Art of Police Cover Up - Recorded Hiding Evidence

In Grand Rapids, MI police thought line 3407 was unrecorded. The phone was even labeled unrecorded. However it was recorded by accident and it blew up in their faces in a big way when a prosecutor is pulled over drunk driving after having an accident and they cover it up.
Mordhaussays...

What is worse is you know those two are back at work after the 160 hour suspension and I'm sure that no one is going to black ball the LT that was fired. He will just go to another city and be right back to policing.

newtboyjokingly says...

What?! So I'm not making this up, or seeing crime where there is none, or just being anti cop?! There's a real crime here, and clear indication that this behavior is ubiquitous and constant?!?
That's some major progress from you.

bobknight33said:

Not saying its right but it is the way of the world.


Good Video.

bobknight33says...

When facts are self evident as in this video then sure there is a true crime . Ill agree with you all day long as long facts show it.

When videos posted that show that zero evidence and people believe that there is a crime when there is none shown then I have to disagree .


Its not progress is just facts just facts.

newtboysaid:

What?! So I'm not making this up, or seeing crime where there is none, or just being anti cop?! There's a real crime here, and clear indication that this behavior is ubiquitous and constant?!?
That's some major progress from you.

newtboyjokingly says...

Getting you to agree on what facts are evident is major progress.

bobknight33said:

When facts are self evident as in this video then sure there is a true crime . Ill agree with you all day long as long facts show it.

When videos posted that show that zero evidence and people believe that there is a crime when there is none shown then I have to disagree .


Its not progress is just facts just facts.

C-notesays...

The goal is not to seek justice in america because there is no such thing. The objective is to win a large enough monetary judgment as to result in the financial bankruptcy of the institution and individuals involved.

newtboysays...

Your comment is confusing, considering the institutions being discussed.

Total financial bankruptcy of the institution is impossible, the institution is the government. No judgement will ever be so large that it bankrupts the government. Maybe it could bankrupt a small, local government/police force temporarily, but at best that just moves another less-local police force in (highway patrol, state police, etc.), which is never better and doesn't really fulfill that objective.

For police and most public servants, there is blanket immunity from personal financial responsibility for their actions while on duty.
That means in the cases where personal bankruptcy is the objective, it's doomed to fail miserably.

C-notesaid:

The goal is not to seek justice in america because there is no such thing. The objective is to win a large enough monetary judgment as to result in the financial bankruptcy of the institution and individuals involved.

Drachen_Jagersays...

This is the way of banana republics and the United States.

Practically every other industrialized country has better police oversight. This is why so many police interactions end in death. They do favors for the DA's office, then when they get in trouble, the favor is returned.

And, your boy in the White House just erased much of the oversight Obama installed to try and curb some of this shit.

But, nice way to change the world to fit your personal worldview rather than accepting that you might be wrong.

bobknight33said:

Not saying its right but it is the way of the world.


Good Video.

bcglorfsays...

No need to politicise this with Obama/Trump or whatever.

Power corrupts, and political affiliations don't change that. I get the mindset that oversight might help, after all if the ones with power are corrupt, watching for it and removing the corrupt makes things better. The catch is that oversight in itself is also power. Meaning the people there also get corrupt. So then let's watch them.

We already have the legal system's power separated into 3 parts that are supposed to check/watch each other. Adding another layer onto legislative, judiciary, and police isn't transparently and obviously the correct answer.

Greater transparency on this crap helps, but the problem of people being terrible doesn't have some simple answer. Obama didn't solve it, Trump's not going to either, nor did either of them undo the perfect solution of their predecessors.

Drachen_Jagersaid:

This is the way of banana republics and the United States.

Practically every other industrialized country has better police oversight. This is why so many police interactions end in death. They do favors for the DA's office, then when they get in trouble, the favor is returned.

And, your boy in the White House just erased much of the oversight Obama installed to try and curb some of this shit.

But, nice way to change the world to fit your personal worldview rather than accepting that you might be wrong.

newtboysays...

Um...that's legislative, judiciary, and executive.
Also, all 3 of those branches DO have oversight, although granted it is weak and highly politically influenced oversight at this point.

That said, public third party oversight of the police is hardly the kind of power that easily corrupts. Any abuse would be easy to spot and halt with some simple and clear rules. Many jurisdictions already have this, and I've never once heard of the powers being used for personal vendettas against a force or officer....or being abused at all for that matter. Usually they only have the power to suggest prosecutions or other actions (I think they need the power to fire officers at the least), and even that's unacceptable to the police.
The other option, the one you seem to prefer, is to allow the police to have all the corrupting power with absolutely no checks (except those they randomly self impose when it suits them) and no possibility of justice because the entire legal system is in cahoots and thoroughly corrupted, meaning any built in safeguards and oversight are made moot.

Funny to me that you start your post with "no need to politicize this with Obama/Trump or whatever" and end by politicizing it with Obama/Trump and whatever.

bcglorfsaid:

No need to politicise this with Obama/Trump or whatever.

Power corrupts, and political affiliations don't change that. I get the mindset that oversight might help, after all if the ones with power are corrupt, watching for it and removing the corrupt makes things better. The catch is that oversight in itself is also power. Meaning the people there also get corrupt. So then let's watch them.

We already have the legal system's power separated into 3 parts that are supposed to check/watch each other. Adding another layer onto legislative, judiciary, and police isn't transparently and obviously the correct answer.

Greater transparency on this crap helps, but the problem of people being terrible doesn't have some simple answer. Obama didn't solve it, Trump's not going to either, nor did either of them undo the perfect solution of their predecessors.

noimssays...

This has 7000 or so views on youtube. I wonder if a single one of them was even the tiniest bit surprised that this happened.

Actually, scratch that. I'd say a good few were surprised anyone got punished for it.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More