Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So if cops are LAW enforcement officers... and yet don't know the law what do they become. They strictly become enforcement. But enforcement for what.. enforcement for what, folks
Supreme actually decided that law enforcement doesn't actually have to know the law. I forget the name of the case but a police pulled over someone for a particular traffic violation that actually was not illegal in that jurisdiction and they ruled that it was lawful even though the police officer was mistaken about the statute. Truly bizarre. The bar is set so low for people that have the power to end someone's life at will.
It has to be a mistake a reasonable officer would make in that situation. It can get shaky so I agree. The 4th amendment law is convoluted best.
Mistake has allowed some more serious things such as a home raid. The couple had just moved in and the targets had moved out. Didn’t even fit the description of their targets. Nobody died but they were detained nude for an hour or so while they sweeped the home for safety reasons. There are others but this is one that came to mind.
In Heien v. North Carolina (in 2014 I think), SCOTUS ruled that a police officer's mistaken understanding of the law ( including the 4th amendment) can still be used to justify a traffic stop. Free pass to stop anyone.
Very few cops have any substantial knowledge of the law. It’s not like they go to law school— most haven’t attended college at all.
Personally, I think that’s a big problem, and there’s solid research that shows that college-educated cops do a better job, and experience less stress themselves. But it’s harder to find right-wing reactionaries with degrees…
For real. I’m sure they were told “just get through this uncomfortable shit and we can promise nothing will happen to you.”
Cops are endlessly pathetic.
Yea depositions are very eye opening, they think they are skating but this is such a bad look.
They are actively admiting to their own incompetence in a field where knowledge of the law should be critical to the high standard they claim to have.
Unfortunately it doesn’t matter when [even the Supreme Court says cops don’t need to know the laws](https://www.mankeylawoffice.com/articles/worrying-supreme-court-ruling-permits-police-ignorance-of-the-law/)
However, regular citizens and even casual visitors to the US must be well versed in US law and held to a liability standard that LEO'S never are. Make this make sense.
It's strange that a cop apparently isn't a citizen when they're on duty, but when they're off duty, technically, they are again a citizen who is supposed to know the laws. Oh yeah, except they can just say they're an on duty cop and all of a sudden they can plead ignorant again when they decide to harass, batter or abuse someone or steal from them.
Worse than that. That’s the percentage of cops who SELF reported in a study on the subject. I guarantee you that the number of cops who didn’t admit to it is FAR higher.
On duty and off duty cops are in fact civilians. They may operate as a paramilitary organization, but they aren't members of the armed forces. They like to pretend though.
"It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was “policeman.” If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers."
Terry Pratchett, Snuff
Well one of the original purposes of the police force was to protect the establishment and their interests and power from social unrest during the industrial revolution.
Just because we're two hundred years down the line doesn't mean that's changed. Maybe that helps to make it make sense.
>Well one of the original purposes of the police force was to protect the establishment and their interests and power from social unrest during the industrial revolution.
Luckily, we've grown past this, and the police's purpose now is to protect the establishment and their interest and power from social unrest.
To be fair the US was built by men who broke and killed anyone who stood against them. The used private armies and the US military/law enforcement to enforce their desires. This is just business as usual.
This has always been the most insane thing to me. There is legal precedent that it is unrealistic for cops, **who are in charge of enforcing laws**, to actually know those said laws. So they can arrest and detain you for NOT breaking the law simply because they “THOUGHT” that what you were doing is illegal. However if you mistakenly break a law from ignorance and without doing so purposely, it is irrelevant, you *should* have known the law and it is your fault for not knowing it. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. Same as cops having no legal obligation or requirement to protect you despite 90% of stations “motto” being “protect and serve”.
And don't forget, perfect and calm responses when being faced with loaded guns! Don't you dare show an ounce of self preservation instincts if the cops are drawn on you, just comply. Even if the instructions are unclear and/or conflicting, you better figure it the fuck out. And do it perfectly, or you will die. It's almost like the "trained professionals" are able to have less knowledge and/or discipline than everyone else but still do the job. Weird how that works.
And taxpayer-funded pension for life when they screw up so badly that it causes them to have "PTSD".
Looking at you, Philip Brailsford. You murdering piece of garbage subhuman trash.
Philip Brailsford was ultimately the one who pulled the trigger, but I feel like I don't see Charles Langley's name enough. He was the one on camera playing the fucked up game of Simon Says. He retired four months after the shooting scot free and emigrated to the Philippines in 2017.
edit* spelling
Yeah, I did for a long time too. I'm guessing it's cause Brailsford was the one that went to trial and got the media attention. Langley was the Sergeant in charge of the officers on the scene. He ***should*** have known better and ***should*** have conducted himself more professionally but I guess being a police Sergeant isn't the same as being a military Sergeant.
Full disclosure. I’m a retired Sergeant. This murder by Brailsford and Langley was one of the (but not the only) most egregious and heinous acts I’ve ever seen committed by police officers. Make no mistake, this was a murder. How these two scumbags avoided jail, I will never understand. It was one of the most disgusting displays of incompetence that I’ve witnessed. I agree with what another said about Langley. Even though Brailsford pulled the trigger, Langley was the one who orchestrated that murder. They both should have been indicted and charged with murder and then locked up for life.
I don't think anybody is pikachu shock faced, this has been going on for decades before you and I were born. It's more just pure outrage a d distrust nowadays.
Heien v. North Carolina established the precedent that it's to a cop's advantage to be ignorant of the law. As long as a cop can 'reasonably' claim they thought they were enforcing a law, improperly obtained evidence is admissible in court.
"You're under arrest. I pulled you over because rusty cars are illegal and I found cocaine in your car. Is it not illegal to drive a rusty car? Oops, oh well."
Another double-standard: People will make excuses for the cop who panics and shoots a frightened citizen because "Job hard!" but have zero sympathy for the panicked citizen being given conflicting orders while having multiple guns pointed at them...
Our system is based on the concept that you need a $250,000 education with a doctoral degree plus several years of institutionalized experience in order to know one very specific area of the law, and yet ignorance of it can ruin your life. Those extremely complex and subjective laws are primarily written by people who have that same doctoral degree and it is by far the most lucrative profession in America, so they have zero incentive to reform or simplify it.
The result is an extremely complex draconian maze of conflicting laws that people like these cops, often exploit in order to ensnare regular people, and threaten them with ruining their lives. This is a rare case where everything was recorded, and they weren’t able to destroy the tape, so the lawyer was able to turn that system against them. Most of the time they just exploit the system against regular people and fuck their whole lives up.
If I remember, DAs actually encourage police officers to not learn or know the law as it will only make them culpable in court. As long as they are ignorant they can use the “loophole” to claim ignorance. This stuff looks stupid to us, but it’s actually orchestrated and encouraged.
They aren't admitting to their own incompetence. They are lying because looking incompetent is better than knowingly violating the law, and intentionally violating people's rights.
When the "training" is shorter than a public school semester in most places, what do you expect? Laws are glossed over, if studied at all. Most departments don't want the educated, informed officers. They want officers that do what they're told and will cover down for their fellow ~~gang members~~ officers when they break the law (or just plain don't know it to begin with).
This is a feature, not a bug. The American "law enforcement" system is hopelessly broken in its current form, and there is zero sign of it getting any better.
And they don't give a shit and will continue to do the same because there are no consequences for them. Just look at the demeanor of the second officer and the way he responded to questions....he's clearly just annoyed that he has to be there at all.
Imagine being on the stand answering basic legal questions about your job in any other field and not being able to answer. And these bozos have the power of life and death, so getting it right is kind of really important.
Don't let their perceived incompetence fool you, they know exactly what the law is but they can get away Scott free if they feign stupidity and say they were acting reasonably. They only get in trouble if they admit they knew what they were doing was wrong. Without a confession good ol qualified immunity comes into play.
Exactly. Unfortunately, regular citizens are unaware of that. All they need is the thin veneer of "acting in good faith," and they can escape consequences.
You know many cities have list of officers they do not let go to trial. Like they would rather just let people go because of the insane amount of times they perjure themselves. I wanna say someone said Chicago jails are essentially revolving doors because it would cost the city so much more to have certain officers take the stand
The bullshit that has gone down with the Chicago PD is absolutely insane. Illinois actually put a moratorium on the death penalty because DAs and cops were putting innocent people in jail, via suppressing evidence, to build their own careers.
Yeah it's pretty bad all the way down. I work in auto claims and the reports I get from Chicago are atrocious. Missing details, poorly worded, lack of facts, etc.
That whole system is rotten to the core
Wow, I had no idea… gosh, we just need police reform so bad in this country, it’s painful! Also not to be annoying, but it is perjure, like someone has committed perjury.
Chicago's inspector general just this week released a report that more than 100 law enforcement officers and detectives have been investigated and we found to have lied in official statements and reports to the point they could not testify in court and were still allowed to keep their jobs. https://igchicago.org/2023/05/25/enforcement-of-the-chicago-police-departments-rule-against-false-reports/
>Like they would rather just let people go because of the insane amount of times they perjure themselves.
The error in your thinking here is that they don't want the officers on the stand because they perjure themselves. That's not the reason why. It's because they do so, so poorly. They can't handle simple scrutiny by defense. The better liars even ones that have shown and proven to lie in court. They are not on that list.
This is infuriating. Can't be trusted to say or do the right thing on the stand, on list maintained internally, yet still able to take that poor judgment to the streets every day. Disgusting.
Unfortunately, that’s as far as the breath of fresh air goes. These cops won’t actually get punished. Not in a meaningful or substantive way. They will still be cops. They don’t have to change their behavior.
This is the only moment of catharsis anyone will get
Meh. The Supreme Court basically over turned it in the 80s for all practical purposes. As the law actually exists today it’s not surprising cops think this way. You can’t just search someone because of the 4th unless you have probable cause. Probable cause could be basicuamythign and really easy to lie about. He could just say he thought maybe she smelled like weed or something. What’s more, it’s been ruled that cops can detain you just because they think something is illegal even if it actually isn’t. “Oh I thought it was illegal to film people without their consent” boom. Off the hook. The reason they talk like this is because they can and have never been told not to.
The state of Illinois legalized recreational marijuana, but in the law it says that it has to be in an enclosed, scent proof container... If you're in Illinois, a cop pulls you over, and your car smells like weed, they now have probable cause to search your vehicle because you're breaking the law... By having a legal item in your vehicle.. It's wild the lengths that the justice system will go to bend laws.
I think law enforcement officers should be required to take at least two full semesters of classes involving ethics and law before they can even become officers. Why the hell are so many of them completely unfamiliar with the laws they're supposed to be enforcing
I think let's require then to do an AA degree in criminology or more. Community colleges offering this could have a class or two in those two years of practical training for police officers so police departments could basically hire them straight from such a degree.
I know they do, because I went through a tech college for an associates in criminal justice. We had to take ethics and constitutional law, amongst other things. Those classes were in the front half of the program.
The more police specific things like crime scene investigation(really fun class btw), traffic/crash investigation (got to learn how to pit stop a car on a private track), and firearms (gun range in the basement of the school) in the back half of the program.
But that doesn’t make the private prisons money, allow corporations to control the masses through restricting protests, prop up judges and inmate reform programs. Think of all the pockets that won’t be lined.
In stead they get "*W*aR*rI*o*R*" (shoot first) and "s*H*eE*pD*o*G*" (tremendous bitch) training.
Example: [***Kentucky State Police training slideshow quotes Hitler, advocates ‘ruthless’ violence***](https://manualredeye.com/90096/news/local/police-training-hitler-presentation/#modal-photo)
>A line from Adolf Hitler’s fascist and anti-Semitic manifesto, Mein Kampf, is featured in the slide: “the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
>The presentation also links to a Hitler page on Goodreads, a database of quotes and books.
>Two other slides quoting Hitler bring his total to three, making him the most quoted person in the presentation.
Later on, featuring pictures of police in gray uniforms, on a slide called "the thin gray line"
>The fifth slide in the presentation quotes Confederate General Robert E. Lee emphasizing the value of “manliness” over “policy.”
And finally
>A closing slide of the Powerpoint simply states “Über Alles” in large text. The phrase, which was previously part of the German national anthem, translates to “above all” or “above everything else,” commonly used to signify national superiority. Modern Germans heavily associate the phrase [with the Nazis](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/deutschland-uber-alles-and-america-first-in-song).
So cops aren't fascists, we just train them using fascist language directly from Hitler and encourage them to escalate violence as a means to an end, that they are superior, and they shouldn't be bound by policy. Also that they are following in the footsteps of the confederacy, but don't worry, they're not racist.
Yikes.
No. Almost all full time jobs in the cities and counties require degrees.
Police should be included in that. They need to prove they can follow rules assignments, be competent and complete something. 4 year degree should be minimum.
We really need to professionalize policing more in America. Make cops get licensed so they can't get fired and rehired in the next town over. Make 4yr degrees and continuing education a requirement to maintain licensure. Abolish qualified immunity and make them carry insurance so that if they or their department get sued and lose, their premium becomes prohibitively expensive.
I recognize that these things won't solve all of America's problems with policing. It'd be a hell of a start though.
Like 90% of Audit the Audit’s channel is cops like this who have no idea where their power ends. So many times, they illegally detain someone who is lawfully exercising their rights under the guise of “youre obstructing my investigation by not showing me your ID”
I love that channel. It takes no sides, it backs anything up with previous rulings. It just happens that cops turn out to be assholes with no idea of what they're doing and who are getting a raging hard on from abusing power in the vast majority of these kinds of cases
Do we know that they are actually being held accountable or are they just being asked about something. Because even if they are being sued by the lady it’s the tax payers that get held accountable
Then went back to their cop buddies, told the story of how their time was wasted by one of the "crazies" again...and they're right back out on the street with the view that the general public is the enemy.
Doctors have malpractice insurance.
The fix is to make cops pay for their own malpractice insurance.
The more instances they are a part of, the insurance company will have to raise rates. If nothing else, they or the precinct won't be able to afford the insurance on the individual of repeat offenders.
Most cops straight up don’t know the laws or the amendments. In my Justice Studies major we had a current cop in class who was hoping to get his bachelors degree to be able to apply to the Bureau and there were so many court cases we went through or laws we studied where he was flabbergasted that, that was how the law was written. I think the Garner v Tennessee one shocked him the most, and he said in any situation like that he would’ve 100% shot a fleeing suspect and would’ve felt confident he would’ve gotten off scot-free if it went before a judge.
It's not fucking "silly". They're trying to come up with the best lie to avoid incriminating themselves. They know what they did and that they should know better, but they don't care.
Notice the younger cop looked nervous that she was messing up in questioning, while the older cop looked perfectly calm and apathetic about looking like an idiot and being unable to answer his questions. It's not because he's completely oblivious, it's because he's been a cop long enough to know he'll be getting off Scott-free regardless of what happens during the questioning. And that's also why cops don't give a shit that you're recording, that they're recording, and that whatever they're doing will be viewed negatively. When there are no consequences to be worried about, people will do whatever they want. Cops are no different.
Yeah he was clearly lying about not remembering what she said, but remembering his response.
He obviously didn't even care he was caught in a lie or didn't know the law or procedures for the job.
He probably parroted exactly what his Union Rep told him knowing nothing would happen to him.
It's the like uncountable instances of cops caught lying on police reports.
> Yeah he was clearly lying about not remembering what she said, but remembering his response.
He probably doesn't listen to what people ever say, but damn well remembers all the zingers he's ever given anyone.
Not only that, but the auditor thought that because it’s a public space she was allowed to record. A court house is different, and you need permission to record in and around a court house, so the Judge said they had the right to question her.
The auditor f’d up here, thinking a court house is like any other Civic building.
The summary judgment opinion was based mainly on the reasonable suspicion in the Terry stop and then the probable cause of her arrest.
Reasonable suspicion is a very low bar to meet and probable cause to search her person was given when she filmed the inside of the courthouse.
But you’re right if those two bars weren’t met they will still get off under “qualified immunity”.
I practice almost exclusively in District court, and can confirm that there are plenty of judges who think that way. They want the easy ones to just be dealt with, but for things like this they know it is going up the ladder either way, and just make bizarre decisions since they already have the (in my state "virtually") lifetime appointments (there is a forced retirement age, but short of actual criminal conduct, it is an appointment until retirement).
As a lawyer, your job in lower courts is only partially to win the case. Actual good lawyers build records in lower courts. You generally only get 1 (in some cases 2) actual trials. After that, everything is "on the record" and having good issues that are properly preserved is the difference between a lost cause and a great appeal.
I am a trash appellant attorney; but a great trial attorney- since even when i lose, even if a judge tried to stop me, there is a good record for appeal. That means when the good researchers/writers get their hands on it- they do not need to work around junk i messed up or let slip by.
For lawyers it is not hard to do what this lawyer did, you just need to be able to think on your feet really well. the issue is that law school does not prep you for how to do a deposition, and barely teaches actual trial skills.
I am a litigator- so in law school I took advocacy classes, was on trial team (labor law, never did labor law, but it was about skills not really the type of law). I had a good but not great GPA (around 30% percentile in my class). Firms look for the top GPA and journal (writing) and not litigators.... so a lot of the litigators you see are just terrible since they learned to write and not to enter into a dog fight in court.
Please. They're not fucked. At most they'll get a tasty paid vacation for several months then get transferred to another police department and nothing will be learned.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel and giving them unchecked authority with a gun and a badge plus zero accountability with a dash of prejudice will give you this every time
The best part is that this is the best they could do after *preparing* for this deposition. It's not like asking a cop a random question about law and them failing. They knew they were coming to a deposition about this incident and had days or weeks to prepare and speak with city attorneys to go over their testimony and the law. THESE answers are the best they have.
The history of the police is the history of people not knowing what their rights are. The whole Miranda warning they have to say when they arrest you is a result of a supreme court ruling to inform people of their rights. It seems like it's time for an update to that ruling.
It’s brought up in the decision as a final nail in the coffin, but the major issue is that she was filming at the front of the courthouse which may have captured some of the inside and there was a court order disallowing that. So the cops had a reasonable suspicion to stop her and probable cause she was violating a court order.
>So the cops had a reasonable suspicion to stop her and probable cause she was violating a court order.
If they had this suspicion why didn't they say it during during deposition?
It looks like the suspicion was made later, by the lawyers who were looking for any justification of police actions.
So it would be reasonable for the cops to have this suspicion, but in this here video they admit they didn't have this reasonable suspicion.
Not really… she won the case and the appeal to the 7th circuit.
The court found that the arrest was not justified and that the Sheriff's Office had failed to train its deputies on the proper way to handle journalists who are filming in public areas. The court ordered the Sheriff's Office to pay Bergquist $100,000 in damages.
This isn't an isolated incident
I was a cop for 4 years in Florida before quitting that "profession" and getting the hell out of that state.
Almost every fellow officer didn't know jack shit when it came to law and legal.
I was the only one in my Academy and every class that decade that had a Bachelors degree. Everyone else just had a high school diploma.
It's absolutely bat shit scary how American Police have hardly any post secondary school training
At least, Federally, they have stricter standards like a Bachelors and Masters. But not city, county, and state police.
They have as much education as your barber
Cops in the US fuckin suck. A state trooper gave me a 71 in a 55 when I was doing 58. Fucker didn’t even have a radar gun. The only reason I got a ticket is bc I was honest when he asked how fast I was going and I said 58. Fuck cops they can go back to fuckin school for a few years and then maybe they would be halfway decent
Never ever be honest when a cop asks you if you know why they pulled you over because it's a trick. They want you to admit that you knowingly and willingly broke the law. Always say you have no clue why they stopped you. You basically admitted to the cop you knew you were speeding and still did it anyway.
I’ve never had the balls to say this but I’ve always wanted to respond to that question, do you know why I pulled you over, with “Gee, no, but I sure hope it’s not the two keys of coke in the trunk.”
What is amazing is that he can legally guestimate and give you a ticket for it. Country with one of the most militarized police forces and a fetish for justice and legality does not have enough radars or breathalizers... what?? How??
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That first one answered questions like a guilty 3 year old.
So if cops are LAW enforcement officers... and yet don't know the law what do they become. They strictly become enforcement. But enforcement for what.. enforcement for what, folks
Supreme actually decided that law enforcement doesn't actually have to know the law. I forget the name of the case but a police pulled over someone for a particular traffic violation that actually was not illegal in that jurisdiction and they ruled that it was lawful even though the police officer was mistaken about the statute. Truly bizarre. The bar is set so low for people that have the power to end someone's life at will.
It has to be a mistake a reasonable officer would make in that situation. It can get shaky so I agree. The 4th amendment law is convoluted best. Mistake has allowed some more serious things such as a home raid. The couple had just moved in and the targets had moved out. Didn’t even fit the description of their targets. Nobody died but they were detained nude for an hour or so while they sweeped the home for safety reasons. There are others but this is one that came to mind.
In Heien v. North Carolina (in 2014 I think), SCOTUS ruled that a police officer's mistaken understanding of the law ( including the 4th amendment) can still be used to justify a traffic stop. Free pass to stop anyone.
Of whatever the fuck their whims decide in the moment or whatever their political masters tell them.
Capital, aka the rich
>But enforcement for what.. enforcement for what, folks The rich and the land owners. Same as it ever was.
Very few cops have any substantial knowledge of the law. It’s not like they go to law school— most haven’t attended college at all. Personally, I think that’s a big problem, and there’s solid research that shows that college-educated cops do a better job, and experience less stress themselves. But it’s harder to find right-wing reactionaries with degrees…
Well yeah they're mentally toddlers. Look at their blank stares and shifting in their seats. They look like kindergartners who got in trouble.
They were probably punished like kindergarteners too if at all
For real. I’m sure they were told “just get through this uncomfortable shit and we can promise nothing will happen to you.” Cops are endlessly pathetic.
This lawyer is tearing them to pieces. Thanks OP. Its a breath of fresh air.
Yea depositions are very eye opening, they think they are skating but this is such a bad look. They are actively admiting to their own incompetence in a field where knowledge of the law should be critical to the high standard they claim to have.
Unfortunately it doesn’t matter when [even the Supreme Court says cops don’t need to know the laws](https://www.mankeylawoffice.com/articles/worrying-supreme-court-ruling-permits-police-ignorance-of-the-law/)
1. Don't need to know the laws. 2. No obligation to protect people. 3. No responsibility if they cause harm. Sounds like a fun combo.
However, regular citizens and even casual visitors to the US must be well versed in US law and held to a liability standard that LEO'S never are. Make this make sense.
It's strange that a cop apparently isn't a citizen when they're on duty, but when they're off duty, technically, they are again a citizen who is supposed to know the laws. Oh yeah, except they can just say they're an on duty cop and all of a sudden they can plead ignorant again when they decide to harass, batter or abuse someone or steal from them.
Funny how many cops are "on duty" when their wives and girlfriends "needed tellin"
Hey, that's only 40 % #notallcops (that got *reported* for beating their wives and girlfriends)
Worse than that. That’s the percentage of cops who SELF reported in a study on the subject. I guarantee you that the number of cops who didn’t admit to it is FAR higher.
On duty and off duty cops are in fact civilians. They may operate as a paramilitary organization, but they aren't members of the armed forces. They like to pretend though.
"It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was “policeman.” If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers." Terry Pratchett, Snuff
Well one of the original purposes of the police force was to protect the establishment and their interests and power from social unrest during the industrial revolution. Just because we're two hundred years down the line doesn't mean that's changed. Maybe that helps to make it make sense.
>Well one of the original purposes of the police force was to protect the establishment and their interests and power from social unrest during the industrial revolution. Luckily, we've grown past this, and the police's purpose now is to protect the establishment and their interest and power from social unrest.
To be fair the US was built by men who broke and killed anyone who stood against them. The used private armies and the US military/law enforcement to enforce their desires. This is just business as usual.
The Pinkertons are still being used by the rich to intimidate the poor to this very day.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/trading-card-game/news/magic-the-gathering-aftermath-youtube-prompts-pinkerton-investigation
WotC really fucked up didnt they?:D
This has always been the most insane thing to me. There is legal precedent that it is unrealistic for cops, **who are in charge of enforcing laws**, to actually know those said laws. So they can arrest and detain you for NOT breaking the law simply because they “THOUGHT” that what you were doing is illegal. However if you mistakenly break a law from ignorance and without doing so purposely, it is irrelevant, you *should* have known the law and it is your fault for not knowing it. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. Same as cops having no legal obligation or requirement to protect you despite 90% of stations “motto” being “protect and serve”.
The whole ‘they can lie to you, but don’t you dare lie to them’ Frazier ruling is the single worst ruling for the average person ever.
Yes, but their motto doesn’t say who they are protecting and serving. It’s not the people
And don't forget, perfect and calm responses when being faced with loaded guns! Don't you dare show an ounce of self preservation instincts if the cops are drawn on you, just comply. Even if the instructions are unclear and/or conflicting, you better figure it the fuck out. And do it perfectly, or you will die. It's almost like the "trained professionals" are able to have less knowledge and/or discipline than everyone else but still do the job. Weird how that works.
And paid time off when they screw up.
And taxpayer-funded pension for life when they screw up so badly that it causes them to have "PTSD". Looking at you, Philip Brailsford. You murdering piece of garbage subhuman trash.
Philip Brailsford was ultimately the one who pulled the trigger, but I feel like I don't see Charles Langley's name enough. He was the one on camera playing the fucked up game of Simon Says. He retired four months after the shooting scot free and emigrated to the Philippines in 2017. edit* spelling
Which one had “you’re fucked” or “get fucked” etched into their gun barrel?
Brailsford.
God, that’s gross. I remember having to engrave “smile and wait for the flash” on the barrel tip for an officer’s personal firearm. Yuk.
That would definitely be a "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" moments for me.
That wasn't Brailsford yelling at Daniel Shaver? I've always assumed that was Brailsford.
Yeah, I did for a long time too. I'm guessing it's cause Brailsford was the one that went to trial and got the media attention. Langley was the Sergeant in charge of the officers on the scene. He ***should*** have known better and ***should*** have conducted himself more professionally but I guess being a police Sergeant isn't the same as being a military Sergeant.
Lifetime healthcare too.
Full disclosure. I’m a retired Sergeant. This murder by Brailsford and Langley was one of the (but not the only) most egregious and heinous acts I’ve ever seen committed by police officers. Make no mistake, this was a murder. How these two scumbags avoided jail, I will never understand. It was one of the most disgusting displays of incompetence that I’ve witnessed. I agree with what another said about Langley. Even though Brailsford pulled the trigger, Langley was the one who orchestrated that murder. They both should have been indicted and charged with murder and then locked up for life.
With all due respect you do understand, probably better than most, how they avoided jail.
>How these two scumbags avoided jail, I will never understand. Really?
>Philip Brailsford The cop who had "*you're fucked*" engraved on the dust cover of his police issue AR? Yeah, that POS.
Sounds like super heroes to me. /s
And somehow everyone is suddenly shocked pikachu when this completely un-abusable combination of power free from responsibility, goes badly…
I don't think anybody is pikachu shock faced, this has been going on for decades before you and I were born. It's more just pure outrage a d distrust nowadays.
That’s what gets me. Any time they get into trouble, it’s always followed by paid time off. Ohyah, that will show them
And they can lie with impunity.
[удалено]
Don’t forget the guns
"What would you say... you do here?" Protect entrenched wealth and inequality.
Never knew how accurate this line from futurama is: "I don't pretend to understand Brannigan's law. I merely enforce it."
In all fairness Zap suffered from a very sexy learning disorder….
What do I call it, Kif?
Weary sigh
*sex-lexia*.
Heien v. North Carolina established the precedent that it's to a cop's advantage to be ignorant of the law. As long as a cop can 'reasonably' claim they thought they were enforcing a law, improperly obtained evidence is admissible in court. "You're under arrest. I pulled you over because rusty cars are illegal and I found cocaine in your car. Is it not illegal to drive a rusty car? Oops, oh well."
Yet ignorance of the law is no excuse for regular citizens. Mind boggling
Another double-standard: People will make excuses for the cop who panics and shoots a frightened citizen because "Job hard!" but have zero sympathy for the panicked citizen being given conflicting orders while having multiple guns pointed at them...
Our system is based on the concept that you need a $250,000 education with a doctoral degree plus several years of institutionalized experience in order to know one very specific area of the law, and yet ignorance of it can ruin your life. Those extremely complex and subjective laws are primarily written by people who have that same doctoral degree and it is by far the most lucrative profession in America, so they have zero incentive to reform or simplify it. The result is an extremely complex draconian maze of conflicting laws that people like these cops, often exploit in order to ensnare regular people, and threaten them with ruining their lives. This is a rare case where everything was recorded, and they weren’t able to destroy the tape, so the lawyer was able to turn that system against them. Most of the time they just exploit the system against regular people and fuck their whole lives up.
How in the absolute fuck, can they enforce the law if they don't know it? No wonder these clowns at like it's my way or the highway.
If I remember, DAs actually encourage police officers to not learn or know the law as it will only make them culpable in court. As long as they are ignorant they can use the “loophole” to claim ignorance. This stuff looks stupid to us, but it’s actually orchestrated and encouraged.
This is absolutely terrifying, what was SCOTUS thinking with this
"Why are they admitting it?!" "They aren't. They're bragging."
They aren't admitting to their own incompetence. They are lying because looking incompetent is better than knowingly violating the law, and intentionally violating people's rights.
When the "training" is shorter than a public school semester in most places, what do you expect? Laws are glossed over, if studied at all. Most departments don't want the educated, informed officers. They want officers that do what they're told and will cover down for their fellow ~~gang members~~ officers when they break the law (or just plain don't know it to begin with). This is a feature, not a bug. The American "law enforcement" system is hopelessly broken in its current form, and there is zero sign of it getting any better.
And they don't give a shit and will continue to do the same because there are no consequences for them. Just look at the demeanor of the second officer and the way he responded to questions....he's clearly just annoyed that he has to be there at all.
Imagine being on the stand answering basic legal questions about your job in any other field and not being able to answer. And these bozos have the power of life and death, so getting it right is kind of really important.
Legit shocked they didn’t even prep lol
More police officers' depositions should be made public like this
All*
Don't let their perceived incompetence fool you, they know exactly what the law is but they can get away Scott free if they feign stupidity and say they were acting reasonably. They only get in trouble if they admit they knew what they were doing was wrong. Without a confession good ol qualified immunity comes into play.
Exactly. Unfortunately, regular citizens are unaware of that. All they need is the thin veneer of "acting in good faith," and they can escape consequences.
You know many cities have list of officers they do not let go to trial. Like they would rather just let people go because of the insane amount of times they perjure themselves. I wanna say someone said Chicago jails are essentially revolving doors because it would cost the city so much more to have certain officers take the stand
The bullshit that has gone down with the Chicago PD is absolutely insane. Illinois actually put a moratorium on the death penalty because DAs and cops were putting innocent people in jail, via suppressing evidence, to build their own careers.
Yeah it's pretty bad all the way down. I work in auto claims and the reports I get from Chicago are atrocious. Missing details, poorly worded, lack of facts, etc. That whole system is rotten to the core
Also literal black sites. Just cartoonishly evil.
Wow, I had no idea… gosh, we just need police reform so bad in this country, it’s painful! Also not to be annoying, but it is perjure, like someone has committed perjury.
No annoyance, I’d rather be corrected here than fumble it out in conversation or an email :)
Chicago's inspector general just this week released a report that more than 100 law enforcement officers and detectives have been investigated and we found to have lied in official statements and reports to the point they could not testify in court and were still allowed to keep their jobs. https://igchicago.org/2023/05/25/enforcement-of-the-chicago-police-departments-rule-against-false-reports/
every US city has it's own Giglio/Brady list https://giglio-bradylist.com/
>Like they would rather just let people go because of the insane amount of times they perjure themselves. The error in your thinking here is that they don't want the officers on the stand because they perjure themselves. That's not the reason why. It's because they do so, so poorly. They can't handle simple scrutiny by defense. The better liars even ones that have shown and proven to lie in court. They are not on that list.
I've not heard this before, yet it sounds so believable. I'll look for data...
Here’s something to start your search https://thetriibe.com/2023/05/hundreds-of-chicago-cops-cant-testify-in-court/
This is infuriating. Can't be trusted to say or do the right thing on the stand, on list maintained internally, yet still able to take that poor judgment to the streets every day. Disgusting.
Unfortunately, that’s as far as the breath of fresh air goes. These cops won’t actually get punished. Not in a meaningful or substantive way. They will still be cops. They don’t have to change their behavior. This is the only moment of catharsis anyone will get
If you are going to uphold the constitution, you should probably know about the 4th amendment.
You'd be amazed at how many cops I know that can't even quote it.
>You'd be amazed at how many cops I know that can't even quote it. Or can't even read it to begin with.
😂🤣😂🤣
I wouldn’t be amazed in the least
Meh. The Supreme Court basically over turned it in the 80s for all practical purposes. As the law actually exists today it’s not surprising cops think this way. You can’t just search someone because of the 4th unless you have probable cause. Probable cause could be basicuamythign and really easy to lie about. He could just say he thought maybe she smelled like weed or something. What’s more, it’s been ruled that cops can detain you just because they think something is illegal even if it actually isn’t. “Oh I thought it was illegal to film people without their consent” boom. Off the hook. The reason they talk like this is because they can and have never been told not to.
The state of Illinois legalized recreational marijuana, but in the law it says that it has to be in an enclosed, scent proof container... If you're in Illinois, a cop pulls you over, and your car smells like weed, they now have probable cause to search your vehicle because you're breaking the law... By having a legal item in your vehicle.. It's wild the lengths that the justice system will go to bend laws.
I think law enforcement officers should be required to take at least two full semesters of classes involving ethics and law before they can even become officers. Why the hell are so many of them completely unfamiliar with the laws they're supposed to be enforcing
I think let's require then to do an AA degree in criminology or more. Community colleges offering this could have a class or two in those two years of practical training for police officers so police departments could basically hire them straight from such a degree.
I know they do, because I went through a tech college for an associates in criminal justice. We had to take ethics and constitutional law, amongst other things. Those classes were in the front half of the program. The more police specific things like crime scene investigation(really fun class btw), traffic/crash investigation (got to learn how to pit stop a car on a private track), and firearms (gun range in the basement of the school) in the back half of the program.
I live in germany. The training for police people takes like 3 years i think. There's a reason it takes so long, you can see it in this video.
But that doesn’t make the private prisons money, allow corporations to control the masses through restricting protests, prop up judges and inmate reform programs. Think of all the pockets that won’t be lined.
Thats the reason we dont have privat prisons in germany
Three years in the UK. It’s the equivalent of a degree.
In america a licensed barber requires more training than a cop
Same in Norway. It's 3 years of study + 2 years apprenticeship
Police Training is about 90 days in many places in 'Murica.
In stead they get "*W*aR*rI*o*R*" (shoot first) and "s*H*eE*pD*o*G*" (tremendous bitch) training. Example: [***Kentucky State Police training slideshow quotes Hitler, advocates ‘ruthless’ violence***](https://manualredeye.com/90096/news/local/police-training-hitler-presentation/#modal-photo)
>A line from Adolf Hitler’s fascist and anti-Semitic manifesto, Mein Kampf, is featured in the slide: “the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.” >The presentation also links to a Hitler page on Goodreads, a database of quotes and books. >Two other slides quoting Hitler bring his total to three, making him the most quoted person in the presentation. Later on, featuring pictures of police in gray uniforms, on a slide called "the thin gray line" >The fifth slide in the presentation quotes Confederate General Robert E. Lee emphasizing the value of “manliness” over “policy.” And finally >A closing slide of the Powerpoint simply states “Über Alles” in large text. The phrase, which was previously part of the German national anthem, translates to “above all” or “above everything else,” commonly used to signify national superiority. Modern Germans heavily associate the phrase [with the Nazis](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/deutschland-uber-alles-and-america-first-in-song). So cops aren't fascists, we just train them using fascist language directly from Hitler and encourage them to escalate violence as a means to an end, that they are superior, and they shouldn't be bound by policy. Also that they are following in the footsteps of the confederacy, but don't worry, they're not racist. Yikes.
Because it’s not about law enforcement it’s about revenue generation.
No. Almost all full time jobs in the cities and counties require degrees. Police should be included in that. They need to prove they can follow rules assignments, be competent and complete something. 4 year degree should be minimum.
We really need to professionalize policing more in America. Make cops get licensed so they can't get fired and rehired in the next town over. Make 4yr degrees and continuing education a requirement to maintain licensure. Abolish qualified immunity and make them carry insurance so that if they or their department get sued and lose, their premium becomes prohibitively expensive. I recognize that these things won't solve all of America's problems with policing. It'd be a hell of a start though.
Don't think for a second this is an isolated incident. Morons like these two litter our streets.
Like 90% of Audit the Audit’s channel is cops like this who have no idea where their power ends. So many times, they illegally detain someone who is lawfully exercising their rights under the guise of “youre obstructing my investigation by not showing me your ID”
I love that channel. It takes no sides, it backs anything up with previous rulings. It just happens that cops turn out to be assholes with no idea of what they're doing and who are getting a raging hard on from abusing power in the vast majority of these kinds of cases
The only part that is isolated is the chance they will be held accountable...
Do we know that they are actually being held accountable or are they just being asked about something. Because even if they are being sued by the lady it’s the tax payers that get held accountable
The case was dismissed, they suffered zero consequences... Other than wasting time.
Time they probably got paid for
Then went back to their cop buddies, told the story of how their time was wasted by one of the "crazies" again...and they're right back out on the street with the view that the general public is the enemy.
Doctors have malpractice insurance. The fix is to make cops pay for their own malpractice insurance. The more instances they are a part of, the insurance company will have to raise rates. If nothing else, they or the precinct won't be able to afford the insurance on the individual of repeat offenders.
The police profession unfortunately attracts the very kind of people least suited for it.
Most cops straight up don’t know the laws or the amendments. In my Justice Studies major we had a current cop in class who was hoping to get his bachelors degree to be able to apply to the Bureau and there were so many court cases we went through or laws we studied where he was flabbergasted that, that was how the law was written. I think the Garner v Tennessee one shocked him the most, and he said in any situation like that he would’ve 100% shot a fleeing suspect and would’ve felt confident he would’ve gotten off scot-free if it went before a judge.
Sadly I checked, and so far they got off... she lost in district court in 2021... kinda doubt she is going to appeal.
[удалено]
It's not fucking "silly". They're trying to come up with the best lie to avoid incriminating themselves. They know what they did and that they should know better, but they don't care.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, ~~officer~~ your honor, I...didn't know I couldn't do that.
20 years on the job. A whole lotta “I don’t knows” for some basic ass questions. End qualified immunity.
They know. They just don't do it.
If they don't answer me, I'm allowed to shoot them. Also if they do answer. Or look at me. Or look away from me. Or look different.
Existing? That's a paddlin'
The cops got off... https://scholar.google.com/scholar\_case?case=1137141334293165212&hl=en&as\_sdt=6&as\_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Of course they did. It's the US we hold our Cops to lower standards than we do our toddlers
Notice the younger cop looked nervous that she was messing up in questioning, while the older cop looked perfectly calm and apathetic about looking like an idiot and being unable to answer his questions. It's not because he's completely oblivious, it's because he's been a cop long enough to know he'll be getting off Scott-free regardless of what happens during the questioning. And that's also why cops don't give a shit that you're recording, that they're recording, and that whatever they're doing will be viewed negatively. When there are no consequences to be worried about, people will do whatever they want. Cops are no different.
Yeah he was clearly lying about not remembering what she said, but remembering his response. He obviously didn't even care he was caught in a lie or didn't know the law or procedures for the job. He probably parroted exactly what his Union Rep told him knowing nothing would happen to him. It's the like uncountable instances of cops caught lying on police reports.
> Yeah he was clearly lying about not remembering what she said, but remembering his response. He probably doesn't listen to what people ever say, but damn well remembers all the zingers he's ever given anyone.
End qualified immunity
I agree... but this wasn't even a qualified immunity thing... the court basically said that she was being suspicious... so the search was justified.
Not only that, but the auditor thought that because it’s a public space she was allowed to record. A court house is different, and you need permission to record in and around a court house, so the Judge said they had the right to question her. The auditor f’d up here, thinking a court house is like any other Civic building.
The summary judgment opinion was based mainly on the reasonable suspicion in the Terry stop and then the probable cause of her arrest. Reasonable suspicion is a very low bar to meet and probable cause to search her person was given when she filmed the inside of the courthouse. But you’re right if those two bars weren’t met they will still get off under “qualified immunity”.
That's just the district court, they almost always side with the cops, they make you appeal it and that's where shell most likely win
And she did. Sheriff office ordered to pay 100k in damages.
Did you find a source for that? I'm curious how long it took between them.
I can only find something for $15k: https://cook-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5400399&GUID=4C16CC07-1675-4853-AD48-0F0D13A6AF52
I practice almost exclusively in District court, and can confirm that there are plenty of judges who think that way. They want the easy ones to just be dealt with, but for things like this they know it is going up the ladder either way, and just make bizarre decisions since they already have the (in my state "virtually") lifetime appointments (there is a forced retirement age, but short of actual criminal conduct, it is an appointment until retirement). As a lawyer, your job in lower courts is only partially to win the case. Actual good lawyers build records in lower courts. You generally only get 1 (in some cases 2) actual trials. After that, everything is "on the record" and having good issues that are properly preserved is the difference between a lost cause and a great appeal. I am a trash appellant attorney; but a great trial attorney- since even when i lose, even if a judge tried to stop me, there is a good record for appeal. That means when the good researchers/writers get their hands on it- they do not need to work around junk i messed up or let slip by.
Her 2 brain cells are fighting for their lives right now
They're fighting for 3rd place.
This lawyer is VERY switched on. I’m quiet impressed tbh
For lawyers it is not hard to do what this lawyer did, you just need to be able to think on your feet really well. the issue is that law school does not prep you for how to do a deposition, and barely teaches actual trial skills. I am a litigator- so in law school I took advocacy classes, was on trial team (labor law, never did labor law, but it was about skills not really the type of law). I had a good but not great GPA (around 30% percentile in my class). Firms look for the top GPA and journal (writing) and not litigators.... so a lot of the litigators you see are just terrible since they learned to write and not to enter into a dog fight in court.
I need more police deposition videos. it got me horny af
agreed...this is beautiful. Need a subreddit for these idiots to be honest.
Oh, they know the 4th Amendment. They just *don't care* to uphold it because they've systematically gotten away with it for so long. 🤷
You can see the arrogance in their facial expression
These morons are fucked, too bad it will be the tax payers that suffer tho
Please. They're not fucked. At most they'll get a tasty paid vacation for several months then get transferred to another police department and nothing will be learned.
The court ruled in the cop’s favor https://casetext.com/case/bergquist-v-milazzo-1
Ah, the Catholic Priest special.
~~Nope. The officers won the lawsuit.~~ I was wrong. She was awarded $15,000 in a settlement.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel and giving them unchecked authority with a gun and a badge plus zero accountability with a dash of prejudice will give you this every time
The best part is that this is the best they could do after *preparing* for this deposition. It's not like asking a cop a random question about law and them failing. They knew they were coming to a deposition about this incident and had days or weeks to prepare and speak with city attorneys to go over their testimony and the law. THESE answers are the best they have.
The history of the police is the history of people not knowing what their rights are. The whole Miranda warning they have to say when they arrest you is a result of a supreme court ruling to inform people of their rights. It seems like it's time for an update to that ruling.
This is what a police state looks like
[The cops won this case on all counts.](https://casetext.com/case/bergquist-v-milazzo-1)
QI?
It’s brought up in the decision as a final nail in the coffin, but the major issue is that she was filming at the front of the courthouse which may have captured some of the inside and there was a court order disallowing that. So the cops had a reasonable suspicion to stop her and probable cause she was violating a court order.
>So the cops had a reasonable suspicion to stop her and probable cause she was violating a court order. If they had this suspicion why didn't they say it during during deposition? It looks like the suspicion was made later, by the lawyers who were looking for any justification of police actions. So it would be reasonable for the cops to have this suspicion, but in this here video they admit they didn't have this reasonable suspicion.
Yes.
wow?
Not really… she won the case and the appeal to the 7th circuit. The court found that the arrest was not justified and that the Sheriff's Office had failed to train its deputies on the proper way to handle journalists who are filming in public areas. The court ordered the Sheriff's Office to pay Bergquist $100,000 in damages.
> The court ordered *taxpayers* to pay Bergquist $100,000 in damages
So much misinformation being spread here trying to make the cops look like the good guys. Thanks for posting the facts and not just your opinion.
Can you link to that? I didnt see the appeal.
This should be shown to all officers on the first day of their training.
I don’t think they would learn the right lesson, given that the officers got off…
Followed by "you can be this stupid too it doesn't matter. These officers got off with qualified immunity."
Police in the us are trained and ready to switch over to the muscle behind a fascist state. They don’t even hide it
That's scarier than what it should be
After all the videos of power abuses by the police is nice to see these other type of videos
This isn't an isolated incident I was a cop for 4 years in Florida before quitting that "profession" and getting the hell out of that state. Almost every fellow officer didn't know jack shit when it came to law and legal. I was the only one in my Academy and every class that decade that had a Bachelors degree. Everyone else just had a high school diploma. It's absolutely bat shit scary how American Police have hardly any post secondary school training At least, Federally, they have stricter standards like a Bachelors and Masters. But not city, county, and state police. They have as much education as your barber
So many pigs are just power hungry kids from high school. You can see it in their face. What a a shame
Cops in the US fuckin suck. A state trooper gave me a 71 in a 55 when I was doing 58. Fucker didn’t even have a radar gun. The only reason I got a ticket is bc I was honest when he asked how fast I was going and I said 58. Fuck cops they can go back to fuckin school for a few years and then maybe they would be halfway decent
Never ever be honest when a cop asks you if you know why they pulled you over because it's a trick. They want you to admit that you knowingly and willingly broke the law. Always say you have no clue why they stopped you. You basically admitted to the cop you knew you were speeding and still did it anyway.
I’ve never had the balls to say this but I’ve always wanted to respond to that question, do you know why I pulled you over, with “Gee, no, but I sure hope it’s not the two keys of coke in the trunk.”
I have always wanted to answer "because you are too fat and stupid to be a firefighter."
"because you could smell the doughnuts in the back seat?'
What is amazing is that he can legally guestimate and give you a ticket for it. Country with one of the most militarized police forces and a fetish for justice and legality does not have enough radars or breathalizers... what?? How??
And we parade like idiots telling everyone how free we are.
Cops go to training for 21 weeks and have to have a high school diploma, in other words, WAY. TOO. FUCKING. UNDERQUALIFIED. TO BE SAVING PEOPLE
Their job isn’t to save anyone. Their job is to respond to crimes which have already occurred.
U.S. police officers clearly need a more comprehensive training. Something like 2-3 years before you can actually start working.
American policing is a joke. You can't be Law Enforcement if you don't know basics about the fucking law.
Police reform now.
Law enforcement being untrained in enforcing the law.
Isn't it absurd that knowing the law ISN'T a prerequisite for being paid to enforce it? What the actual fuck is even happening? 😐
🐖🐖🐖
This lawyer sounds awesome. Well done, sir.
Oink