What happened to qualified immunity
That only counts when the cops are going after civilians
Cops are civilians too
Cops are pigs
Sure, I’m just saying that despite what they think, cops are not soldiers and are civilians like us (assuming you aren’t a soldier.)
No im not a soldier, but yeah they are civilians, I used the term incorrectly!
Press X to doubt
Holy shit we found them. It’s the one good cop.
Unfortunately they pulled a David McBride on him (Aussie whistleblower who worked as a military lawyer during the Afghanistan conflict, was tasked by higher ups to move blame from war criminals to more innocent soldiers, the news corp he leaked it to threw him under the bus and reframed it as “all these soldiers doing no harm and its the system punishing them” days before his whistleblowing trial because big america stepped in)
The thing with the good cops is that they become not-cops soon after doing something good.
I’ve heard from former cops that if I a good one joins, they muscle him out and only keep the psychopaths.
That is how cults work, after all.
Finally we see what it takes to get a cop suspended WITHOUT pay…thin Blue line indeed.
Thin yellow stream
As thin as their skin
ACAB because the bastards get rid of the good ones.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127580159/houston-tipping-lapd-death-lawsuit
And yet, not one single person was surprised by this outcome. Except maybe the one good cop that was left in the LAPD.
Now that he’s gone, we can confidently say ACAB.
Oh no! The one good apple
It’s only 99% of them that make the rest look bad
Yes, fixing LAPD is maybe impossible task, I wish the city would try to create a new police department, start from scratch and disband LAPD once there is some momentum. I don’t think LAPD is even doing anything useful at this point.
For example, there was (I think) law that police can’t stop driver if the only issue is expired license plate registration sticker. They did malicious compliance and I now see cars without license plates (mostly driven by rich fucks) which is very different thing.
They did malicious compliance and I now see cars without license plates (mostly driven by rich fucks) which is very different thing.
The rich people driving without plates isn’t new. That’s been a thing for decades. Famously, Steve Jobs never had a plate on his vehicles. Granted, there he took advantage of a loophole related to grace periods, and his ability to just trade back in and lease a new vehicle twice a year… but the rich ignoring simple laws like that isn’t new.
The fine for not having a plate is minimal to them even when they’re caught.
All financial penalties across the board should be a sliding scale based on income and net worth. You don’t even have to figure out percentages directly for each infraction… just make it so all financial penalties are relative to something like the poverty line or minimum wage, and then you multiply based on how much they make above that line.
$200 penalty ($197 plus court costs technically, rounding for simplicity) at minimum wage which is roughly $35k/yr in CA currently… If their income was $35M last year that penalty would be $200k instead (I think I did that math right). $200k every time a cop pulls them over for no plate starts to add up pretty quickly.
The lapd seems so entrenched I legitimately think the only way to “fix” them is a hostile occupation where they are all arrested by the military for being the bunch of gangster thugs they actually are. Oh and don’t forget the prosecutors and judges who intentionally enable them. They get to go to jail too.
Didnt work well in West Germany.
The children of barbarians become the new tax collectors and priests
A separate administrative investigation of Flores by the LAPD found him guilty of policy violations and recommended a 22-day suspension without pay,…
…followed by summary execution by his one or more of his fellow officers the next time he goes on a call with one who can cover it up and later claim some black guy did it.
They don’t even have to do that themselves, they can just delay responding when he calls for backup.
Platoon type of shit.
They say they make whistleblower laws so you feel safe in coming forward when people in positions of power are doing terrible things, but it generally seems more like they want you to come forward so they can ruin your life and get rid of all the people not on board with doing terrible things.
The level of open corruption on display is astounding. It is my fault for thinking a police department or district attorney would respect the rights of whistleblowers. ACAB
Can someone post the text of this article? Apparently I’m supposed to sign away my rights to sue them for anything or engage in any class action by simply reading the article.
Prosecutors charge that LAPD officer Daniel Flores violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent. Flores filed an internal affairs complaint against his LAPD colleagues after recording them making racist, homophobic and sexist comments. Flores’ lawyer said the case sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom.” Los Angeles County prosecutors on Friday charged an LAPD officer with felony eavesdropping for making secret recordings of his colleagues’ racist, sexist and homophobic comments on the job.
The officer, Daniel Flores, was charged with 16 felony counts of eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications — crimes that carry a sentence of up to 13 years in prison, if convicted.
In a statement announcing the charges, L.A. Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said that while he found the recorded comments deplorable, Flores still violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent.
“This case serves as a warning to anyone seeking to record a conversation without the other person’s permission that doing so is illegal and has been a crime in the state of California for over 50 years,” the statement read. “It doesn’t matter where you work or who you are - a neighbor, a coworker or, in this case, a police officer. Your right to privacy in a confidential conversation is protected, no matter who is doing the recording or, with few exceptions, why they are doing the recording.”
Flores turned over roughly 90 recordings to his superiors, according to an internal affairs complaint he filed with the department last year, which said he hoped the evidence would be used to discipline those responsible.
Flores’ attorney, Alan Jackson, blasted the decision by prosecutors to pursue charges.
“Today the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged a police officer with a crime for reporting racism inside the Los Angeles Police Department,” Jackson said. “Not the officers who were recorded using racial, sexist, and anti-gay slurs. Not the officers who sat in a government building and said those things while holding the power to decide who becomes an LAPD officer. The officer who reported them.”
Jackson said he intends to argue that Flores made the recordings within the scope of his duties as a police officer, investigating misconduct within the workplace.
The conversations were taped between March and October 2024 involving members of the department’s recruitment unit, whose officers are tasked with deciding who can join the police force.
After The Times revealed the recordings, their existence drew wide condemnation, including by LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, Mayor Karen Bass and the police union, which called them “reprehensible” and “unacceptable” at a time when the department was struggling to attract recruits.
Jackson said the officer will fight the charge and plead not guilty, and that the law only applies where the speakers have a reasonable expectation that what they say would not be overheard or recorded.
Jackson said the anticipated charge against Flores sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom. It tells them the safe move is to hear slurs and say nothing.”
A separate administrative investigation of Flores by the LAPD found him guilty of policy violations and recommended a 22-day suspension without pay, according to Greg Smith, Flores’ civil attorney. The discipline has not yet been finalized by the LAPD chief, Smith said.
Smith said it wasn’t clear whether any of the officers that Flores recorded have been punished. California law requires most police personnel investigations to be kept confidential.
In a retaliation lawsuit that Flores filed last month against the city, the officer claimed he overheard his supervisor, who was Asian, remark that an “Asian invasion” had begun, before starting to recruit officers of Asian descent to the unit. Other times, according to the lawsuit, the supervisors and unnamed colleagues made inappropriate comments about women, referring to them as “bitches” who couldn’t be trusted.
In another conversation described in the lawsuit, Flores said he heard his supervisor discuss the death of Dodgers legend Fernando Valenzuela from septic shock, allegedly telling subordinates that the Mexican pitcher “ate too many” tacos.
Flores alleged in the suit that the officers referred to other colleagues they believed to be queer with a slew of derogatory terms. They also referred to Black people as monkeys, the complaint said. “Black people like grape soda — they enjoy watermelon between basketball,” one was overheard saying, according to the lawsuit.
Susan Seager, a UC Irvine law professor who is not involved in the case, previously told The Times that Flores’ lawyer is correct in stating that the eavesdropping law bans secret taping of conversations only in situations in which there is a reasonable expectation that the communication would not be overheard or recorded.
She said there is no expectation of privacy in nonpublic settings, such as a locker room at an LAPD station house. It’s less clear whether such protections extend to conversations at the office that revolve around work, she said.
Separately, police officers are also allowed to secretly record conversations if they are “acting within the scope of his or her authority,” according to Seager.
“Most courts say this exception only applies to taping for criminal investigations,” said Seager.
The guy should have just kept track of the times and filed a FOIA request his bodycam during that time.
That could be part of the defense: Bodycams are all around them, so any cop should assume he is being recorded whenever he is around other cops.
Wow, that’s IMPRESSIVELY awful! 😮🤬
Loads fine without JavaScript. Just use a secure or text browser
“Felony Eavesdropping” is that like “Ninja’ing With Intent to Distribute”?
I mean, if we’re just making up obviously bullshit charges now…
All party consent state.
I hate that 12 states are all-party consent. If you’re part of a conversation you should be allowed to record it, and 38 states agree.
I went to jail after being falsely charged with assault and it was only my recordings of our conversations that saved my ass. To think in California I could have been charged with a felony for providing evidence my accuser was a scheming liar is crazy to me.
Were they working at the time? Do LAPD officers wear body cams? Seems like law enforcement officers, at least while working, should reasonably expect to be recorded all the time, which would be implied consent.
You’re right (and it’s great to see someone that understands implied consent) but they’re absolutely going to make him fight for it. Meaning that if the goal is to discourage the behavior, they’ll charge anyway and let the defense attorney argue it.
I know. The cruelty is the point.
Notable that these recordings would have occurred in public.
Don’t they have body cameras. They should have no expectation of privacy if they do.
Not in the locker rooms, and typically only switched on when actively engaged in activities
Bruh body cameras are always recording, what a fucked up system. This is why there are no good cops
Which means cops have already given permission to be recorded by their fellow cops. That doesn’t mean only the normal stuff, it means the bad stuff, too.
Right? How can you have an expectation of privacy when you are wearing a recording device all fucking day?
Yeah, but they were promised those cameras would come down with mysterious “technical issues”, and bro broke that trust! /s
Also, how do body cams not violate all party consent recording? It’s not like a copy is going to ask you for consent before arresting you.
So obviously there are exceptions if you record in the course of standard policework.
They’re not always recording. There’s been a lot of cops who got in trouble for turning theirs off.
I don’t want to believe that ACAB, but the evidence sure points that way…
Tbf here was a good cop
So they pushed him out… :(
ACAB
If people realized chaos owns humanity regardless of government than maybe they would live for truth and order would be able to grow from natural chaos like the universe/God intended.
I don’t know how well that would work. The worst of these fucks seem to act with some sort of freakish resistance to acknowledging the natural world.
I don’t mean that in some green washy climate related way (though that would have been nice, oh, 60 years ago), I mean they literally seem to resist acknowledging the actual physical state of reality as put before them.
I used to be a full blown atheist, but goddamn if I’m not starting to wonder if the Gnostics aren’t on to something.
We have a lot of rules in our current civilizations that prevent us from taking the dipshits that are ruining the world and strangling them with our bare hands. Our natural chaos.
_ _ _ _.
