Long Island Street Action
- Thread starter Escort_King
- Start date
Avoid Coram!
Late morning saw 2 unmarked LE vehicles, each with a car pulled over; white, new, 4-door F150 with 3 officers (on Middle Country Road), all dressed in sweatshirts, could have been landscapers. Also older, black Impala again with LE dressed in street clothes (Fife). Each had a single red dash/visor light, nothing fancy.
CI - Only saw speed-walker by the USA gas.
Late morning saw 2 unmarked LE vehicles, each with a car pulled over; white, new, 4-door F150 with 3 officers (on Middle Country Road), all dressed in sweatshirts, could have been landscapers. Also older, black Impala again with LE dressed in street clothes (Fife). Each had a single red dash/visor light, nothing fancy.
CI - Only saw speed-walker by the USA gas.
I picked up a bsw last week near there. Kinda cute, thin small tits. She looked like a thinner version of Mimi that's there a lot.. Mimi also gives a great bbj. Went to my low key spot, gave her 45 for an awesome bbj, she offered bbfs, but I wouldn't go bare and didn't have a condom, so I passed. She said that heavy read head chick picked up a dude from an ad and he turned out to bet LE. She ran out of the car and now they're scoping her out. I also saw Sandy, wsw, there the past couple days. She looks like shit now and gives a terrible bbj.
I would stay away from the Hempstead stroll. It’s very hot right now my buddy drove through and saw two newbies. One middle-age Latin street walker one young 20 something white street walker bleach blonde nice body beautiful face. She looked too good to be true so he passed drove around a few times and she re-emerged decided to pull over nearby she walked over and asked if she could get in the car. Drove off to a quiet spot had a nice conversation agreed on a deal. All of a sudden LE pulled behind a car blocked in his vehicle. Cop got out questions him IDs him told my buddy to leave and not return or it would be trouble for him. He left the girl with the detective. He figured it was a cheap lesson for the cost of.4 After being out of the area he noticed the girl left the .4 in the door well so it didn’t cost them anything. Shame he said she was hot. Best he’s seen in years. She was not involved with PD she reeked of weed and completed LE check. FYI.
Correct, but Mrclean never insinuated that.
In my 40+ years of mongering I had only 2 instances of contact with LE: one was for the crime of "driving while white" (I've posted this before and searched me, my car etc and let me go w/o any tickets) and a second where cops saw me pick up a girl and did the same routine described by Mrclean's, ahem, "buddy".
The cops separated us with girl sitting in cop car. Questioning occurred to both of us and I assume they were trying to see if our stories didn't match. I never lie to LE (not joking) and when they asked if I knew her (I said no - the truth) and why did I pick her up, I said she indicated she wanted a ride (she said to me when I asked her if she needed a ride she said yes - the truth also). Took my ID and I assume checked me out for open warrants. Since I "confessed" that I picked up a hitch hiker cop gave me a ticket for hitch hiking; stupid cop — unless it is specifically posted, as it is on NYS Thruway, picking up a hitch hiker is not illegal — although hitch hiking is illegal for the hitch hiker if done from shoulder of road (but not from sidewalk). Went to court and judge threw out ticket as no crime on my part was committed. Don't know what happened to girl as she was still in cop car cop they told me to go.
In my 40+ years of mongering I had only 2 instances of contact with LE: one was for the crime of "driving while white" (I've posted this before and searched me, my car etc and let me go w/o any tickets) and a second where cops saw me pick up a girl and did the same routine described by Mrclean's, ahem, "buddy".
The cops separated us with girl sitting in cop car. Questioning occurred to both of us and I assume they were trying to see if our stories didn't match. I never lie to LE (not joking) and when they asked if I knew her (I said no - the truth) and why did I pick her up, I said she indicated she wanted a ride (she said to me when I asked her if she needed a ride she said yes - the truth also). Took my ID and I assume checked me out for open warrants. Since I "confessed" that I picked up a hitch hiker cop gave me a ticket for hitch hiking; stupid cop — unless it is specifically posted, as it is on NYS Thruway, picking up a hitch hiker is not illegal — although hitch hiking is illegal for the hitch hiker if done from shoulder of road (but not from sidewalk). Went to court and judge threw out ticket as no crime on my part was committed. Don't know what happened to girl as she was still in cop car cop they told me to go.
Not so much "stupid cop" as "typical cop", one they don't know the laws and are not really trained to actually know the laws, but claim that they do. The US legal standard is that we the people must know and follow all the laws, even the unconstitutional ones; however the police are in a court of law legally allowed to not know the law and be have immunity from being held accountable of their actions (ticketing you, stopping you or arresting you). They can only be held accountable if there is something that violates a departmental policy or a court case exists affirming the illegality of that thing; so basically that's why over 97% of police officers win in court, not because they aren't guilty they just legally don't have to be held accountable.
couple points:
Am I kinda naïve to think that a traffic cop should be familiar with the various laws related to operation of vehicles on public roads, much like I would think vice crimes cops would be familiar with laws regarding vice crimes?
When the cop gave me the ticket he took out a flip chart type note book that had the various laws, short descriptive enforcement criteria and code #'s to write on the ticket. I went online and looked up the codes and the law was just a couple of bullet points on what illegal hitch hiking was:
From what I remember (many years ago)
from the point of view of some one trying to solicit a ride: someone standing on the shoulder of the road or in the roadway, i.e. not on the sidewalk, street corner, hanging from a church steeple, etc,, and indicting to passing motorists via signage, or hand motion, that they want a ride is illegal.
from the point of view of the driver of a vehicle: (it did say vehicle, as I recall, so if you are riding a horse it doesn't apply but a horse drawn carriage may - so cowboys are ok but the Amish better look out) that it was illegal to stop for a passenger on a public highway where prohibition of hitchhiking was posted.
When I told the judge that it was not posted and hence not illegal for me to pick up a hitchhiker, the ADA took out a flip chart type note book (similar to what the cop had) went to the code, read it and said to the judge "in the interest of justice the people recommend dismissing the charge" (or some such face saving BS statement ) and the judge said "case dismissed - next").
Ps. WADR to your theory of Not so much "stupid cop" as "typical cop", I'm keeping with stupid cop.
Am I kinda naïve to think that a traffic cop should be familiar with the various laws related to operation of vehicles on public roads, much like I would think vice crimes cops would be familiar with laws regarding vice crimes?
When the cop gave me the ticket he took out a flip chart type note book that had the various laws, short descriptive enforcement criteria and code #'s to write on the ticket. I went online and looked up the codes and the law was just a couple of bullet points on what illegal hitch hiking was:
From what I remember (many years ago)
from the point of view of some one trying to solicit a ride: someone standing on the shoulder of the road or in the roadway, i.e. not on the sidewalk, street corner, hanging from a church steeple, etc,, and indicting to passing motorists via signage, or hand motion, that they want a ride is illegal.
from the point of view of the driver of a vehicle: (it did say vehicle, as I recall, so if you are riding a horse it doesn't apply but a horse drawn carriage may - so cowboys are ok but the Amish better look out) that it was illegal to stop for a passenger on a public highway where prohibition of hitchhiking was posted.
When I told the judge that it was not posted and hence not illegal for me to pick up a hitchhiker, the ADA took out a flip chart type note book (similar to what the cop had) went to the code, read it and said to the judge "in the interest of justice the people recommend dismissing the charge" (or some such face saving BS statement ) and the judge said "case dismissed - next").
Ps. WADR to your theory of Not so much "stupid cop" as "typical cop", I'm keeping with stupid cop.
It's good to question everything, so my mistake for leaving out the relevant sources to address my 97% statistic(and yes a little over exaggeration, but only slightly)
It's up to you to do the research, and formulate your own opinions, below is some useful starting points.
Even the police know how bad their bad apples are, but still refuse to do anything about it.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/595kv3/police-crime-database
First Police Officers are rarely charged.
If the police officers are even investigated, the investigations fall onto the same police department the officer is from, which creates major conflicts of interest. Other times the only available evidence comes from eyewitnesses, who may not be as trustworthy in the public eye as a police officer. There is a tendency to believe an officer over a civilian(not even the criminal), in terms of credibility, and when an officer is on trial, reasonable doubt has a lot of bite. A prosecutor needs a very strong case before a jury will say that somebody we generally trust to protect us has so seriously crossed the line as to be subject to a conviction.
If police are charged (97% are never referred to court) , they’re rarely convicted. The National Police Misconduct Reporting Project analyzed 3,238 criminal cases against police officers from April 2009 through December 2010. They found that only 33 percent were convicted, and 36 percent of officers who were convicted ended up serving prison sentences. Both of those are about half the rate at which members of the public are convicted or incarcerated.
If they are actually prosecuted, there are numerous systemic barriers that historically hinder police accountability. Statutes found in police union contracts and police bills of rights, for instance, often protect officers at the expense of holding them accountable for their actions. But perhaps one of the strongest barriers to police accountability is enshrined in two precedent-setting Supreme Court cases.
In 1985, the Supreme Court heard the case Tennessee v. Garner, in which a Memphis police officer shot an unarmed teenager following a house burglary. The court evaluated whether the officer’s deadly use of force was a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
The Supreme Court concluded in Tennessee v. Garner that an officer’s use of deadly force must be based on probable cause and should be reasonable
The reasonableness standard was further defined in the 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, in which a physical altercation took place between a man having an insulin reaction and police officers who assumed the man was drunk and attempted to arrest him. Here the Supreme Court established that the “reasonableness” of an officer’s use of force must be judged through the perspective of a “reasonable officer on the scene” and must take into account the fact that “officers are forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
Another factor influencing jurors’ general deferment to police under the objective reasonableness standard is the public’s overall positive outlook on law enforcement. Surveys conducted by Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2016 show that Americans have an overall positive outlook on police. Harris said it can be difficult for jurors to contradict the long-held perception that officers are to be respected and trusted.
While the objective reasonableness standard has remained the precedent for evaluating officer use of force since 1989, the public scrutiny of police violence incidents has only grown, with more incidents garnering national media attention.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2905
https://www.checkthepolice.org/s/Campaign-Zero-Police-Union-Contract-Report.pdf
https://www.nlg-npap.org/
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/qua...tutional-violations-but-that-can-change/?rf=1
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-police-officers-arent-held-accountable-when-they-kill-people/amp
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/23/us/police-deadly-force-trials/index.html
It's up to you to do the research, and formulate your own opinions, below is some useful starting points.
Even the police know how bad their bad apples are, but still refuse to do anything about it.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/595kv3/police-crime-database
First Police Officers are rarely charged.
If the police officers are even investigated, the investigations fall onto the same police department the officer is from, which creates major conflicts of interest. Other times the only available evidence comes from eyewitnesses, who may not be as trustworthy in the public eye as a police officer. There is a tendency to believe an officer over a civilian(not even the criminal), in terms of credibility, and when an officer is on trial, reasonable doubt has a lot of bite. A prosecutor needs a very strong case before a jury will say that somebody we generally trust to protect us has so seriously crossed the line as to be subject to a conviction.
If police are charged (97% are never referred to court) , they’re rarely convicted. The National Police Misconduct Reporting Project analyzed 3,238 criminal cases against police officers from April 2009 through December 2010. They found that only 33 percent were convicted, and 36 percent of officers who were convicted ended up serving prison sentences. Both of those are about half the rate at which members of the public are convicted or incarcerated.
If they are actually prosecuted, there are numerous systemic barriers that historically hinder police accountability. Statutes found in police union contracts and police bills of rights, for instance, often protect officers at the expense of holding them accountable for their actions. But perhaps one of the strongest barriers to police accountability is enshrined in two precedent-setting Supreme Court cases.
In 1985, the Supreme Court heard the case Tennessee v. Garner, in which a Memphis police officer shot an unarmed teenager following a house burglary. The court evaluated whether the officer’s deadly use of force was a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
The Supreme Court concluded in Tennessee v. Garner that an officer’s use of deadly force must be based on probable cause and should be reasonable
The reasonableness standard was further defined in the 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, in which a physical altercation took place between a man having an insulin reaction and police officers who assumed the man was drunk and attempted to arrest him. Here the Supreme Court established that the “reasonableness” of an officer’s use of force must be judged through the perspective of a “reasonable officer on the scene” and must take into account the fact that “officers are forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
Another factor influencing jurors’ general deferment to police under the objective reasonableness standard is the public’s overall positive outlook on law enforcement. Surveys conducted by Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2016 show that Americans have an overall positive outlook on police. Harris said it can be difficult for jurors to contradict the long-held perception that officers are to be respected and trusted.
While the objective reasonableness standard has remained the precedent for evaluating officer use of force since 1989, the public scrutiny of police violence incidents has only grown, with more incidents garnering national media attention.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2905
https://www.checkthepolice.org/s/Campaign-Zero-Police-Union-Contract-Report.pdf
https://www.nlg-npap.org/
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/qua...tutional-violations-but-that-can-change/?rf=1
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-police-officers-arent-held-accountable-when-they-kill-people/amp
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/23/us/police-deadly-force-trials/index.html
It is the LAWS that are stupid, not the Cops.
(Although the Police Department certainly has their share!)
Local heat keeps the streets orderly. Disruptions are solved by flawed arrests.
The actual conviction rate is well below 50%. Their job is reactive by definition.
Feds are trained Lawyers....their case is built BEFORE the arrest is made.....even THEY don't achieve 97%!
I call Shenanigans!
(Although the Police Department certainly has their share!)
Local heat keeps the streets orderly. Disruptions are solved by flawed arrests.
The actual conviction rate is well below 50%. Their job is reactive by definition.
Feds are trained Lawyers....their case is built BEFORE the arrest is made.....even THEY don't achieve 97%!
I call Shenanigans!