Police abuses

**Major Robert Dump** · 03-14-2009, 20:31

I disagree.

While I'm not justifying this either, at least I can understand when a cop slaps around someone they just had to chase through a pitbull-infested trailer park or in a 100mph car chase through 2 counties or pulled drunk out of a car with 2 babies inside.

But this guy was acting as a jailer. In a jail. Whether he is a power freak, was having a really bad day, or was hung over from the night before -- that doesn't matter. Humans are humans, and if you allow them to physically abuse people then that will naturally become an outlet of their frustrations. Unless that man in the first video had just finished some highly intense situation that the female was a part of I cannot see how anyone could not view this as simple abuse of power.

On the same note, had she done that shoe-kick thing in Iraq she might get 3 years

**Mooks** · 03-15-2009, 01:21

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I disagree.

While I'm not justifying this either, at least I can understand when a cop slaps around someone they just had to chase through a pitbull-infested trailer park or in a 100mph car chase through 2 counties or pulled drunk out of a car with 2 babies inside.

This reminds me of some advice of a guy I once knew, not really a friend but I knew him well. He told me in a serios tone "If you run away from the police, do not get caught. Because that cop will beat the living **** out of you". He is in prison now, quite a lot of contact with the police; probaly too much of it.

**LittleGrizzly** · 03-15-2009, 17:54

In all fairness though, don't the cops deserve the benfit of the doubt in some cases?

No, the citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt until a police officer can prove otherwise!

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-20-2009, 18:51

Don't be an immigrant storeowner in Phildelphia, lest you run awful of the organized crime gangs there:

Drug raids gone bad
Shopkeepers say plainclothes cops barged in, looted stores & stole cash

By WENDY RUDERMAN & BARBARA LAKER
Philadelphia Daily News

rudermw@phillynews.com 215-854-2860

ON A SWELTERING July afternoon in 2007, Officer Jeffrey Cujdik and his narcotics squad members raided an Olney tobacco shop.

Then, with guns drawn, they did something bizarre: They smashed two surveillance cameras with a metal rod, said store owners David and Eunice Nam.

The five plainclothes officers yanked camera wires from the ceiling. They forced the slight, frail Korean couple to the vinyl floor and cuffed them with plastic wrist ties.

"I so scared," said Eunice Nam, 56. "We were on floor. Handcuffs on me. I so, so scared, I wet my pants."

The officers rifled through drawers, dumped cigarette cartons on the floor and took cash from the registers. Then they hauled the Nams to jail.

The Nams were arrested for selling tiny ziplock bags that police consider drug paraphernalia, but which the couple described as tobacco pouches.

When they later unlocked their store, the Nams allege, they discovered that a case of lighter fluid and handfuls of Zippo lighters were missing. The police said they seized $2,573 in the raid. The Nams say they actually had between $3,800 and $4,000 in the store.

The Nams' story is strikingly similar to those told by other mom-and-pop store owners, from Dominicans in Hunting Park to Jordanians in South Philadelphia.

The Daily News interviewed seven store owners and an attorney representing another. Independently, they told similar stories: Cujdik and fellow officers destroyed or cut the wires to surveillance cameras. Some store owners said they watched as officers took food and slurped energy drinks. Other store owners said cigarette cartons, batteries, cell phones and candy bars were missing after raids.

This isn't the first time Cujdik has made the news:

OFFICER JEFFREY Cujdik was the first cop to burst through the front door, gun drawn.

Lady Gonzalez froze. Terror gripped her five young children as Cujdik and eight other narcotics cops stormed the Kensington home.

" 'Where are the guns?! Where are the drugs!' " Cujdik shouted during the December 2007 raid, Gonzalez said. "I didn't know what they were talking about."

Then things got worse. Gonzalez said that one of the cops - not Cujdik - pulled up her shirt and bra and fondled her breasts.

The raid was prompted by a drug buy at the house three days earlier, according to a search warrant.

A police informant bought a packet of cocaine from Gonzalez's husband, Albert Nunez, on their front porch while Officer Robert McDonnell watched, according to the warrant.

But that informant, Ventura Martinez, now says that the search warrant was based on a lie: He never bought drugs from Nunez.

Anyone want to bet on the punishment? It's 10-1 odds they get no punishment.

CR

**KukriKhan** · 03-21-2009, 15:40

It's been a whole heckova lotta fun reading the continuing saga of police malfeasance and criminal activity.

As to punishments handed out to law enforcers, I'd like to point out that prevailing (US) law puts extra sanctions and provisions on officers under any kind of inquiry or interrogation.

They have the same Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as we other citizens do. Additionally, they fall under laws known as "Garrity" and "Lybarger" provisions, as well as O.North v US. Simply put: if the person's job demands that they answer questions or be terminated from employment for failing to follow an order (to answer/testify), then any information gleaned during such questioning CANNOT be used in any other proceeding, like a criminal trial.

So, for example, Colonel North, being an active-duty Marine, was compelled to testify to Congress in the Iran-Contra hearings, but that testimony could not be used against him in any criminal proceeding.

Many Internal Affairs investigators use a form similar to this:

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION STATEMENT
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1976)
Spevack v Klein, 385 US 551 (1956),

On ____/_____/____ at ______hrs, at _________________I, ________________________
(Location) (Officers Name)
was ordered to submit this report (give this statement) by _____________________________.
(Name and rank)

I submit this report (give this statement) at his order as a condition of my employment. In view of possible job forfeiture, I have no alternative but to abide by this order.

It is my belief and understanding that the department requires this report (statement) solely and exclusively for internal purposes and will not release it to any other agency. It is my further belief that this report (statement) will not and can not be used against me in any subsequent proceedings; I authorize release of this report to my attorney or designated representative.

I retain my right to amend or change this statement upon reflection to correct any unintended mistake without subjecting myself to a charge of untruthfulness.

For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my CONSTITUTIONAL right to remain silent under the FIFTH and FOURTEENTH AMMENDMENTS to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and any other rights PRESCRIBED by law. Further, I rely specifically upon the protection afforded me under the doctrines set forth in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 (1976), and Spevack v Klein, 385 US 551 (1956), should this report (statement) be used for any other purpose of any kind whatsoever.

___________________________________________
(Officers Signature)

to question officers.

So, if we decide we want more unencumbered accountability for police/military wrong-doing, we're gonna have to rewrite law, and re-think the role and rights of the guys we pick to protect us.

**Papewaio** · 03-24-2009, 00:10

So go to confession and the sin is resolved. Nice.

And as for the military. Combine the you can't get charged because you were ordered to confess or you lose your job. With if you resign you can't get charged with a war crime.