TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:So do having cops eyeballing me and aiming those radar guns at me is pretty stinking annoying to me.

We all have to deal with annoyances. My mother in law lives with us. You want to hear about annoyances?

ROTFL.

I predict if the official video is favorable to DPD it will be entered into evidence but if it's unfavorable to DPD the video will be "missing" or "unreadable" like the videos showing the Summerlin Costco Murder.

Based on the prevalence of bad apples in the Metroplex, I wouldn't go to Dallas without at least two recording devices, and one of those saving video to the cloud. It's a citizen safety issue.

mojo84 wrote:So do having cops eyeballing me and aiming those radar guns at me is pretty stinking annoying to me.

We all have to deal with annoyances. My mother in law lives with us. You want to hear about annoyances?

I once was driving past a middle school right before school let out and going past a line of cars waiting to pick up their munchkins when a cop jumped out from the parked cars pointing a gun at me in the classic T. J. Hooker pose. I crossed into the oncoming traffic lane while ducking, only to see it was a radar gun. The cop laughed and went back to flirting with the moms. Talk about annoyed! I was happy no one was in the lane I swerved into.

gigag04 wrote:That's stupid. Empower your officers to handle an officer safety issue if present, but remind them all is fair game in the public eye.

The only reason to make the request would be because an officer or agency is not proud of what they do and don't want to get caught.

The simpler and constitutional solution is to do the job the way it's supposed to be done and not worry about being on video. If an officer has done the right thing, when someone reviews his video, he's less likely to press a complaint because he'd be holding his own version of proof that the officer honored his oath of office and stayed within the law.

WildBill wrote:[ Image ]

Yup, that was it. If I had caught it on video I would have complained to his boss, or posted it on YouTube.

nightmare69 wrote:Never said they didn't have the right to do such. WBC has every right to protest our dead soilders funerals but doesn't mean I have to like or agree with them. Having your own personal paparazzi who follow you around and getting involved in all your work affaires would get annoying pretty quick.

If you're planning on going into that line of work, you better learn deal with "annoyances" on a daily basis...it goes with the job. As for the DPD request, it's ridiculous and transparently self serving, especially considering some of the things they've been nailed on in just the last year...where they made statements and filed reports of incidents which were shown to be outright lies when bystander videos of the incidents surfaced afterwards.

I agree is a dumb request. Later they may ask that everyone stop running and pull over when an officer lights you up for traffic. Cause DPD had a no pursuit policy other than an active felony.

nightmare69 wrote:I agree is a dumb request. Later they may ask that everyone stop running and pull over when an officer lights you up for traffic. Cause DPD had a no pursuit policy other than an active felony.

You are comparing a constitutionally protected right with an illegal action. I'm confused.

nightmare wrote:I predict if the official video is favorable to DPD it will be entered into evidence but if it's unfavorable to DPD the video will be "missing" or "unreadable" like the videos showing the Summerlin Costco Murder.

Based on the prevalence of bad apples in the Metroplex, I wouldn't go to Dallas without at least two recording devices, and one of those saving video to the cloud. It's a citizen safety issue.

The number of "bad apples" im the metroplex is miniscule, your hyperbole aside.

Remember the announcement was not made by DPD, it was made by the Association. In a sense, that troubles me even more......

Dallas Police Association President Ron Pinkston wants citizens to stop taping because he worries someone will get hurt. “It’s creating a major officer safety issue,” he said. “We don’t know who it is pulling behind us. We don’t know they’re there to videotape, they might be part of… if that guy has has just done a kidnapping they could be part of the kidnapping. You don’t know.”

That has got to be the lamest rationalization ever. I wonder, if in the history of law enforcement, there has ever been a documented case of anyone who had "just done a kidnapping" driving around following a police car.

mojo84 wrote:More union junk.

Actually no. There is no collective bargaining in Texas for fire and police with the rare exception of meet & confer sessions called by the government entity. They are associations though some of them call themselves locals of AFL-CIO unions. But all that does is funnel money to the democratic PACs. I have witnessed several times where the IFFA for instance was contacted to help with a labor issue, but they had better things to do. Yet the yahoos stay affiliated with them. Idiots.

Maybe they just got their lines wrong....law enforcement people usually say "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear." So aren't they really declaring they've got something to hide?

VMI77 wrote:Maybe they just got their lines wrong....law enforcement people usually say "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear." So aren't they really declaring they've got something to hide?

Not only do they have something to hide, they are stupid enough to do it in public and immature enough to whine when they get caught.

Dallas

Dragonfighter wrote:

mojo84 wrote:More union junk.

Actually no. There is no collective bargaining in Texas for fire and police with the rare exception of meet & confer sessions called by the government entity. They are associations though some of them call themselves locals of AFL-CIO unions. But all that does is funnel money to the democratic PACs. I have witnessed several times where the IFFA for instance was contacted to help with a labor issue, but they had better things to do. Yet the yahoos stay affiliated with them. Idiots.

I didn't say anything about "collective bargaining".

http://dallaspa.org/about/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cleat.org/about/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Calling something by a different name doesn't make it something different.