a violation of the rules) but lets just say it isnt a a liberal but i am a huge fan of freedom.


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> Then RTM the thread smart ***. BTW, the topic is discussing just what the rules say....the strategies that were used.
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps, unless you want yourself booted from the forum, you should change your tone! Speaking of RTMing posts, I think I'll RTM a few of yours.


 

i guess you nolonger want to discuss the raid on the nightclub.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i guess you nolonger want to discuss the raid on the nightclub.


 
Sure, lets continue to discuss the club raid.  See, herein lies the difference....people can discuss in or out of compliance with the forum rules.  The choice ultimately lies with each poster.  But when something happens, and those people cry foul, well, in the end, it was their actions that caused the problem.

So...back to the thread.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

Apparently some people, or at least one person, has issues with the way things were handled by the NHPD.  That being said, anytime discussions like this happen, you're bound to get someone who has an issue, and they usually voice their complaints.  

What I rarely see though, is alternative solutions.  They shouldnt have done this, the cops shouldnt have done that......but what should have they done?  I mean, its easy to say this or that, but until you walk in their shoes.......


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> Sure, lets continue to discuss the club raid. See, herein lies the difference....people can discuss in or out of compliance with the forum rules. The choice ultimately lies with each poster. But when something happens, and those people cry foul, well, in the end, it was their actions that caused the problem.
> 
> So...back to the thread.


 
great. Now if it were you dealing with the night club, how would you have handled it differently instead of the raid?

For the record i dont live there. In case one might think i do. I am a few states away. Been to foxwoods casino in ct. About it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 3, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Burglary opportunities if anyone is looking for a career change!



Yes and no.  

By the admission of the cops on this board, they don't PREVENT Burglaries, they just respond to them, So...


----------



## bribrius (Oct 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> Apparently some people, or at least one person, has issues with the way things were handled by the NHPD. That being said, anytime discussions like this happen, you're bound to get someone who has an issue, and they usually voice their complaints.
> 
> What I rarely see though, is alternative solutions. They shouldnt have done this, the cops shouldnt have done that......but what should have they done? I mean, its easy to say this or that, but until you walk in their shoes.......


 
judging by the comments under the articles i would say quite a few people have a problem with how it was handled. And now the school is involved, the yale pd is involved to investigate further. who knows how many calls or complaints the nh pd has received.

what is suggested earlier was working with the club owner. Doing a orderly evacuation and carding if need be as they leave. Any bouncers and the owner could aid, only send a few officers inside just for the purpose of ushering the toward the door.  Or we could even ask the question why they were so concerned over it to begin with. Only one arrest for underage drinking. No weapons mentioned.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2010)

bribrius said:


> judging by the comments under the articles i would say quite a few people have a problem with how it was handled. And now the school is involved, the yale pd is involved to investigate further. who knows how many calls or complaints the nh pd has received.


 
LOL, of course people who post there are going to have issues.  Any time things like this happen, 99% of the general public is going to side with the person who had the run in with the cops.  Someone is stopped by a cop, they get pissy, start fighting, resisting, get tased, or brought to the ground, etc., and right away, the cops are in the wrong.  Does anyone EVER stop to think that maybe, just maybe, if the person wasn't resisting, 3/4 of the stuff that happened, wouldnt happen?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 4, 2010)

*There's a topic in here, stick to it.
Thats the friendly warning.*


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 4, 2010)

I'm gonna take a different angle here.  I actually thing that language the cops used, though not even close to brutality, was inappropriate.

To give you some background, I am a police sergeant in the L.A. area, all of which time has been spent in patrol (10 years). 

My position is this: if they guy is interfering, tell him to leave, as they did.  They had no real reason to curse at the guy.  If he doesn't leave and is interfering, take him to jail.  What was the point in using profanity towards the guy?  All it does is make them look bad and lowers their legitimacy in the eyes of the public, even drunk college patrons.  It makes them look like people who can't control their emotions.  Now that it's on the web and news, most people will look negatively on the police for using such language in such a circumstance.

Now, that is not to say that there is not a time for profanity.  For me they usually involve high stress, physically threatening situations.  But I just can't see how this is one of them.  It's kinda ironic too, because I just led a briefing on this very topic.  

Having said that, there are some specific replies that I want to address:



> read the comments. wth is a police department doing sending in swat to a college semiformal for underage drinkers.


 
If you read the article, it states that the reason the SWAT team was present was because the detail was understaffed for those conditions.  It is likely that the SWAT team was on-duty, and rather then pull personnel from other essential duties, the SWAT team was brought in to bolster the numbers of police officers.  Like I tell motorcycle cops often enough, you didn't stop being cops because you ride a two-wheeler and write tickets all day.  You still know how to take a crime report and handle radio calls.  Get to it.  



> Saying it is above capacity but instead of going to the club manager and doing it properly they have everyone lay on the floor instead of evacuating the club.


 
So what is properly, and what is your training and experience that would enable you to have such expertise?  This:



> what is suggested earlier was working with the club owner. Doing a orderly evacuation and carding if need be as they leave. Any bouncers and the owner could aid, only send a few officers inside just for the purpose of ushering the toward the door. Or we could even ask the question why they were so concerned over it to begin with. Only one arrest for underage drinking. No weapons mentioned.


 
You have possibly not been in a crowded club, getting on a loud speaker to a bunch of drunken people, and telling them that they have to leave before they think they are entitled.  I can tell you, from experience, that I am not going to have "a few officers" inside a club "against" 250 people in that kind of situation.  That is a powder keg waiting to happen.

Now don't get me wrong, you are an American citizen with all the rights to critique what law enforcement personnel do.  But you should come with your "A" game if you want to do so.  Because I can tell you, bars and clubs are not the easiest things to clear out, especially since they have drunk and often unruly people inside.  



> lots of gun activity. okay. so did they find any on the students? Doesnt look like it. I see nothing about weapons. Was the shooting that took place in that establishment? No.


 
So, as a police officer, I actually have to see a gun before I can bring in the requisite personnel, and hope that I don't get killed in the process?  Not likely.  

What's funny is that this place is responding to a shooting which occured.  You take one of those preppy college kids who's parents are paying $50,000 a year (plus room, board, activity fee, campus fees, parking fee, medical fee, etc.) and let them get hurt due to *another *shooting, and they'll be complaining about how the police didn't do anything after the first one.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 4, 2010)

bribrius said:


> what is suggested earlier was working with the club owner. Doing a orderly evacuation and carding if need be as they leave. Any bouncers and the owner could aid, only send a few officers inside just for the purpose of ushering the toward the door.  Or we could even ask the question why they were so concerned over it to begin with. Only one arrest for underage drinking. No weapons mentioned.



Have you ever tried to do an orderly evacuation of 250+ drunk and possibly high college kids? Do you think sending in just a couple of cops to ushser people to the door would work? I guess not, because that is just a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## MJS (Oct 4, 2010)

bribrius said:


> great. Now if it were you dealing with the night club, how would you have handled it differently instead of the raid?
> 
> For the record i dont live there. In case one might think i do. I am a few states away. Been to foxwoods casino in ct. About it.


 
Sigh...had a reply all typed last night...and lost it.  Too tired to reply, so here it is...again..lol.

If I were the club owner:  Be a legit business man.  In other words, make sure your **** is together.  Are permits up to date?  Are all licenses up to date?  Is there ample security?  If need be, hire police officers.  Make sure that when the building capacity reaches its limit, nobody else gets in.  IF **** starts getting out of hand, nip it in the bud...ASAP!

If I were the person in charge of the raid:  1st and foremost, its important to know and adhere to, the rules, regulations, policies, of the NHPD.  Given the high risk area, and the high risk for riots, and violence, its important to have a strong show of force.  While this may 'set people off' if people didn't act like *******s, and just did what was asked, 99.99% of the headaches that happen, wouldnt happen.  I'm sure any of the LEOs here could attest to that.  Cop asks you to do something, whether or not you feel it was right, wrong or otherwise, just STFU and do it.  If ya wanna file a complaint later, fine, but in the meantime, check your ego and do whats asked.  If a situation starts to break out, it gets dealt with accordingly.  In other words, if the person isn't cooperating, and starts to resist, the LEO addresses it accordingly, ie: physically restraining the person, taking them to the ground, OC, taser, whatever.


----------



## MJS (Oct 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Have you ever tried to do an orderly evacuation of 250+ drunk and possibly high college kids? Do you think sending in just a couple of cops to ushser people to the door would work? I guess not, because that is just a disaster waiting to happen.


 
QFT!!! And of course, usually when people say "Well the cops were in the wrong!" they rarely post what THEY feel should be done.  I've heard some totally off the wall stuff, such as using a tranqualizer (sp) gun, like they would use for animals.  LOL.  Are you kidding me?? LOL.  

I agree with you though...you got a situation like that, and you're right, its a ticking time bomb.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo's post was excellent...

I only half agree with the issue on language.  I agree with the basic premise; using profanity should be limited.  Relying on profanity generally is a sign that you don't have the confidence and control to avoid it -- and often escalates a situation unnecessarily.  But you also have to use language that makes sense to the people you're dealing with, and sometimes, that means using language that you wouldn't ordinarily.  Drunk college kids -- or drunks in general -- sometimes don't take "please step back" seriously...  and I don't know how long things went on before the filming started.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 4, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> 5-0 Kenpo's post was excellent...
> 
> I only half agree with the issue on language. I agree with the basic premise; using profanity should be limited. Relying on profanity generally is a sign that you don't have the confidence and control to avoid it -- and often escalates a situation unnecessarily. But you also have to use language that makes sense to the people you're dealing with, and sometimes, that means using language that you wouldn't ordinarily. Drunk college kids -- or drunks in general -- sometimes don't take "please step back" seriously... and I don't know how long things went on before the filming started.


 
I understand talking the language that people understand, however, I don't necessarily that using coarse language is the answer.  If a guy is not doing what you are legally allowed to order him to do, detain him and if need be take him to jail.

Now, to show that I'm not just an administrator type  I understand that officers sometimes use such language so that they don't have to go all the way to a detention or arrest, and save a couple of hours on a BS misdemeanor arrest that may or may not get filed by the "overburdened city attorney's office" .  That being said, however, most of the time you handcuff a guy and put him in the back seat of a patrol car it has the uncanny ability to change their attitude.  And if it doesn't, it's probably someone who needs to go to jail anyway.  

You can tall a guy in a forceful and commanding way to do something while dropping the nice guy act.  I just have a hard time seeing any real justification for such language considering the negative association to it with the public.  Maybe if it's just the cop and the subject around, ok.  But as I see it, the cost outweigh the benefits, as seen from the reaction to this video.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I understand talking the language that people understand, however, I don't necessarily that using coarse language is the answer.  If a guy is not doing what you are legally allowed to order him to do, detain him and if need be take him to jail.
> 
> Now, to show that I'm not just an administrator type  I understand that officers sometimes use such language so that they don't have to go all the way to a detention or arrest, and save a couple of hours on a BS misdemeanor arrest that may or may not get filed by the "overburdened city attorney's office" .  That being said, however, most of the time you handcuff a guy and put him in the back seat of a patrol car it has the uncanny ability to change their attitude.  And if it doesn't, it's probably someone who needs to go to jail anyway.
> 
> You can tall a guy in a forceful and commanding way to do something while dropping the nice guy act.  I just have a hard time seeing any real justification for such language considering the negative association to it with the public.  Maybe if it's just the cop and the subject around, ok.  But as I see it, the cost outweigh the benefits, as seen from the reaction to this video.


Absolutely; the bearing and authority that we lump under the phrase "command presence" is vital, and doesn't rest on profanity.  But even the most forceful "sir, please step back" just doesn't always cut through the fog like a "GET THE **** BACK."  It's not something that's appropriate every time.  It's just one more item in the bag of tricks.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 4, 2010)

bribrius said:


> wouldnt' matter. Police officers dont stop most crimes last i knew. They can act as a semi-deterrent, but most often than not they show up after the crime was committed. Good lighting, private security cameras, a dog, there are many things that would probably have better results than the after the fact police call.


 


Cryozombie said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> By the admission of the cops on this board, they don't PREVENT Burglaries, they just respond to them, So...


 

Police do act as an effective deterrent against some crimes, mainly property crimes. Why? Because burglary cases that get solved result in criminals not being on the street to commit them. Burglary cases that don't get solved result in more burglary cases. So, while on the simplistic surface, the police won't 'prevent' an individual act, burglaries are not isolated affairs and are committed by repeat offenders. 

Moreover, the perception of reduced protection will not go unnoticed by the criminal community and one can predictably expect increase in larceny related crimes.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 4, 2010)

bribrius said:


> not at all. some officers i like very much, have some in the family if you read my posts, other officers i (can't complete it would be a violation of forum rules). They are like anyone else, there is good and bad.
> 
> what you are probably seeing in my post is my political ideology. I wont say what it is, (could be a violation of the rules) but lets just say it isnt a a liberal but i am a huge fan of freedom.


 
To be clear my personal political views are minarchist libertarian. But I believe that there exists a necessity in society for law enforcement. Perhaps not the shear amount of laws on the books. But certainly I do not believe that law enforcement need less authority to enforce those laws I do believe are necessary.

If one agrees with the need of LEO's to enforce laws, one necessarily agrees that they need the authority to do so.  The two go hand in hand.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I understand talking the language that people understand, however, I don't necessarily that using coarse language is the answer. If a guy is not doing what you are legally allowed to order him to do, detain him and if need be take him to jail.
> 
> Now, to show that I'm not just an administrator type  I understand that officers sometimes use such language so that they don't have to go all the way to a detention or arrest, and save a couple of hours on a BS misdemeanor arrest that may or may not get filed by the "overburdened city attorney's office" . That being said, however, most of the time you handcuff a guy and put him in the back seat of a patrol car it has the uncanny ability to change their attitude. And if it doesn't, it's probably someone who needs to go to jail anyway.
> 
> You can tall a guy in a forceful and commanding way to do something while dropping the nice guy act. I just have a hard time seeing any real justification for such language considering the negative association to it with the public. Maybe if it's just the cop and the subject around, ok. But as I see it, the cost outweigh the benefits, as seen from the reaction to this video.


 
There is some merit to both sides of the argument. Your last paragraph actually sums it up........'Maybe if it's just the cope and the subject around'.

Officers have to keep in mind what the public sees and maintain a certain image. What he says to the mouthy drunk out of earshot is an entirely different matter.  If you have a French speaking citizen you speak French.  If you have a drunken idiot you have to speak the language.......just not where everyone else can hear.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2010)

As far as the OP is concerned, the only thing I think is wrong would be that If the cop told me to "Watch this" while I was filming, I'd take that as permission... then to be arrested for doing so, (and yeah, the guy was being a bit of an assclown to the cops, which didn't help him) well... I'd probably file a complaint too.

Brutality tho?  Must have happened after the camera stopped rolling cuz I didn't see any.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 5, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> As far as the OP is concerned, the only thing I think is wrong would be that If the cop told me to "Watch this" while I was filming, I'd take that as permission... then to be arrested for doing so, (and yeah, the guy was being a bit of an assclown to the cops, which didn't help him) well... I'd probably file a complaint too.
> 
> Brutality tho? Must have happened after the camera stopped rolling cuz I didn't see any.


 
I agree with your assessment.  He shouldn't have done the 'watch this'......though the impact was really neglible, except that it would have looked better without that in it.


----------

