Become a police officer? Not worth it!!!

[Res Ipsa]

I'm confident with a 115% certainty that if it were a white person holding a cell phone Dages never would have even considered stopping and questioning him.

Is it a crime for a policeman to stop and question someone by mistake?

What utter BS, and it isn't surprising that Nazis are gleeful over the verdict.

I don't think you have any idea what a Nazi or racist even is. The lie detector test asked the officer if he stopped Johnson because he was black. The officer responded no and this was accepted as true according to the lie detector test. Do you not believe the science?

But it isn't really anything new. Getting Cops indicted for their crimes is difficult enough, but getting them convicted is even harder.

Finding a policeman when you're being robbed or having your home broken into will be the most difficult task of all. Good luck trying to defend yourself on your own.

The science on lie detector tests says that they are unreliable evidence of truth telling. That’s why they are not admissible evidence in court.

[canpakes]

Officer Dages may have even mistakenly believed Johnson was smoking in the trolley zone.

I'm trying to think of the last time I saw smoke come out of someone's cell phone.

Maybe it was a Samsung Galaxy Note 7?

But, I’m also trying to figure out how two banks being set afire during the subsequent riot is - per the OP anecdote - “the city burned down”.. : )

[Jersey Girl]

Is it a crime for a policeman to stop and question someone by mistake?



I don't think you have any idea what a Nazi or racist even is. The lie detector test asked the officer if he stopped Johnson because he was black. The officer responded no and this was accepted as true according to the lie detector test. Do you not believe the science?



Finding a policeman when you're being robbed or having your home broken into will be the most difficult task of all. Good luck trying to defend yourself on your own.

The science on lie detector tests says that they are unreliable evidence of truth telling. That’s why they are not admissible evidence in court.

Polygraph results are never entered into evidence during a trial. You are spot on there. Well, of course you are.

[ajax18]

The science on lie detector tests says that they are unreliable evidence of truth telling. That’s why they are not admissible evidence in court.

Are policemen normally fired and denied any retirement they've earned for detaining someone they mistakenly believed was smoking?

[Res Ipsa]

The science on lie detector tests says that they are unreliable evidence of truth telling. That’s why they are not admissible evidence in court.

Are policemen normally fired and denied any retirement they've earned for detaining someone they mistakenly believed was smoking?

That isn't what happened. He was fired for violations of several police regulations, including making false and misleading statements in his report.

I haven't been able to find a copy of his police report. But, when explaining why he approached the young man, he included things like he was standing in an unusual position and that it was unusual for a person to be standing in the location he was. That's the kind of stuff police officers write when they think someone is dealing drugs and they're trying to justify stopping someone so they can get a search.

The longer video shows that the fare zone is well marked and that they guy was outside it. By the time the report was written, they'd done a search of the guy and knew he wasn't smoking. But the officer wrote in the report that the suspect was smoking and did not include the fact that he was wrong in the report. He also had his body camera off when he approached the suspect, when he was supposed to have it on. He also omitted other exculpatory evidence from his report, like the fact that the suspect called his friends and handed the phone to the officer in order to confirm why he was there. The department also found that the officer violated regulations governing how to deal with a suspect.

An administrative appeal panel upheld the firing. He's appealed to the court, and the case is pending. The fact that a prosecutor failed to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt on the falsification issue (I've not even seen folks cite the statute he was charged under) is not relevant to whether the department had cause to fire him.

To me, this looks very much like a profiling case -- young black man hanging out in front of nice homes. Mistaking a cell phone for a cigarette sounds pretty implausible to me. I think it's not as believable as a cop seeing a young black man in the wrong neighborhood making several phone, thinking "drug dealer," and inventing a pretext to try and get a search. And writing up his report as if his pretext were true and omitting exculpatory evidence would support that impression.

[Res Ipsa]

Are policemen normally fired and denied any retirement they've earned for detaining someone they mistakenly believed was smoking?

That isn't what happened. He was fired for violations of several police regulations, including making false and misleading statements in his report.

I haven't been able to find a copy of his police report. But, when explaining why he approached the young man, he included things like he was standing in an unusual position and that it was unusual for a person to be standing in the location he was. That's the kind of stuff police officers write when they think someone is dealing drugs and they're trying to justify stopping someone so they can get a search.

The longer video shows that the fare zone is well marked and that they guy was outside it. By the time the report was written, they'd done a search of the guy and knew he wasn't smoking. But the officer wrote in the report that the suspect was smoking and did not include the fact that he was wrong in the report. He also had his body camera off when he approached the suspect, when he was supposed to have it on. He also omitted other exculpatory evidence from his report, like the fact that the suspect called his friends and handed the phone to the officer in order to confirm why he was there. The department also found that the officer violated regulations governing how to deal with a suspect.

An administrative appeal panel upheld the firing. He's appealed to the court, and the case is pending. The fact that a prosecutor failed to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt on the falsification issue (I've not even seen folks cite the statute he was charged under) is not relevant to whether the department had cause to fire him.

To me, this looks very much like a profiling case -- young black man hanging out in front of nice homes. Mistaking a cell phone for a cigarette sounds pretty implausible to me. I think it's not as believable as a cop seeing a young black man in the wrong neighborhood making several phone, thinking "drug dealer," and inventing a pretext to try and get a search. And writing up his report as if his pretext were true and omitting exculpatory evidence would support that impression.

ETA: The frequency of law enforcement "testilying" is a well-recognized problem. Here's one of many articles on the topic: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... lying.html

[ajax18]

To me, this looks very much like a profiling case -- young black man hanging out in front of nice homes.

Why would a policeman suspect a young black man hanging out in front of some nice homes might have illegal drugs on him? Why does such a stereotype exist?

Why would Lois Lerner have cause to audit a business or corporation because they had donated money to the Tea Party? K Graham has no problem with profiling when weaponizing the government and law enforcement against his political opponents. After all, if the Tea Party believes that we're taxed enough already, why not "stop and frisk," anyone who voted Republican in the last election and overlook any audits of those who voted Democrat.

What if I were to get verbally abusive and violent with the IRS when they come after my business, saying I was being singled out for tax violations that others get away with?

In any event, the officer should have known after the OJ Simpson trial to not be a cop in California. I wouldn't doubt his family were Democrats who shielded him from the real news most of his life, and thus caused him to make such an ignorant and uninformed decision to work in law enforcement on the left coast where it's open season on law enforcement.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What’s your motivation for starting these racially oriented threads, Ajax?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

To me, this looks very much like a profiling case -- young black man hanging out in front of nice homes.

Why would a policeman suspect a young black man hanging out in front of some nice homes might have illegal drugs on him? Why does such a stereotype exist?

Why would Lois Lerner have cause to audit a business or corporation because they had donated money to the Tea Party? K Graham has no problem with profiling when weaponizing the government and law enforcement against his political opponents. After all, if the Tea Party believes that we're taxed enough already, why not "stop and frisk," anyone who voted Republican in the last election and overlook any audits of those who voted Democrat.

What if I were to get verbally abusive and violent with the IRS when they come after my business, saying I was being singled out for tax violations that others get away with?

In any event, the officer should have known after the OJ Simpson trial to not be a cop in California. I wouldn't doubt his family were Democrats who shielded him from the real news most of his life, and thus caused him to make such an ignorant and uninformed decision to work in law enforcement on the left coast where it's open season on law enforcement.

You do understand that cops don’t get to violate peoples constitutional Rights based on stereotypes, right?

[ajax18]

You do understand that cops don’t get to violate peoples constitutional Rights based on stereotypes, right?

I suppose that's true for racial stereotypes. But discrimination and persecution based on political party seems to be fair game in America today.