*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by PostMortem.

LOL talk about *eia...
the good ol' boys club just got dumber.
ya think they might have noticed that thing on their dash called a video surveilance camera?

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by enoch.

Another case of those enforcing the law thinking that they're above it. Despicable.

LOL @ "Bad Cop No Donut" - just saw that

Wow. What a bunch of fucking idiots. Don't most if not all states have an automatically at-fault law for those that rear-end others? I don't care if she was drunk, high, shooting up and giving road head all at the same time. When ever you rear end somebody, it's YOUR fault for not paying attention and/or following too closely.

*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by xxovercastxx.

*pricks *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, July 30th, 2009 3:33pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

I don't see why their entire arrest record is thrown into question, they only lied this ONE time.

Honest!


Really!

I have been in front of judges who say that they will always side with the police, because "why would they jeapordize their career to nail you with a small infraction".
In my expirance , cops always lie, no matter how small the case is. They fill out there reports after the altercation and always write them in their favor, which makes a lot of sense. Why tell the truth if it makes you look bad?
I love the fact that these pigs are so stupid as to not see that they are on tape. Or, they are just arrogant, power happy, dumbfucks that are gonna bring all the other pigs down with them.

Not always at fault if you rear end someone. In LA, if the driver of the other vehicle is intoxicated, he/she is automatically at fault of the moving violation whether or not they were the cause of the accident or not.

Pay close attention to what happens everytime a police officer is caught doing wrong. They put him on 'administrative leave' and 'launch an investigation'. Why can't cops ever be fired? And why do cops have to be the ones to investigate cops?

Sad. People that don't take responsibility for their actions make me sick. These guys should be fired and for what? I mean how much trouble would they have gotten in if they just owned up to getting into a fender bender? Idiots.
Blankfist - They put him on 'administrative leave' and 'launch an investigation'. Why can't cops ever be fired?

As obvious and cut and dry as this is, everyone deserves a fair investigation before being fired. Administrative leave or desk duty makes sense because you can't have cops with these types of allegations working the street. They obviously have zero credibility.

I'm usually slow to criticize cops, but they acted...stupidly. See, it's not that bad a thing to say when it's true.

*wtf

Adding video to channels (Wtf) - requested by littledragon_79.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Wow. What a bunch of fucking idiots. Don't most if not all states have an automatically at-fault law for those that rear-end others? I don't care if she was drunk, high, shooting up and giving road head all at the same time. When ever you rear end somebody, it's YOUR fault for not paying attention and/or following too closely.

Yes, however in California, no matter who is at fault for an accident, if you have ANY amount of alcohol in your system, you will get a DUI and possibly be automatically at fault for the accident...

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Wow. What a bunch of fucking idiots. Don't most if not all states have an automatically at-fault law for those that rear-end others? I don't care if she was drunk, high, shooting up and giving road head all at the same time. When ever you rear end somebody, it's YOUR fault for not paying attention and/or following too closely.


My dad rear-ended a guy and it was ruled the other guy's fault. It might have had something to do with him parking in the travel lane of a curve on a major highway with no lights on to talk to someone on the other side of the median.

I've also been hit from behind at fairly high speed while sitting still at a stop light, causing me to hit the guy in front of me. I've also seen others pull out in front of a vehicle just quickly enough that the vehicle impacts them from behind.

Hitting someone from behind does not automatically mean you are at fault. It should be based on the situation, not a predetermined law (my opinion at least).

>> ^blankfist:
Pay close attention to what happens everytime a police officer is caught doing wrong. They put him on 'administrative leave' and 'launch an investigation'. Why can't cops ever be fired? And why do cops have to be the ones to investigate cops?



People accuse cops of misconduct all the time to avoid penalties. It's standard procedure to gather all of the facts on a situation, even when the decision seems obvious at first glance.

I do wonder why we require people to investigate other people though. People are known to alter evidence to protect other people in some cases. =P

We really need a douchebag channel...

Huh, so that's how it works over there. I've been pulled over and fined three times (the vehicle inspection wasn't up to date, never could remember important dates...) and been a passanger on one occasion. They wrote the report in front of us, told us to read through it and sign it.

Don't know if that's the policy when you're being arrested though.

>> ^Psychologic:
My dad rear-ended a guy and it was ruled the other guy's fault.

ZING! Unintentional gay joke.

Thank goodness the boys in Iraq are protecting freedom in the US

*dark?

Adding video to channels (Dark) - requested by jwray.

>> ^blankfist:
Not always at fault if you rear end someone. In LA, if the driver of the other vehicle is intoxicated, he/she is automatically at fault of the moving violation whether or not they were the cause of the accident or not.
Pay close attention to what happens everytime a police officer is caught doing wrong. They put him on 'administrative leave' and 'launch an investigation'. Why can't cops ever be fired? And why do cops have to be the ones to investigate cops?


They put them on Administrative Leave in case the charges filed against them are A) True, so they can no longer do any harm, or B) False, in which case they can wait until proven innocent (If it's a hefty charge, odds are the city will gripe that the cop is still allowed on while the investigation is ongoing)

After the investigation is completed, they're either fired, or brought back on to their shift.

And the reason other cops do the investigating is because the pope isn't available on such short notice.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Psychologic:
My dad rear-ended a guy and it was ruled the other guy's fault.

ZING! Unintentional gay joke.

Yea that guy had it coming. He totally shouldn't have been wearing those buttless chaps

This is why I think that all law enforcement officers should be cam'd and mic'd at all times.

I'm sure we can modify their badges to capture audio and VGA res video. In order for the department to arrest or bring any charges just require that the video and audio of any officer within 1/4 mile needs to be entered into the public record. Then watch all the crooked cops quit the next day.

P.S. don't forget to make not wearing the badge a felony with a mandatory 1mo sentence in a general population prison.

>> ^dgandhi:
This is why I think that all law enforcement officers should be cam'd and mic'd at all times.

Next to impossible. The average cop is already lugging between 40-60lbs of equipment, they're not going to start lugging stuff for video recording. On top of that you're going to find huge privacy issues not only for the police, but for the average citizen. Even in-dash cams are cutting it pretty close on both sides of the border. That's only allowed for "the public good." and it has been challenged in court as a privacy violation.

I can tell you what the problem is in most cases. Down there in the US, you needed cops. Well that's just great. You need cops, well here's the problem. You decided that it would be a great idea to half the hiring requirements(that is lower the standards), and now you have sub standard officers in a lot of cases. Want an example of how bad it can get? Take a look at Detroit.

How do you fix it? Easier. First step is done, put hiring requirements back to where they were. Second step, bad cops you catch you nail to the ground as in this case. Lastly, like other services you'll never get rid of what people call the "old boys club."

Cops help cops generally, but if you cross the line, you'll get your ass nailed to the floor. Minor stuff, speeding, etc, circumstances same as anyone else. If the person is an asshole, they'll be having a nice ticket. Big stuff, you bury their ass(and yes I do know cops who've given the chief of police tickets and now are on the shittiest beats). Let me finish up by saying, you can whine over it all you want. But the first person you'll end up calling when you're in trouble is the police.

And I thought Canadians were apathetic about getting things done. If you don't like how the police are, go join a freaking service and work your way through it, become the chief and change it.

Disgusting. Bullshit.

The easiest way to avoid fault when you've rear-ended someone is to claim that the other vehicle suddenly changed lanes in front of you and slammed on their brakes, just like the animal in this video did.

I know someone who was rear-ended while sitting at a red light, but the other driver's insurance was happy to take their word that the car they hit unexpectedly cut in front of them and stopped.

>> ^Mashiki:
The average cop is already lugging between 40-60lbs of equipment,

And how much do you think video cameras weigh these days? I would bet that any police department in the US can buy, off the shelf, a device smaller, and lighter than the badges they currently wear, which will capture audio/video for a week, I just want them to paint it gold and pin it to their chest.

privacy issues not only for the police, but for the average citizen.

Law enforcement is a special case, they get special exemptions from the law, and as a consequence they should be held more strictly to the law, not micing and caming them while they are on duty constitutes a clear and present danger to the privacy, security and liberty of average citizens.

the first person you'll end up calling when you're in trouble is the police.

That is demonstrably untrue, I have been assaulted, I have had my property stolen and destroyed, and at no time did it ever seem to me a good idea to deal with the police. I have, on three occasions, dealt with the police at the request of others affected by various crimes, so I can say with authority, the police are a complete and utter waste of time.

I have also been arrested, and detained for over half an hour, by mounties, without a shred of basis. While I found this annoying, they were at least, unlike police in the states, vaguely polite about it when they let me go.

If you don't like how the police are, go join a freaking service and work your way through it, become the chief and change it.

That testosterone fueled racist psycho fest is self selecting, I would not want to be a member, nor would I be able to rise through the gang ranks without playing the game, and becoming one of them. I prefer to suggest structural changes that might have an actual effect on the state of affairs.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Wow. What a bunch of fucking idiots. Don't most if not all states have an automatically at-fault law for those that rear-end others? I don't care if she was drunk, high, shooting up and giving road head all at the same time. When ever you rear end somebody, it's YOUR fault for not paying attention and/or following too closely.

My dad rear-ended a guy and it was ruled the other guy's fault. It might have had something to do with him parking in the travel lane of a curve on a major highway with no lights on to talk to someone on the other side of the median.
I've also been hit from behind at fairly high speed while sitting still at a stop light, causing me to hit the guy in front of me. I've also seen others pull out in front of a vehicle just quickly enough that the vehicle impacts them from behind.
Hitting someone from behind does not automatically mean you are at fault. It should be based on the situation, not a predetermined law (my opinion at least).


There's always exceptions.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by MarineGunrock.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by bareboards2.