Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 10:05:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83383 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  DBMA Martial Arts Forum
| |-+  Martial Arts Topics
| | |-+  Citizen-Police interactions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 Print
Author Topic: Citizen-Police interactions  (Read 60652 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #300 on: June 17, 2013, 11:58:40 AM »



Chicago Police Department

General Order G03-02-06
 


Weapon Discharge Incidents Involving Sworn Members
 








Issue Date:

25 September 2002

Effective Date:

01 October 2002
 


Rescinds:

G02-09
 


Index Category:

Field Operations
 






I.

Purpose
 


This directive outlines Department investigative and reporting procedures in weapon discharge incidents.
 




II.

Scope
 



Under normal circumstances, the provisions of this directive will not apply to:
 



A.

the discharge of a firearm during:
 






1.

Department-sponsored firearms training or practice;
 






2.

firearms practice at a recognized range facility.
 






3.

Department authorized ballistic examination or testing.
 






4.

a licensed hunting activity.
 







B.

the discharge of a Taser in a Department authorized training program.
 






C.

chemical agent use in a Department authorized training program.
 







III.

Firearms Discharge Incident Notifications
 



In addition to other notifications outlined in this directive, for ANY firearms discharge incidents, including unintentional discharges and those involving the destruction of an animal:



A.

the watch commander in the district of occurrence will ensure Operations Command is notified.
 






B.

Operations Command will notify the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) call-out supervisor of any firearms discharge incident notification.
 







IV.

Mandatory Alcohol and Drug Testing
 






A.

Any sworn Department member, involved in a firearms discharge incident, whether on or off duty, is required to submit to the mandatory alcohol and drug testing, in compliance with this directive and any applicable collective bargaining agreement.
 




NOTE:

 
This requirement does not apply to the circumstances delineated in Item II-A of this directive.
 





B.

The IAD call-out supervisor will:
 






1.

contact the On-Call Incident Commander (OCIC) or watch commander, as appropriate, and respond to the designated location to conduct the alcohol and drug testing.
 






2.

complete and submit a "Notice of Alcohol and Drug Testing Following a Firearms Discharge Incident" (CPD-44.252).
 







C.

The IAD call-out supervisor will ensure:
 






1.

the involved member submits to the alcohol breath test and will conduct the test according to Department policy.
 






2.

the alcohol breath test result is provided to the OCIC or watch commander, as appropriate.
 






3.

the involved member submits to the drug test and ensure the urine specimen is:
 






a.

collected in a manner that will preserve the dignity of the involved member and ensure the integrity of the sample.
 






b.

collected in the presence of a supervisor of the same sex as the involved member.







c.

retained by the IAD call-out supervisor who will assume the responsibility for ensuring that the urine specimen is properly secured in accordance with established division-level standard operation procedures, pending processing by a medical laboratory.
 







4.

the alcohol and drug testing occurs as soon as practicable after the firearms discharge incident given the overall demands of the investigation.
 




NOTE:

 
The member with overall command responsibility, (e.g., OCIC or watch commander), will ensure testing is initiated no later than six hours following the firearms discharge incident.
 





5.

that copies of any associated reports, including the testing and results documentation, are forwarded to the Chief Administrator, Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) once the testing is completed.
 







D.

If the involved member refuses to provide a breath test or urine specimen pursuant to this process, it is a violation of the Department Rules and Regulations, (e.g., disobedience of an order or directive whether written or oral), and will result in administrative charges against the member, which may include discipline up to and including separation.
 






E.

No discipline shall occur based solely on the results of the alcohol test when the member's actions are consistent with the Department's Use of Force guidelines and the member discharged their weapon off-duty.
 



Terry G. Hillard
Superintendent of Police
 

00-148 LMT, MWK
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #301 on: June 17, 2013, 12:01:18 PM »



Chicago Police Department

Special Order S03-02-02
 


Other Weapon Discharge Incidents
 








Issue Date:

14 June 2012

Effective Date:

14 June 2012
 


Rescinds:

01 October 2002 Version; G02-09-02
 


Index Category:

Field Operations
 






I.

Purpose
 



This directive outlines Department investigative and reporting procedures in which a member has:
 



A.

discharged a chemical agent.
 






B.

discharged a Taser.
 






C.

discharged a firearm to destroy an animal.
 







II.

Scope
 


Under normal circumstance, the provisions of this directive will not apply to:
 




A.

chemical agent use in a Department authorized training program.
 






B.

the discharge of a Taser in a Department authorized training program.
 







III.

Dishcarge of Chemical Agent
 






A.

A chemical agent includes the personal Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) devices carried by sworn members and Department-owned special weapons which dispense larger volumes of chemical agents.
 






B.

Member Responsibilities
 



When a member discharges a chemical agent, the member will:
 



1.

notify the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), his or her supervisor, and the station supervisor in the district of occurrence.
 






2.

complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR) (CPD-11.377), the appropriate case report, and/or other required reports.
 






3.

submit all reports to his or her supervisor for review and approval.
 







C.

Station Supervisor Responsibilities




The station supervisor of the district of occurrence will:
 



1.

notify the Independent Police Review Authority when a personal OC device has been discharged.
 






2.

investigate the incident and document the investigation in the “Watch Commander / ADS Review” section of the Tactical Response Report. The station supervisor will indicate that the findings of the investigation of the member’s use of force revealed that the conduct conformed to Department policy and guidelines or that further investigation is required. If the station supervisor determines that further investigation is required or that the member’s conduct other than the use of force failed to conform to Department guidelines, the station supervisor will initiate that investigation consistent with the Department directive entitled “Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures.”
 






3.

attach the original of the Tactical Response Report to the case report and forward through normal channels.
 






4.

forward packets containing photocopies of the TRR and appropriate reports, as indicated on the TRR in the box entitled “Distribution.”







5.

receive the discharged personal OC device from the sworn member, provide a replacement device to the member, and notify the individual designated by the district commander that a replacement device has been issued. When needed, additional OC devices may be requested from the Taser Repair Center, located at the Education and Training Division, through normal requisition procedures.
 




NOTE:

 
Station supervisors will ensure that a copy of the TRR is presented to the Taser Repair Center for replacement OC devices.
 






D.

Whenever possible, the ranking officer on the scene of an incident will notify the Chicago Fire Department prior to the anticipated use of a device that dispenses a chemical agent through use of pyrotechnics.







E.

In instances where a member discharges a chemical agent outside the City of Chicago, the member will:
 






1.

notify:
 






a.

the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction;
 






b.

OEMC and the Crime Prevention and Information Center (CPIC).
 







2.

complete a TRR and submit it to a supervisor for review and approval.









IV.

Discharge of a Taser
 






A.

Member Responsibilities
 






1.

A member who is about to discharge a Taser device will, when possible:







a.

inform all other Department members on the scene of the imminent deployment of the device.







b.

give verbal commands to the subject prior to, during, and after deployment of the Taser.
 






c.

for back shots, aim for the subject's back below the neck area; for frontal shots, aim for lower center mass.
 




NOTE:

 
It is recommended that Department members deploy the Taser to the subject's back whenever possible.
 





d.

after deployment of the initial Taser five-second cycle, members will:
 






(1)

give the subject an opportunity to comply with his or her demands.
 






(2)

assess the situation and, if the subject is still not under control, consider the following options:
 






(a)

drive stun,
 




NOTE:

 
A drive stun is utilized when a Taser, with or without a cartridge attached, is held against the subject and energy is applied.
 





(b)

give additional five-second cycles,
 






(c)

reload and redeploy another cartridge, or
 






(d)

use another use of force option.
 




NOTE:

 
It is advisable to minimize the stress to the subject as much as possible. Multiple five-second cycles, cycles continuing longer than five seconds, and discharges by multiple Tasers will increase stress on the subject.
 








2.

A member who deploys or anticipates the deployment of a Taser will request that a supervisor respond to the scene.





NOTE:

 
For all field deployments of a Taser, the station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence will ensure that a supervisor at least one rank higher than the deploying member responds to the scene of the Taser deployment.
 





3.

The member who field-deployed the Taser will:
 






a.

immediately, upon gaining control and restraining the subject:
 






(1)

request that OEMC assign emergency medical personnel when:
 






(a)

the Taser probes were discharged and penetrated a subject's skin.
 






(b)

an electrical current from the Taser was applied to the subject's body.
 






(c)

the subject appears to be in any sort of physical distress.
 







(2)

notify OEMC.
 






(3)

notify their supervisor, the station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence, and CPIC
 






(4)

if emergency medical personnel determine that the subject requires treatment at a medical facility, follow procedures listed in the directive entitled:
 






(a)

"Field Arrest Procedures" for secured transportation and processing of injured arrestees.
 






(b)

"Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics" for non-arrestees.





NOTE:

 
Subjects will be transported to a medical facility via a Chicago Fire Department vehicle.
 







b.

prepare a Tactical Response Report (TRR).









B.

Responding Supervisor Responsibilities




Responding supervisors will:




1.

ensure that the scene of the Taser deployment is protected and processed in accordance with the Department directive entitled "Crime Scene Protection and Processing," as necessary.







a.

If the Taser deployment occurred in a residence, an evidence technician will be requested to process the scene.







b.

If the Taser deployment occurred in an area other than a residence, whether indoors or outdoors, determine if an evidence technician is required.







c.

Request the assignment of an evidence technician to photograph the locations where the probes penetrated the subject's skin and/or any other injuries incurred as a result of the TASER deployment.








2.

inventory all evidence from the scene of the Taser deployment consistent with the Department directive entitled "eTrack System For Property Taken Into Custody." The discharged probes and used cartridge(s) will be inventoried in the following manner:
 






a.

the probes will be detached from the wires and inserted, pointed ends first, back into the cartridge.
 






b.

the cartridge will be wrapped with tape to secure the probes inside the cartridge.
 







3.

take control of the Taser device and deliver it to the station supervisor.
 






4.

request the station supervisor and/or the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander respond to all Taser deployments that result in serious injury or death. When the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander responds to the scene of a Taser deployment, they will be responsible for completing the watch commander / ADS review section of the TRR.
 






5.

if a death has occurred, ensure the Mobile Crime Lab and Bureau of Detectives personnel are requested.
 






6.

review the deploying member's TRR and sign it to indicate that the TRR has been completed properly.
 







C.

Station Supervisor's Responsibilities
 






1.

The station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence will ensure that IPRA is notified and a log number is obtained. During the hours when IPRA is not available, CPIC will be notified to obtain a log number.
 






2.

The station supervisor will download the deployment data consistent with the equipment and software procedures and print a copy of the deployment information. In districts which do not have the necessary equipment to perform the download of deployment data, the station supervisor will follow the alternate procedures outlined in Item III-C-4 of this directive.
 






a.

When printing a Taser deployment data sheet, only the date range containing the actual deployment information need be printed. If the station supervisor does not manually select the specific date range, all 2000 lines of possible deployment data will be printed.
 






b.

The data sheet will be reviewed for time discrepancies. A full download of the device is required if a 254 or a 257 discharge is indicated or the clock is off by several hours, days, months, or years. For additional information, refer to the Department's eLearning website and search keywords "X26 Taser Download."
 







3.

The station supervisor will prepare the "Watch Commander/ADS Review" section of the TRR for those cases which do not require the presence of an area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander consistent with the directive entitled "Incidents Requiring the Completion of a Tactical Response Report," and ensure that:
 






a.

the Taser deployment data sheet and a copy of the TRR are attached to a copy of the original case report and forwarded to IPRA.







b.

the expended cartridge is replaced from the district/unit supply. When needed, additional cartridges may be requested from the Taser Repair Center, located at the Education and Training Division, through normal requisition procedures.
 




NOTE:

 
Station supervisors will ensure that a copy of the TRR is presented to the Taser Repair Center for replacement cartridges.
 






4.

If the station supervisor in the district of a Taser deployment is unable to download the Taser deployment data (required equipment is inoperable or not installed), the station supervisor will:







a.

designate a Department member, preferably a supervisor, to report to an adjacent district or CPIC with the involved Taser device for the purpose of downloading and printing the Taser deployment data sheet. The designated Department member will:







(1)

transport the involved Taser device as directed and ensure that the device is not tampered with during transport.
 






(2)

turn over the Taser device to the appropriate personnel and await the return of the device once the appropriate personnel download the Taser deployment data.
 






(3)

upon return of the Taser device and receipt of the deployment data, immediately transport the Taser device and data sheet to the investigating station supervisor.
 




NOTE:

 
If alternate locations are unable to download the Taser deployment data, the station supervisor investigating the incident will ensure that 2nd watch personnel hand-carry the Taser device to the Taser Repair Center.







b.

not approve the involved member's TRR until the Taser device deployment data sheet has been received and reviewed.







c.

ensure a copy of the Taser deployment data sheet is included in the TRR packet and forwarded as indicated in box 79 of the TRR entitled "Distribution."









D.

CPIC Responsibilities
 



Upon receiving a Taser device, the assigned CPIC personnel will:
 



1.

take control of the Taser device.
 






2.

download the Taser deployment data consistent with the established equipment and software procedures.
 






3.

print out the Taser device data sheet and distribute the original and copies of the data sheet as follows:
 






a.

the original data sheet to the member designated by the station supervisor to transport the device to CPIC.
 






b.

one copy of the data sheet will be retained at CPIC.







c.

one copy of the data sheet will be sent by facsimile message to the investigating station supervisor.









E.

Area Deputy Chief / On-Call Incident Commander Responsibilities
 



In all cases in which a subject has been seriously injured or a death has occurred in conjunction with a Taser deployment, the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander will:
 



1.

proceed to the scene, assume command of the scene, and ensure that a complete and thorough investigation is conducted of the incident.
 






2.

ensure that all tasks delineated for subordinate personnel are performed.
 






3.

personally conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident and make a preliminary determination as to whether the conduct of the member conformed to Department guidelines.







4.

prepare the "Watch Commanders / ADS Review" section of the TRR and return the completed TRR to the station supervisor conducting the investigation.







5.

determine if a Round Table Panel Session will aid in the investigation.









V.

Discharge of a Firearm to Destroy an Animal
 






A.

Member Responsibilities
 



When a member discharges a firearm to destroy an animal, the member will:
 



1.

notify OEMC, his or her supervisor, and the station supervisor in the district of occurrence.
 






2.

complete a TRR and a Miscellaneous Incident Exception Report (CPD-11.419), Animal Bite Information report, or other appropriate report.
 






3.

submit all reports to their supervisor for review and approval.
 






4.

comply with all applicable provisions of the Department directive entitled "Incidents Involving Animals."
 







B.

The OEMC will assign a supervisor from the district of occurrence to the scene of the incident and notify CPIC.
 






C.

The assigned supervisor will:
 






1.

determine if there is any related personal injury or property damage other than the destruction of the animal and, if necessary, ensure that the required report is completed.
 






2.

review the TRR and sign it to indicate approval.
 







D.

The station supervisor in the district of occurrence:
 






1.

will complete the "Watch Commander/ADS Review" section of the TRR as indicated in the Department directive entitled "Use of Force Guidelines."
 






2.

may waive firearm inventory and ballistic examination and may authorize the member to retain his or her firearm in instances in which there is no likelihood of death or injury to a person or identifiable property damage other than the destruction of the animal.
 




Authenticated by: JKH
 
Garry F. McCarthy
Superintendent of Police
 

10-072 JAB
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #302 on: June 17, 2013, 12:10:39 PM »

March 12, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A pit bull was shot and killed after attacking a pregnant woman and her boyfriend.

A Chicago police officer opened fire on the pit bull after it attacked the couple on the city's South Side.

It happened Wednesday night near 59th and Racine. Witnesses say the dog attacked the pregnant woman and her boyfriend as they were leaving a home.

A police officer arrived on the scene moments after the attack. He shot and killed the dog after the victims managed to break free and get to safety.
 
""They shot the dog once and he kept trying to attack the officer. So they opened fire again, nine, 10 more times. It took that many shots to put that dog down," said witness Marlo Weathers.

Police are trying to find the owner of the pit bull.

The female victim is hospitalized in fair condition. The man was treated for a bite to his leg.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #303 on: June 18, 2013, 07:55:52 AM »



http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9141909
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #304 on: June 19, 2013, 09:14:19 AM »



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130619&_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #305 on: June 23, 2013, 11:58:03 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/22/new-black-panther-leader-with-kill-whitey-face-tattoo-busted-on-gun-charge/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #306 on: July 01, 2013, 07:50:31 PM »

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php

Pit bull FAQ :: Download PDF file

Learn the names of the different dog breeds that comprise a "pit bull," the selective breeding history of the pit bull (dogfighting) and answers to other frequently asked questions.



American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog.


Q: What is a pit bull?

The legal definition of a pit bull is a class of dogs that includes the following breeds: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog1 and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs. Weight and shape can vary significantly amongst pit bulls, from 35 to 100 plus pounds. (Please see Disguise Breed Name to learn more about the deliberate renaming and mislabeling of pit bulls through history.)

Q: What is the history of the pit bull?

The blood sport of "bull baiting" began over 1,000 years ago in England (various sources dispute this date). What is undisputed is that by 1500, bull baiting had progressed to Britain's national pastime. Bulldogs were reportedly first mentioned by name in 1631, referring to their function rather than a distinct dog breed. By 1800, and through further selective breeding, the bulldog developed into a compact muscular dog characterized by tremendous jaw strength.2

Due to public outrage, bull baiting was banned in England in 1835. Bulldog breeders and owners then moved to the sport of "ratting," where a number of rats were placed into a pit and wagers were made on how many rats the dog could kill in a certain time period. To increase agility, quickness and prey-drive in the bulldog, ratters crossed the breed with terriers. Essentially, it was the sport of ratting that combined the bulldog and terrier into the modern day pit bull terrier.

On the heels of ratting, dogfighting developed. Pit bulls and dogfighting were exported to America as settlers made their way to the New World. In 1884, the American Kennel Club was formed but rejected pit bulls due to their use in dogfighting. In response, Chauncey Z. Bennett formed the United Kennel Club in 1898 to bring formal recognition to the pit bull breed. At that time, Bennett also drew up rules and regulations for dogfighting to bring "organization" to the blood sport.3

Q: What is dogfighting and what does it have to do with pit bulls?

Pit bulls are the dog of choice amongst dogmen, individuals who fight their pit bulls against other pit bulls. Dogmen consider pit bull terriers, who they commonly call "100% bulldogs," to be the ultimate canine gladiator. Pit bulls were selectively bred for "gameness," the ability to finish a fight. A truly gamedog will continue fighting "on stumps," two or more broken legs, and far worse.4 (Please see excerpts from The Complete Gamedog, by Ed and Chris Faron to learn more).

The blood sport of dogfighting involves a contest between two dogs, primarily pit bulls, fighting each other in front of spectators for entertainment and gambling purposes. Other felonious activities, such as illegal drugs, often accompany dogfight matches. A single dogfight averages about an hour in length but can last two or more.5 A dogfight begins when a referee says, "Face your dogs," then says, "Let go." The fight ends when one of the dogs will not or cannot continue.

The arrest and conviction of Michael Vick shows that dogfighting still proliferates in the U.S. Law enforcement education, however, is on the rise. In July 2009, authorities unleashed an 8-state simultaneous dogfighting sting and seized over 450 dogs.6 In December 2008, Edward Faron of Wildside Kennels, known as the "godfather" of dogfighting, was arrested and charged. Authorities seized 127 pit bulls from his property. Faron pleaded guilty to 14 counts of felony dogfighting.7

Q: Why do I always read about pit bulls in the news?

When a pit bull attacks, the injury inflicted may be catastrophic. First responders, such as police officers and firefighters, understand this as do members of the media, who are quick to report these attacks. Ongoing social tension also keeps pit bulls in the news. The pit bull problem is nearly 30-years old.8 In this time, most lawmakers have been "too afraid" to take breed-specific action to correct the problem. Due to this failure, horrific maulings continue to make headlines.

About half of all media reports regarding pit bulls involve police officers shooting dangerous pit bulls in the line of duty.9 Since the late 1970's pit bulls have been used extensively in criminal operations for drug dealers, gang members and other violent offenders. The pit bull terrier is the breed of choice for criminals. This choice is directly linked to the pit bull's selectively bred traits of robust jaw strength, a deadly bite style, tenacity (gameness) and a high tolerance to pain.10


Q: Why do people say that pit bulls "don't let go?"

Through selective breeding, pit bulls have developed enormous jaw strength, as well as a ruinous "hold and shake" bite style, designed to inflict the maximum damage possible on their victims. This bite trait delivered winning results in the fighting pit. When the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Denver pit bull ban in 2005, the high court set aside characteristics that pit bulls displayed when they attack that differ from all other dog breeds. One of these characteristics was their lethal bite:

"[pit bulls] inflict more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks."11
 Leading pit bull education websites, such as Pit Bull Rescue Central, encourage pit bull owners to be responsible and to always carry a "break stick" -- a tool used to pry open a pit bull's jaws -- in case their dog "accidentally" gets into a fight. These same websites also warn that using a break stick on any other dog breed may cause serious injury to the person.12 This is true because no other dog breed possesses the pit bull's tenacity combined with a "hold and shake" bite style.

One of the most powerful examples of a pit bull "not letting go" occurred in an Ohio courtroom. During the Toledo v. Tellings trial (Tellings was convicted of violating the City of Toledo's pit bull ordinance), Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon showed a videotape of a tranquilized pit bull hanging from a steel cable. The dog is essentially unconscious and still does not release its grip. At the time of the taping, the pit bull was being housed at the Lucas County Animal Shelter.13

Q: Do pit bulls bite more than other dogs?

Depending upon the community in which you live and the ratio of pit bulls within it, yes and no. But whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injury. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.

When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties.14

Q: How come pit bull owners say, "My dog might lick you to death."

To understand the experience of owning a negatively perceived dog, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy did a study on pit bull owners. Researchers found that owners of out-law dog breeds directly feel the stigma targeted at their breed and resort to various tactics to lessen it. One of the tactics included attempts to counterbalance the pit bull's menacing appearance and physical power with overwhelming "affectionate" behavior, such as: "My dog might lick you to death."15

Q: Why does my friend say, "Pit bulls are dog-aggressive not human-aggressive?"

Due to selective breeding for the purposes of dogfighting, pit bulls are highly dog-aggressive. This aggression is not limited to dogs; pit bulls frequently kill other companion pets and domesticated animals. Leading pit bull education websites warn pit bull owners to, "Never trust your pit bull not to fight." These same websites also state that pit bulls should never be left alone with another dog or animal.16 The practical question is: Why is "pit bull dog aggression" tolerated at all?

Pit bull dog aggression is unacceptable for two reasons. In many instances it leads to human aggression. A common scenario is the following: A loose pit bull attacks a leashed dog being walked by its owner. The owner gets seriously injured trying to stop the attack. In 2009, two human beings suffered death due to pit bull dog aggression: Rosie Humphreys, who had been walking her two poodles, and Carter Delaney, who had tried to protect a smaller dog in his home.

Secondly, far too many beloved companion pets and domesticated animals suffer a violent death by the powerful jaws of pit bull terriers each year. In some instances, these attacks involve pit bulls charging through screen doors of private homes -- in a home invasion attack -- to kill the pet living inside.17 Owners of the pet are then forced to watch as their pet is disemboweled by the pit bull and pray that the dog does not turn its attention on an innocent family member next.

Q: What is the best thing we can do for communities and pit bulls?

The best thing we can do for communities and pit bulls is to regulate pit bull ownership and pit bull breeding. Lowering the pit bull population will reduce the number of serious maulings, as well as pit bull euthanizations. In the July/August 2009 issue of Animal People, the group estimated that of the 1,663,167 shelter dogs projected to be euthanized in 2009, pit bulls accounted for 58%. This is true despite the fact that pit bulls only make up 5% of the total U.S. dog population.18

Over 600 U.S. cities and nearly all privatized military housing -- the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps now have uniform pet policies -- have adopted breed-specific laws to correct the pit bull problem. Such measures include: mandatory sterilization, liability insurance and strict containment rules. The most progressive legislation bans the future breeding of pit bulls (a pit bull ban). In just a few years, these communities see a significant drop in pit bull bites and euthanizations.

Learn how communities are legislating dogs »

1.Progressive pit bull legislation includes the American bulldog in its definition of a pit bull.
2.The History of Bull Baiting, by Amy Fernandez, DogChannel.com.
3.American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook, by Joe Stahlkuppe, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 2000.
4.The Complete Gamedog: A Guide to Breeding & Raising the American pit bull terrier, by Ed and Chris Faron, Walsworth Pub. Co., 1995.
5.Dogfighting Fact Sheet, The Humane Society of the United States.
6.Eight-State Dogfighting Raid Largest in U.S. History, by Wayne Pacelle, The Humane Society of the United States, July 9, 2009.
7.Dog-fighting 'godfather' given prison, by Monte Mitchell, Winston-Salem Journal, February 13, 2009.
8.Pit Bulls -- Family Pets and Fierce Fighters, by Tom Greely, Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1982.
9.Combined data from: Mid Year Results: U.S. Pit Bull Attacks 2009 and Mid Year Results: U.S. Police and Citizen Shootings of Pit Bulls 2009, by DogsBite.org, August 2009.
10.One City's Experience, by Kory A. Nelson, Senior City Attorney for the City of Denver, Municipal Lawyer, July/August 2005.
11.Pit Bull Case Report and Literature Review, by Steven F. Vegas, MD, Jason H. Calhoun, MD, M. Eng., John Mader, MD, Texas Medicine Vol. 84, November 1988.
12.Breaking Up a Fight, Pit Bull Rescue Central.
13.Information provided by the Lucas County, Ohio Dog Warden.
14.Pit Bulls Lead "Bite" Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties, by DogsBite.org (continuously updated).
15.Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners, by Hillary Twining, Arnold Arluke, Gary Patronek, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies, Vol. 8 Number 1, 2000.
16.10 Easy to Remember Tips for Responsible Pit Bull Owners, PitBullLovers.com.
17.Pit bull put down after attack, by Kieran Nicholson, The Denver Post, March 3, 2009.
18.Decade of Adoption Focus Fails to Reduce Shelter Killing, by Merritt Clifton, Animal People, July/August 2009.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #307 on: July 02, 2013, 08:10:23 AM »

GM: 

Please put this in the canine thread instead.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #308 on: July 15, 2013, 05:39:16 PM »

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22799464/police-release-reports-connected-to-3rd-amendment-lawsuit
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #309 on: July 15, 2013, 05:50:28 PM »


Seeing the actual reports should be useful. The news story, not so much.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #310 on: July 15, 2013, 06:04:38 PM »

Agreed, but as part of following this case I thought it useful to know that the police reports have been released.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #311 on: July 21, 2013, 10:27:20 AM »

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130718/COLUMNIST/130719612/2256
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #312 on: July 21, 2013, 10:44:54 AM »


The correct spelling for the law enforcement title is "Marshal".
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #313 on: July 21, 2013, 02:25:47 PM »

 embarassed embarassed embarassed grin
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #314 on: July 26, 2013, 03:51:23 PM »

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/zero_for_hero_5Aw3bMHF7vSPG7f27c0jOO
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #315 on: August 12, 2013, 03:13:29 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #316 on: August 19, 2013, 12:46:35 PM »


I think cameras are a good thing. The biggest technological drawback in the cord on the Axon camera system.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #317 on: September 03, 2013, 11:50:06 AM »

http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/30/watched-cops-are-polite-cops

Watched Cops Are Polite Cops

How requiring police to wear video cameras will protect your constitutional rights.

Ronald Bailey | August 30, 2013



Who will watch the watchers? What if all watchers were required to wear a video camera that would record their every interaction with citizens? In her ruling in a recent civil suit challenging the New York City police department’s notorious stop-and-frisk rousting of residents, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Federal District Court in Manhattan imposed an experiment in which the police in the city’s precincts with the highest reported rates of stop-and-frisk activity would be required to wear video cameras for one year.



This is a really good idea. Earlier this year, a 12-month study by Cambridge University researchers revealed that when the city of Rialto, California, required its cops to wear cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and the use of force by officers dropped by almost 60 percent. Watched cops are polite cops.
 
Jay Stanley, a policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calls police-worn video cameras “a win/win for both the public and the police.” Win/win because video recordings help shield officers from false accusations of abuse as well as protecting the public against police misconduct. The small cameras like the AXON Flex from Taser International attach to an officer’s sunglasses, hat, or uniform.
 
In order to make sure that both the public and police realize the greatest benefits from body-worn video cameras, a number of policies need to be implemented. For example, police officers must be subject to stiff disciplinary sanctions if they fail to turn their cameras on each time they interact with the public. In addition, items obtained during an unrecorded encounter would be deemed a violation of the subject’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and excluded as evidence, unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as a broken camera. Similarly, failure to record an incident for which a patrolman is accused of misconduct should create a presumption against that officer.
 
Officer-worn video cameras do have the potential to violate the privacy of citizens. After all, the police frequently are dealing with people when they are having one of the worst days of their lives. For instance, police often enter people’s houses to investigate incidents. In such cases, video of someone’s literal or metaphorical dirty laundry is nobody else’s business. Consequently, Stanley argues that strong rules regarding the retention, use, and disclosure of videos from police-worn cameras must be established and enforced. For example, videos should be retained for no more than 30 to 60 days, unless flagged. Of course, if the video contains evidence of a crime it should be retained just as any other evidence would be. Flagging would also occur for any incident involving force or a citizen complaint. With the appropriate strong privacy protections in place, very little of police-recorded video would ever be retained or viewed.
 
Officers should also be required to notify people that they are being recorded. Some preliminary evidence suggests that both police and citizens behave better when they know that they are being recorded. Additionally, the police should not have discretion to release any video to the public. For example, police would be barred from “leaking” videos like that of the drunken actress Reese Witherspoon being arrested in Atlanta for disorderly conduct after a traffic stop. (For what it is worth, the Atlanta police department denies releasing the Witherspoon scene.) Anyone who is recorded, on the other hand, should have access to the video and they should be allowed to consent to public release. Subjects who are incidentally recorded should be blacked out or blurred if the video is released. (The ACLU’s Stanley notes that video used as evidence in a public trial would likely be made available to the public.)
 
Besides those privacy concerns, what possible objections could there be to requiring every officer to wear a camera? Some contend that since practically every citizen can now record police activity using their cellphones, police-worn cameras will be unnecessary. But some states have made it illegal to record people in public without their consent, and the police are often adamant about enforcing that prohibition when the camera is turned on them. Even when the law does permit recording without consent, the police have, in some cases, confiscated a citizen’s cellphone and allegedly erased inculpating video.
 
In addition, citizen recordings will often be incomplete or misleading. People typically start recording only after an encounter turns aggressive, so the context of what is happening is lost.
 
Won’t police officers resist wearing video cameras? Initially perhaps, but most patrol officers are now becoming comfortable with dashboard cameras in their cruisers. A 2004 study for the International Association of the Chiefs of Police found that in cases where police misconduct was alleged, in-car video evidence exonerated officers 93 percent of the time. The same report further noted that dashboard cameras enhanced officer safety, improved agency accountability, reduced agency liability, simplified incident review, enhanced new recruit training, improved community perceptions, helped advance case resolution, and enhanced officer performance and professionalism. In fact, the Atlanta police officer in the Witherspoon dashcam video does come off as quite professional. Body-worn cameras will clearly augment all of those objectives.
 
The upshot of obliging police to wear video cameras is that it turns the tables on functionaries of the surveillance state. It gives citizens better protection against police misconduct and against violations of their constitutional rights. And it protects good cops against unfair accusations, too. Requiring police to wear video cameras should be universally adopted sooner rather than later.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #318 on: September 11, 2013, 08:58:26 AM »

Aimed at the police adverse audience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I&noredirect=1
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 11:25:59 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #319 on: September 18, 2013, 10:53:08 AM »

Well, to be precise, the accusers probably aren't citizens and probably the great majority of the accusations are BS, but still it seems logical that there should be a proper process , , ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/call-for-better-tracking-of-cases-of-excessive-force-at-borders.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130918&_r=0
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #320 on: September 18, 2013, 07:57:35 PM »

Well, to be precise, the accusers probably aren't citizens and probably the great majority of the accusations are BS, but still it seems logical that there should be a proper process , , ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/call-for-better-tracking-of-cases-of-excessive-force-at-borders.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130918&_r=0

The border is muy Peligro. If Mexicans are concerned, stay away.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #321 on: September 18, 2013, 08:05:16 PM »

Coincidentally enough, I will be at BP's Advanced Training Center this coming week working with the folks there for the third time.  As you can imagine, lunch time stories can be quite exciting.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #322 on: September 18, 2013, 08:18:25 PM »

I can only imagine. Training with BORTAC ?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #323 on: September 19, 2013, 11:26:55 AM »

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/09/ohio-cop-caught-on-camera-terrorizing-family-in-bizarre-video-2448908.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #324 on: October 27, 2013, 11:38:37 PM »

This is a difficult subject.  In our search for Truth, we consider more than one point of view:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/10/who-will-protect-you-from-the-police-the-rise-of-government-sanctioned-home-invasions/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #325 on: October 28, 2013, 03:39:41 AM »

This is a difficult subject.  In our search for Truth, we consider more than one point of view:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/10/who-will-protect-you-from-the-police-the-rise-of-government-sanctioned-home-invasions/

Was there a time in American history where search warrants were not served?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #326 on: October 28, 2013, 10:25:14 PM »

Well, there was a time when no-knock raids in the middle of the night were quite a bit less common.  There was a time when we were not the nation with the largest % of its population in jail on the planet.  There was a time when our laws were more or less knowable, and more or less in line with the American Creed.



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #327 on: October 28, 2013, 10:28:42 PM »

 Were any for obscure,unknowable laws?
Well, there was a time when no-knock raids in the middle of the night were quite a bit less common.  There was a time when we were not the nation with the largest % of its population in jail on the planet.  There was a time when our laws were more or less knowable, and more or less in line with the American Creed.





Were any of the raids mentioned in the article no knock raids?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #328 on: October 29, 2013, 08:35:06 AM »

I was responding to this:  "Was there a time in American history where search warrants were not served?"

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #329 on: November 05, 2013, 04:59:10 PM »


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/what-began-as-a-mans-simple-traffic-stop-ended-in-an-unfathomable-12-hour-ordeal-that-is-almost-too-horrific-to-believe/

As was commented elsewhere "They took his Fourth Amendment rights and rectum."
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 09:39:17 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
jcordova
Power User
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #330 on: November 06, 2013, 07:33:33 AM »


Big time violation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #331 on: November 07, 2013, 11:52:39 PM »

http://nevergetbusted.com/hot-news/man-clenches-butt-cheeks-traffic-stop-police-force-defecation-stomach-surgery/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #332 on: November 17, 2013, 11:18:36 PM »

Are Cameras the New Guns?

Are Cameras the New Guns?Expand

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #333 on: November 18, 2013, 05:06:35 AM »

May I ask how old this article is? I find it surprising in light of http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story. That said, there may be follow up issues in Illinois I am not aware of.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #334 on: November 18, 2013, 05:21:10 AM »

Hmmm , , , I am not remembering where I got this.  Usually I am pretty good about citing sources, but it looks like I have come up short this time  embarassed 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #335 on: November 19, 2013, 08:24:08 PM »

http://www.upworthy.com/meet-the-17-year-old-who-blew-the-lid-off-racial-profiling-with-his-ipod

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #336 on: November 20, 2013, 05:55:45 PM »


Phone cameras are changing the landscape:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/19/school-is-out-my-kids-are-to-be-given-to-me-dad-arrested-after-objecting-when-school-says-he-must-wait-to-take-his-children-home/#
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 05:58:51 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #337 on: November 27, 2013, 05:01:47 AM »

http://thewiseguydiaries.com/2013/05/10/next-time-you-think-i-dont-like-copsmore-3139/

From the article:

You know, I think I have said the same thing only because one or two cops, in my entire life, have caused me grief whether it was a ticket, ( I obviously did not deserve ), or some smart ass reply directed my way when I interfered with their presumably mundane day.  Shame on me for being so presumptuous.

Pretty petty now as I see it.  Pretty petty of me.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #338 on: December 04, 2013, 05:37:46 PM »

http://www.altemagazinegr.com/kmea/a72/18c.htm
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #339 on: December 05, 2013, 08:07:51 PM »

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/cops-if-we-have-to-get-a-warrantwere-gon
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #340 on: December 19, 2013, 12:04:15 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiYpsQhZsI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWKiYpsQhZsI&app=desktop

I consider myself better informed than average, but I have no idea where the lines are drawn in the question presented by this video.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 12:19:55 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #341 on: December 27, 2013, 07:29:40 PM »

Awaiting GM's witticisms on this  cheesy

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/12/alleged_masturbating_man_in_sa.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #342 on: December 28, 2013, 08:43:46 AM »


Well, the article did say he was a man from Beaverton.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #343 on: December 28, 2013, 02:13:05 PM »

I'm surprised it's illegal in Oregon.

Sometimes people think more clearly on drugs.  Like a drunk peeing off the sidewalk instead of wasting time looking for a restroom, this meth induced suspect allegedly only did what felt right to him at the time, "exposed his genitals and started masturbating at the bar".  On behalf of all the anything-goes liberals and libertarians, should we all be a little more tolerant?

Or as conservatives can we once and for all admit there are limits on behavior; we will have a few laws and enforce them. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #344 on: January 02, 2014, 03:05:53 PM »



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57025997-78/force-lake-salt-police.html.csp
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #345 on: January 03, 2014, 08:22:05 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/02/here-are-all-the-rights-you-have-when-interacting-with-a-police-officer/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #346 on: January 07, 2014, 10:11:43 AM »

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/police-militarization-claims-texas-swat-deputys-life/#more-285411
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #347 on: January 16, 2014, 03:52:09 PM »

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/nypd-seized-innocent-mans-cash-used-pad-pensions/#axzz2qbIz4J5q
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #348 on: February 06, 2014, 12:39:59 PM »

http://bearingarms.com/florida-deputy-stops-attempted-spree-killing-in-car-dealership-in-less-than-60-seconds/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #349 on: February 06, 2014, 09:48:45 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/05/troubling-new-details-about-the-violent-police-raid-in-iowa/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!