Damn pigs need a good kicking in the teeth...

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:14:54 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other incidents.
>>Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as documented
>>proof that misconduct is happening.
>>
>>The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give you
>>an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content. To
>>refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
>>illegal.
>
> And for four cops to beat the **** out of a suspect with their
> nightsticks is REALLY illegal.

No, that's not illegal at all depending on the circumstances. Four cops
could be shooting at one person and it's not illegal considering the events
prior to it.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"jaybird" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other
incidents.
> > Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as documented
> > proof that misconduct is happening.
> >
> > The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give
you
> > an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content. To
> > refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
> > illegal.
>
> Which federal law would that be? And yes, cops do give you every
> opportunity to lodge a complaint. What happens after that depends on the
> business the cop was conducting at the time. Remember that emergency
> vehicles are not normal traffic whether they are operating with lights and
> siren or not.
>
> If the complaint is unfounded, since emergency vehicles are exempt from
> traffic law when in the performance of their duties, how would you show
this
> as misconduct? I agree that none of us here know what was going on that
> prompted the behavior but you and the OP automatically assume that the cop
> did this without cause when it sounds to me like he was en route to a call
> and was cancelled, or sent to a different call during this.

Regardless, if it's okay for a cop to be doing 40-50 MPH with no lights or
siren in a residential zone with children and familys out and about it ought
to be okay fore everyone and the road should be psoted at that speed.
However, 50 MPH is totally unsafe in such an area, which is why speeds are
typically 25-30 MPH in such areas. Exceeding that speed is unsafe, and if an
emergency vehicle is exceeding that speed it should be for an emergency,
which warrants the use of at least lights, if not siren... Something to make
the emergency vehicle more visible, which is traveling at speeds
significantly faster than what is safe in such an area. A car going 50 MPH
in an area traffic normally goes 25-30 will omce up on a pedestrian very
quickly. It's downright reckless to be driving at those speeds in such a
place. Even assuming the emergency vehicle was on a call, that does not
change the fact that the bahavior was reckless and endangering the lives of
the people out and about in that area.

Cory

"jaybird" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other
incidents.
> > Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as documented
> > proof that misconduct is happening.
> >
> > The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give
you
> > an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content. To
> > refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
> > illegal.
>
> Which federal law would that be? And yes, cops do give you every
> opportunity to lodge a complaint. What happens after that depends on the
> business the cop was conducting at the time. Remember that emergency
> vehicles are not normal traffic whether they are operating with lights and
> siren or not.
>
> If the complaint is unfounded, since emergency vehicles are exempt from
> traffic law when in the performance of their duties, how would you show
this
> as misconduct? I agree that none of us here know what was going on that
> prompted the behavior but you and the OP automatically assume that the cop
> did this without cause when it sounds to me like he was en route to a call
> and was cancelled, or sent to a different call during this.

Regardless, if it's okay for a cop to be doing 40-50 MPH with no lights or
siren in a residential zone with children and familys out and about it ought
to be okay fore everyone and the road should be psoted at that speed.
However, 50 MPH is totally unsafe in such an area, which is why speeds are
typically 25-30 MPH in such areas. Exceeding that speed is unsafe, and if an
emergency vehicle is exceeding that speed it should be for an emergency,
which warrants the use of at least lights, if not siren... Something to make
the emergency vehicle more visible, which is traveling at speeds
significantly faster than what is safe in such an area. A car going 50 MPH
in an area traffic normally goes 25-30 will omce up on a pedestrian very
quickly. It's downright reckless to be driving at those speeds in such a
place. Even assuming the emergency vehicle was on a call, that does not
change the fact that the bahavior was reckless and endangering the lives of
the people out and about in that area.

Cory

jaybird wrote:

> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other incidents.
>>Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as documented
>>proof that misconduct is happening.
>>
>>The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give you
>>an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content. To
>>refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
>>illegal.
>
>
> Which federal law would that be? And yes, cops do give you every
> opportunity to lodge a complaint. What happens after that depends on the
> business the cop was conducting at the time. Remember that emergency
> vehicles are not normal traffic whether they are operating with lights and
> siren or not.

Incorrect in most states.

>
> If the complaint is unfounded, since emergency vehicles are exempt from
> traffic law when in the performance of their duties,

Incorrect in most states.

> how would you show this
> as misconduct? I agree that none of us here know what was going on that
> prompted the behavior but you and the OP automatically assume that the cop
> did this without cause when it sounds to me like he was en route to a call
> and was cancelled, or sent to a different call during this.
>

If he was going to a call he should have had lights and/or siren on.
This is NJ we're talking about not Texas. And even in Texas it still
would have been irresponsible, and the kind of driving that you like to
point out as reckless when anyone but a cop does it.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

jaybird wrote:

> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other incidents.
>>Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as documented
>>proof that misconduct is happening.
>>
>>The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give you
>>an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content. To
>>refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
>>illegal.
>
>
> Which federal law would that be? And yes, cops do give you every
> opportunity to lodge a complaint. What happens after that depends on the
> business the cop was conducting at the time. Remember that emergency
> vehicles are not normal traffic whether they are operating with lights and
> siren or not.

Incorrect in most states.

>
> If the complaint is unfounded, since emergency vehicles are exempt from
> traffic law when in the performance of their duties,

Incorrect in most states.

> how would you show this
> as misconduct? I agree that none of us here know what was going on that
> prompted the behavior but you and the OP automatically assume that the cop
> did this without cause when it sounds to me like he was en route to a call
> and was cancelled, or sent to a different call during this.
>

If he was going to a call he should have had lights and/or siren on.
This is NJ we're talking about not Texas. And even in Texas it still
would have been irresponsible, and the kind of driving that you like to
point out as reckless when anyone but a cop does it.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

jaybird wrote:
> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other
incidents.
> > Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as
documented
> > proof that misconduct is happening.
> >
> > The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and
give you
> > an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content.
To
> > refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is
also
> > illegal.
>
> Which federal law would that be? And yes, cops do give you every
> opportunity to lodge a complaint. What happens after that depends on
the
> business the cop was conducting at the time. Remember that emergency

> vehicles are not normal traffic whether they are operating with
lights and
> siren or not.
>
> If the complaint is unfounded, since emergency vehicles are exempt
from
> traffic law when in the performance of their duties, how would you
show this
> as misconduct? I agree that none of us here know what was going on
that
> prompted the behavior but you and the OP automatically assume that
the cop
> did this without cause when it sounds to me like he was en route to a
call
> and was cancelled, or sent to a different call during this.

Why do you hate white people?

>
> --
> ---
> jaybird
> ---
> I am not the cause of your problems.
> My actions are the result of your actions.
> Your life is not my fault.

jaybird wrote:
> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other
incidents.
> > Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as
documented
> > proof that misconduct is happening.
> >
> > The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and
give you
> > an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content.
To
> > refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is
also
> > illegal.
>
> Which federal law would that be? And yes, cops do give you every
> opportunity to lodge a complaint. What happens after that depends on
the
> business the cop was conducting at the time. Remember that emergency

> vehicles are not normal traffic whether they are operating with
lights and
> siren or not.
>
> If the complaint is unfounded, since emergency vehicles are exempt
from
> traffic law when in the performance of their duties, how would you
show this
> as misconduct? I agree that none of us here know what was going on
that
> prompted the behavior but you and the OP automatically assume that
the cop
> did this without cause when it sounds to me like he was en route to a
call
> and was cancelled, or sent to a different call during this.

Why do you hate white people?

>
> --
> ---
> jaybird
> ---
> I am not the cause of your problems.
> My actions are the result of your actions.
> Your life is not my fault.

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>> It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other
>> incidents. Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as
>> documented proof that misconduct is happening.
>>
>> The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give
>> you an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content.
>> To refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
>> illegal.
>
> I've had them refuse in the past (not a trivial case like this one).
> Would
> appreciate a reference to the federal law in case it happens again.

Here is a link to the text of the Serrano-Hyde bill on police brutality,
which addresses filing complaints:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hju62440_0.htm

I've found numerous other reports on filing complaints, but I'm still
looking for the specific law.

However, if my memory serves me correctly, I do remember watching a TV
magazine (20/20, Dateline, et al) report on police departments that would
either refuse an undercover reporter's request for a complaint form or
impede the request to the point of frustration with the process. I'll keep
looking and post what I find.

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>> It's important to make a paper trail documenting this and other
>> incidents. Nothing may come of this one incident, but it can be used as
>> documented proof that misconduct is happening.
>>
>> The cops are required by federal law to answer your questions and give
>> you an opportunity to lodge written complaints, no matter the content.
>> To refuse is illegal, plain and simple. To harass a complainant is also
>> illegal.
>
> I've had them refuse in the past (not a trivial case like this one).
> Would
> appreciate a reference to the federal law in case it happens again.

Here is a link to the text of the Serrano-Hyde bill on police brutality,
which addresses filing complaints:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hju62440_0.htm

I've found numerous other reports on filing complaints, but I'm still
looking for the specific law.

However, if my memory serves me correctly, I do remember watching a TV
magazine (20/20, Dateline, et al) report on police departments that would
either refuse an undercover reporter's request for a complaint form or
impede the request to the point of frustration with the process. I'll keep
looking and post what I find.

> Cory Dunkle wrote:
of course I don't expect anything to be done about
> this
> > "officers" reckless behavior, but at least I'll feel better for
> reporting it
> > and having it on paper, assuming the pigs don't shred it and
pretend
> like
> > nothing ever happened.
> >
> > Cory

Furious George wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up. The next time I see NJ municipal plate
> MG40715, I'll know to be extra careful.

I agree and I am careful of *every municipal plate* in NJ...But, let's
talk about the grand scheme of things in NJ.

#1 No one is above the law
#2 The law is NOT applied evenly and equally
#3 Pick your fights
#4 There is more than 10 ways to skin a cat
#5 There is a reason why *The Sopranos* show is filmed in NJ

Cory...why would you want to sign a complaint and possibly go head to
head with in cop in a NJ Municipal court? Before the ink is dry, you
will be run thru DMV and all the other databases that the police have
access to. They will know the color of your underwear as you stand
before the judge.

Why not write a well documented letter from a concerned citizen (Cory
Dunkle) to the mayor, who writes this guy's check? Someone in the chain
of command will *talk to him* and tell him to knock it off and be more
careful of how he drives. Isn't that what this is all about?
Peter from NJ