More Police Abuse

[Knife]

Usually when I click on a 'cop abuses poor innocent' I am expecting the cop to shoot a dog, or beat a person with a night stick, or spray em with pepper spray, or the almighty tazer. It is almost comical that this thread is titled cop abuses... when it turns out the cop verbally abused a concealed weapons permit person. It's almost a joke.

Granted, the cop flipped out bad and should be investigated, disciplined. But really, cop abuses gun holder with words? Fucking pussy.

[Hamstray]

UPDATE 7/22/2011: Canton Police announced Thursday that the officer was relieved of all duties in June following an internal investigation complaint filed in this matter

Seems like he took on the wrong constitutional right to mess with. It's unfortunate that violating peoples other civil liberties does not as often result in nearly as harsh penalties.

I also don't get how the officer asserts that not being notified of the gun has somehow put him in any danger, or does he mean he's sure to get gunned down by friendly fire from his buddy if the later notices the gun first?

Being bound to weird prostitution laws or not but what kind of methodology is that to pull over random people for nothing else but to check for hookers? that's sort of like when in Iran they pull people over just to check whether the woman with them is their sister or not (might be also just a cliché that I once heard of).

[Mr. Coffee]

I also don't get how the officer asserts that not being notified of the gun has somehow put him in any danger, or does he mean he's sure to get gunned down by friendly fire from his buddy if the later notices the gun first?

Put yourself in his shoes. It's dark, shitty part of town, two guys in a car and what looks like prostitute leaning in the window. So you've got people looking shady to begin with, and you come to find out that one of them has a gun, sure it's legal and the guy's got a permit for it, but that whole time you were conducting that stop one of the people had a gun and you didn't know about it. Worse, the asshole in question had a legal responsibility to tell you he had that gun.

I mean, it's not like police officers in the US never get shot by some guy with a gun during routine traffic stops in the US. That could never happen! Oh, wait, turns out that's how most cops that get killed in the line of duty die, traffic stops gone wrong. Under those circumstances don't you think you'd be a little razzled? Just a little?

Being bound to weird prostitution laws or not but what kind of methodology is that to pull over random people for nothing else but to check for hookers? that's sort of like when in Iran they pull people over just to check whether the woman with them is their sister or not (might be also just a cliché that I once heard of).

Yeah, turns out prostitution is illegal in most places in the US. Are you saying police shouldn't investigate it when people might be breaking the law or are you saying police should get to pick and choose what laws they feel like enforcing?

[Hamstray]

I mean, it's not like police officers in the US never get shot by some guy with a gun during routine traffic stops in the US. That could never happen! Oh, wait, turns out that's how most cops that get killed in the line of duty die, traffic stops gone wrong. Under those circumstances don't you think you'd be a little razzled? Just a little?

I don't get how the cop is in any danger for not knowing the suspect carries a concealed gun unless said suspect points the gun at the cops head and pulls the trigger while said cop is carelessly conducting a search of the back of the car.

Yeah, turns out prostitution is illegal in most places in the US. Are you saying police shouldn't investigate it when people might be breaking the law or are you saying police should get to pick and choose what laws they feel like enforcing?

I'm saying stopping random people to pester them and accuse them of some random crime on some purely speculative base (how would they even prove paid from unpaid sex that easily) is about on the same level a breach of privacy as randomly breaking into peoples houses without a search warrant.

[HMS Sophia]

I don't get how the cop is in any danger for not knowing the suspect carries a concealed gun unless said suspect points the gun at the cops head and pulls the trigger while said cop is carelessly conducting a search of the back of the car.

Did you read what coffee wrote? A traffic stop is the most dangerous thing a cop can do. It's late at night, he stops some guy. Ten minutes (or so) after he stops the guy, he finally discovers the guy has a gun.
Would that not freak you the fuck out, just a little bit? That the guy has a gun is important information. He might have felt safer asking the guy to surrender the weapon until he let him go on his way. Instead the guy he stopped essentially concealed the fact he had a weapon, something that as far as I have read here is illegal in that state.
The cop is not in danger, but he is in a very tense situation where that sort of information is absolutely vital.
The cop over-reacted yes. The cop should be punished yes. But freaking out is not a surprising reaction to the revelation that the man you've been talking too has a loaded gun in his pocket.

I'm saying stopping random people to pester them and accuse them of some random crime on some purely speculative base (how would they even prove paid from unpaid sex that easily) is about on the same level a breach of privacy as randomly breaking into peoples houses without a search warrant.

... So how do you propose you enforce the law?
Stopping a random person who looks suspicious and who the police consider may be breaking the law... That's not a breach of privacy, that's questioning someone who is suspected of breaking a law.
Please, tell me what you would do, because I'm fucking confused.

[dragon]

I don't get how the cop is in any danger for not knowing the suspect carries a concealed gun unless said suspect points the gun at the cops head and pulls the trigger while said cop is carelessly conducting a search of the back of the car.

Did you read what coffee wrote? A traffic stop is the most dangerous thing a cop can do. It's late at night, he stops some guy. Ten minutes (or so) after he stops the guy, he finally discovers the guy has a gun.
Would that not freak you the fuck out, just a little bit? That the guy has a gun is important information. He might have felt safer asking the guy to surrender the weapon until he let him go on his way. Instead the guy he stopped essentially concealed the fact he had a weapon, something that as far as I have read here is illegal in that state.
The cop is not in danger, but he is in a very tense situation where that sort of information is absolutely vital.
The cop over-reacted yes. The cop should be punished yes. But freaking out is not a surprising reaction to the revelation that the man you've been talking too has a loaded gun in his pocket.

I'm saying stopping random people to pester them and accuse them of some random crime on some purely speculative base (how would they even prove paid from unpaid sex that easily) is about on the same level a breach of privacy as randomly breaking into peoples houses without a search warrant.

... So how do you propose you enforce the law?
Stopping a random person who looks suspicious and who the police consider may be breaking the law... That's not a breach of privacy, that's questioning someone who is suspected of breaking a law.
Please, tell me what you would do, because I'm fucking confused.

A little thing called probable cause and a right to privacy. Just because they think they my be breaking the law gives no right to after all that the same grounds cops use when racial profiling.

[HMS Sophia]

A little thing called probable cause and a right to privacy. Just because they think they my be breaking the law gives no right to after all that the same grounds cops use when racial profiling.

It's late at night. There is a car on the street. A young lady is leaning in the window of said car (I believe). Oh and it's a public street.
Sounds about right for probable cause to me.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't mind the policeman being stressed, and clearly the guy with the CCW fucked up royally. But he shouldn't be making threats to beat people up or shoot them when it would be against the law for him to do those things.

[Hamstray]

Instead the guy he stopped essentially concealed the fact he had a weapon, something that as far as I have read here is illegal in that state.
The cop is not in danger, but he is in a very tense situation where that sort of information is absolutely vital.
The cop over-reacted yes. The cop should be punished yes. But freaking out is not a surprising reaction to the revelation that the man you've been talking too has a loaded gun in his pocket.

What I mean is that it's not something the cop should be blaming on the suspect. That the cop acted carelessly and put his own life at risk is his own fault. This is probably also one of the reasons he got suspended. That the suspect put his life at risk by not making it clear he had a gun is a different issue from that.

[HMS Sophia]

What I mean is that it's not something the cop should be blaming on the suspect. That the cop acted carelessly and put his own life at risk is his own fault. This is probably also one of the reasons he got suspended. That the suspect put his life at risk by not making it clear he had a gun is a different issue from that.

Hmm, I didn't realise the cop had been getting into the back of the car. The cop acted carelessly yes. I will concede that one.
The suspect still did not reveal that he had a gun, something that he is required to do by law. The suspect did something fucking stupid. The cop proceeded to react stupidly. You cannot say that none of this was the suspects fault.

[Cosmic Average]

A disgusting display. The cop should be fired and sentenced to prison for making death threats and for threatening the woman with police brutality.

[Hamstray]

It's late at night. There is a car on the street. A young lady is leaning in the window of said car (I believe). Oh and it's a public street.
Sounds about right for probable cause to me.

And if it's not a woman or not such a cheaply dressed one then not? (or maybe they would just briefly stop instead of conducting a thorough search) Sounds like discrimination based on gender and or class to me.

[HMS Sophia]

And if it's not a woman or not such a cheaply dressed one then not? (or maybe they would just briefly stop instead of conducting a thorough search) Sounds like discrimination based on gender and or class to me.

If it's a man, maybe it's a male hooker. Stop and question. If it's a well dressed woman, maybe she made some good money somewhere. Stop and question. Stop and question anyone who looks suspicious. That's the point of the police after all, no?

[Hamstray]

It's late at night. There is a car on the street. A young lady is leaning in the window of said car (I believe). Oh and it's a public street.
Sounds about right for probable cause to me.

And if it's not a woman or not such a cheaply dressed one then not? (or maybe they would just briefly stop instead of conducting a thorough search) Sounds like discrimination based on gender and or class to me.

p.s.: also, what is the search supposed to conclude anyways?

[HMS Sophia]

p.s.: also, what is the search and the supposed to conclude anyways?

I don't know about the search. But at least stopping and asking them a few questions to make sure of what's going on. I suppose the cop decided he had enough reason to search the vehicle. What his reasons were, I have no clue, but he did it.

[Mr. Coffee]

I don't get how the cop is in any danger for not knowing the suspect carries a concealed gun unless said suspect points the gun at the cops head and pulls the trigger while said cop is carelessly conducting a search of the back of the car.

Ok, you're either high as a kite or being intentionally obtuse here. Are you seriously saying that knowing if the person you're detaining is armed or not would not give you piece of mind or make you feel the tensiest bit safer? Especially considering traffic stops are where a police officer is most likely going to get shot?

I'm saying stopping random people to pester them and accuse them of some random crime on some purely speculative base (how would they even prove paid from unpaid sex that easily) is about on the same level a breach of privacy as randomly breaking into peoples houses without a search warrant.

Except the people they stopped were engaging in something that looked suspicious as all hell, especially given the rather shady looks of the part of town they were in. Two guys in a car, one in the back seat, and a woman leaning into the window on an otherwise empty, poorly lit street. Could be they were soliciting a prostitute, could be they were just saying "hello". Eitherway, who knows but it looks suspicious enough to me to justify stopping them and seeing what the hell is going on.

I don't mind the policeman being stressed, and clearly the guy with the CCW fucked up royally. But he shouldn't be making threats to beat people up or shoot them when it would be against the law for him to do those things.

No one's arguing that the the officer is wrong for losing his temper like that and threatening Mr. Bartlett the way he did or that he shouldn't be punished for it. What myself and others are arguing is that Mr. Barlett should have made the fact he was carrying known to the officers the second the officers started talking to him and his passenger/the woman who may-or-may-not-be-a-prostitute-but-admits-to-having-two-arrests-for-it.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't mind the policeman being stressed, and clearly the guy with the CCW fucked up royally. But he shouldn't be making threats to beat people up or shoot them when it would be against the law for him to do those things.

No one's arguing that the the officer is wrong for losing his temper like that and threatening Mr. Bartlett the way he did or that he shouldn't be punished for it. What myself and others are arguing is that Mr. Barlett should have made the fact he was carrying known to the officers the second the officers started talking to him and his passenger/the woman who may-or-may-not-be-a-prostitute-but-admits-to-having-two-arrests-for-it.

Got no problem with that, and it looks like the guy's going to get punished for flipping his shit and making threats, so I have no complaints about the system here.

[Tanasinn]

UPDATE 7/22/2011: Canton Police announced Thursday that the officer was relieved of all duties in June following an internal investigation complaint filed in this matter

Seems like he took on the wrong constitutional right to mess with. It's unfortunate that violating peoples other civil liberties does not as often result in nearly as harsh penalties.

A bit part of it probably has to do with the fact that this officer got recorded threatening to murder or assault citizens and apparently forgot to "accidentally" lose the footage like usually happens when they record themselves in this manner.

Probably the guy that got pulled over took so long to finally choke out his carry notification because he was 1.) nervous at being confronted by a cop, 2.) didn't know the proper procedure, and/or 3.) was afraid the cop would start throwing a fucking temper tantrum (which, what do you know, he did!).

[Mr. Coffee]

Probably the guy that got pulled over took so long to finally choke out his carry notification because he was 1.) nervous at being confronted by a cop, 2.) didn't know the proper procedure, and/or 3.) was afraid the cop would start throwing a fucking temper tantrum (which, what do you know, he did!).

You forgot option 4. he was actually engaged in some sort of illegal activity and was flustered over having been caught, and option 5. he's a fucking idiot that didn't bother to learn and fully understand the laws concerning concealed carry for his start, county, and city (which in turn makes me wonder why this asshole is even carrying a firearm in the first place).

[Tanasinn]

Last time I checked, option 4 didn't justify a police officer threatening to murder someone or beat a bystander, and option 5 is at least partially false by virtue of the fact that he tried and eventually did inform the officer he had a weapon.

[Mr. Coffee]

Last time I checked, option 4 didn't justify a police officer threatening to murder someone or beat a bystander, and option 5 is at least partially false by virtue of the fact that he tried and eventually did inform the officer he had a weapon.

Point out where anyone is saying it does, please.

[Big Phil]

Last time I checked, option 4 didn't justify a police officer threatening to murder someone or beat a bystander, and option 5 is at least partially false by virtue of the fact that he tried and eventually did inform the officer he had a weapon.

DR5 motherfucker. Point out where ANYONE justified the officer's actions.

[Tanasinn]

Last time I checked, option 4 didn't justify a police officer threatening to murder someone or beat a bystander, and option 5 is at least partially false by virtue of the fact that he tried and eventually did inform the officer he had a weapon.

DR5 motherfucker. Point out where ANYONE justified the officer's actions.

Well, while Officer Harless was a little out of line, I can perfectly understand why he got so hot about this.

I agree with Coffee... this guy took nearly 5 minutes to tell the cop he had a concealed carry weapon. He's a fucking idiot, not some innocent guy being picked on by the cops.

Emphasis mine in both cases. Excused might be a better choice of words. "A little" out of line? This guy didn't follow notification procedure, granted, and he did do a shit job of trying, granted, but he obviously did attempt. Doing a shitty job following that regulation doesn't mitigate or excuse the fact that the officer responded by threatening to assault a bystander and fly off the handle about shooting the guy. It doesn't matter what his reason for fucking up notification actually was - nerves, stupidity, soliciting a prostitute, fear of response -that doesn't reduce or mitigate threatening violence in response to a botched notification like the two of you seem to think.

[Uraniun235]

I bet I'd go to jail if I did and said what that officer did.

[Big Phil]

Last time I checked, option 4 didn't justify a police officer threatening to murder someone or beat a bystander, and option 5 is at least partially false by virtue of the fact that he tried and eventually did inform the officer he had a weapon.

DR5 motherfucker. Point out where ANYONE justified the officer's actions.

Well, while Officer Harless was a little out of line, I can perfectly understand why he got so hot about this.

I agree with Coffee... this guy took nearly 5 minutes to tell the cop he had a concealed carry weapon. He's a fucking idiot, not some innocent guy being picked on by the cops.

Emphasis mine in both cases. Excused might be a better choice of words. "A little" out of line? This guy didn't follow notification procedure, granted, and he did do a shit job of trying, granted, but he obviously did attempt. Doing a shitty job following that regulation doesn't mitigate or excuse the fact that the officer responded by threatening to assault a bystander and fly off the handle about shooting the guy. It doesn't matter what his reason for fucking up notification actually was - nerves, stupidity, soliciting a prostitute, fear of response -that doesn't reduce or mitigate threatening violence in response to a botched notification like the two of you seem to think.

Are you flat out lying, or are you being a pain in the ass for some other reason?

Saying something like "the officer didn't do anything wrong" would be justifying or excusing his actions. What Mr Coffee said (and clarified below) can't possibly be mistaken for that, unless you're a liar.

No one's arguing that the the officer is wrong for losing his temper like that and threatening Mr. Bartlett the way he did or that he shouldn't be punished for it. What myself and others are arguing is that Mr. Barlett should have made the fact he was carrying known to the officers the second the officers started talking to him and his passenger/the woman who may-or-may-not-be-a-prostitute-but-admits-to-having-two-arrests-for-it.