Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
Baby was warned and had numerous opportunities to get itself out of the bathtub before the bathwater was thrown out.
Sounds to me like one of the strongest options is hinted at here:
"Details are limited given it's at the start of a wider dismantling
process, including with regards as to who would provide the primary law
enforcement. It's possible that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office
could play a role, given Minneapolis is in its jurisdiction."
County Sheriffs are often required better, more in-depth training but I've bumped into a few I'd just as soon forget.
Will be interesting to see where this goes.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
You should read that article about Camden. They also refer to what they're doing as "community policing" but there are actually more cops on the ground - they're just employed by the county vs. a traditional city PD. The other article hints at Minneapolis moving toward something similar (though no talk of head count).
I’m in Falcon Heights, MN where Philando Castile was murdered by cops. At that time our city was sharing police services with another municipality. Our city council terminated the agreement and put a bid out for police services. No one wanted it.
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
Post edited by jerparker20 on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,860
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
You should read that article about Camden. They also refer to what they're doing as "community policing" but there are actually more cops on the ground - they're just employed by the county vs. a traditional city PD. The other article hints at Minneapolis moving toward something similar (though no talk of head count).
I’m in Falcon Heights, MN where Philando Castile was murdered by cops. At that time our city was sharing police services with another municipality. Our city council terminated the agreement and put a bid out for police services. No one wanted it.
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
What makes you say the Camden model is unsustainable? It's been 7 years now and anything I've read seems to tout improvements. I'm certainly no expert and not even necessarily an advocate. Just curious where the soft spots are.
Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
You should read that article about Camden. They also refer to what they're doing as "community policing" but there are actually more cops on the ground - they're just employed by the county vs. a traditional city PD. The other article hints at Minneapolis moving toward something similar (though no talk of head count).
I’m in Falcon Heights, MN where Philando Castile was murdered by cops. At that time our city was sharing police services with another municipality. Our city council terminated the agreement and put a bid out for police services. No one wanted it.
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
What makes you say the Camden model is unsustainable? It's been 7 years now and anything I've read seems to tout improvements. I'm certainly no expert and not even necessarily an advocate. Just curious where the soft spots are.
Maybe should have picked a better word than sustainable. From my understanding, Camden now has more officers patrolling the city under the county system and has dramatically increased the use of surveillance. Not sure that decreases “policing” per say as some folks are calling for. Camden is also much smaller than Minneapolis.
There are a lot of layers/ideas/options to be explored to resolving this issue. I’m open to them as reform is needed. After having spent numerous years working in adult education/workforce development for community based organizations, I guess I get a little skeptical when politicians throw out generalities stating they are going to do something like “disbanding” “dismantling” “community policing” without a plan to go along with it. Sounds like pandering.
Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
You should read that article about Camden. They also refer to what they're doing as "community policing" but there are actually more cops on the ground - they're just employed by the county vs. a traditional city PD. The other article hints at Minneapolis moving toward something similar (though no talk of head count).
I’m in Falcon Heights, MN where Philando Castile was murdered by cops. At that time our city was sharing police services with another municipality. Our city council terminated the agreement and put a bid out for police services. No one wanted it.
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
What makes you say the Camden model is unsustainable? It's been 7 years now and anything I've read seems to tout improvements. I'm certainly no expert and not even necessarily an advocate. Just curious where the soft spots are.
Maybe should have picked a better word than sustainable. From my understanding, Camden now has more officers patrolling the city under the county system and has dramatically increased the use of surveillance. Not sure that decreases “policing” per say as some folks are calling for. Camden is also much smaller than Minneapolis.
There are a lot of layers/ideas/options to be explored to resolving this issue. I’m open to them as reform is needed. After having spent numerous years working in adult education/workforce development for community based organizations, I guess I get a little skeptical when politicians throw out generalities stating they are going to do something like “disbanding” “dismantling” “community policing” without a plan to go along with it. Sounds like pandering.
Gotcha and I agree with everything you're saying. To your point, it will be easier to take a critical look at what Minneapolis intends to do once there is a firm plan.
Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
You should read that article about Camden. They also refer to what they're doing as "community policing" but there are actually more cops on the ground - they're just employed by the county vs. a traditional city PD. The other article hints at Minneapolis moving toward something similar (though no talk of head count).
I’m in Falcon Heights, MN where Philando Castile was murdered by cops. At that time our city was sharing police services with another municipality. Our city council terminated the agreement and put a bid out for police services. No one wanted it.
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
What makes you say the Camden model is unsustainable? It's been 7 years now and anything I've read seems to tout improvements. I'm certainly no expert and not even necessarily an advocate. Just curious where the soft spots are.
Maybe should have picked a better word than sustainable. From my understanding, Camden now has more officers patrolling the city under the county system and has dramatically increased the use of surveillance. Not sure that decreases “policing” per say as some folks are calling for. Camden is also much smaller than Minneapolis.
There are a lot of layers/ideas/options to be explored to resolving this issue. I’m open to them as reform is needed. After having spent numerous years working in adult education/workforce development for community based organizations, I guess I get a little skeptical when politicians throw out generalities stating they are going to do something like “disbanding” “dismantling” “community policing” without a plan to go along with it. Sounds like pandering.
Gotcha and I agree with everything you're saying. To your point, it will be easier to take a critical look at what Minneapolis intends to do once there is a firm plan.
Agreed...but the Minneapolis City Council is giving people the impression that they're just going to defund (the meaning of which people don't understand) and...well...that's it. There seems to be no plan. I hope it's just really poor communication.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Interested in seeing how this all works out. I kinda hate throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s bold.
You should read that article about Camden. They also refer to what they're doing as "community policing" but there are actually more cops on the ground - they're just employed by the county vs. a traditional city PD. The other article hints at Minneapolis moving toward something similar (though no talk of head count).
I’m in Falcon Heights, MN where Philando Castile was murdered by cops. At that time our city was sharing police services with another municipality. Our city council terminated the agreement and put a bid out for police services. No one wanted it.
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
What makes you say the Camden model is unsustainable? It's been 7 years now and anything I've read seems to tout improvements. I'm certainly no expert and not even necessarily an advocate. Just curious where the soft spots are.
Maybe should have picked a better word than sustainable. From my understanding, Camden now has more officers patrolling the city under the county system and has dramatically increased the use of surveillance. Not sure that decreases “policing” per say as some folks are calling for. Camden is also much smaller than Minneapolis.
There are a lot of layers/ideas/options to be explored to resolving this issue. I’m open to them as reform is needed. After having spent numerous years working in adult education/workforce development for community based organizations, I guess I get a little skeptical when politicians throw out generalities stating they are going to do something like “disbanding” “dismantling” “community policing” without a plan to go along with it. Sounds like pandering.
Gotcha and I agree with everything you're saying. To your point, it will be easier to take a critical look at what Minneapolis intends to do once there is a firm plan.
Agreed...but the Minneapolis City Council is giving people the impression that they're just going to defund (the meaning of which people don't understand) and...well...that's it. There seems to be no plan. I hope it's just really poor communication.
It's a horrible communication and will just end up pissing off people all around, both now and later.
Really strange...this and the SC case where the argument is that police should be immune from personal lawsuits.
Both cameras and personal liability exposure are what keep people honest.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
edited June 2020
I'm thinking that's what authoritarian types do to keep power over others...even when the others are trying to do what's right. They make a law so the right action is wrong... Just like soul-eater...they don't want oversight.
I think this is being taken out of context. It appears to me they are saying areas that police have marked off for crimes scenes, investigations, etc. should not be filmed. The George Floyd incident and any other arrest, detainment or incident response is not what this is referring to. Link to the ordinance below.
Adopted by the City Council April 21, Ordinance 11746 makes filming a crime scene a class two misdemeanor punishable by up to four months in jail and a $750 fine.
The ordinance does not ban the recording of police activity in general.
It's a hopeless situation...
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
It would have been helpful if they had created a definition because I could see people being wary of what crime scene means, but generally, it's a physical space where a felony has occurred; homicide, assault, robbery, arson, etc. If people film those areas they may compromise evidence. It seems that public mistrust is going to really turn the current legal process on it's head.
It's a hopeless situation...
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
edited June 2020
I'm thinking they can't lie in court about a crime when a citizen has a video of something they want to lie about. That's how far my cynicism has gone...we need good people in policing. I've always loved blue but I don't like bad apples and it's going to take the good police officers to get the bad apples out of their profession. The bad apples make the good officers look terrible and so the "good" officers are not trustworthy themselves because of that. It wonn't be easy, it never is but it's time to stand up. Thanks tbergs.
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
It would have been helpful if they had created a definition because I could see people being wary of what crime scene means, but generally, it's a physical space where a felony has occurred; homicide, assault, robbery, arson, etc. If people film those areas they may compromise evidence. It seems that public mistrust is going to really turn the current legal process on it's head.
What would be an example of evidence being compromised if someone is filming?
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
I sure couldn't think of anything and to me, the recording is merely a confirmation of reality. Not allowing recording sounds like someone wants to hide something.
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
It would have been helpful if they had created a definition because I could see people being wary of what crime scene means, but generally, it's a physical space where a felony has occurred; homicide, assault, robbery, arson, etc. If people film those areas they may compromise evidence. It seems that public mistrust is going to really turn the current legal process on it's head.
What would be an example of evidence being compromised if someone is filming?
Police photos or reports introduced at trial showing the location of a weapon or shell casings and someone who filmed as it happened or after it happened showing no weapon, or a weapon closer/further to/from the body or distribution of shell casings different, or something entirely different that doesn’t jibe with witness testimony (position of the sun/shadows, lighting, number of other potential witnesses, etc. etc.).
I sure couldn't think of anything and to me, the recording is merely a confirmation of reality. Not allowing recording sounds like someone wants to hide something.
That's my feeling, too, but I'm open to admitting I'm missing something
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
It would have been helpful if they had created a definition because I could see people being wary of what crime scene means, but generally, it's a physical space where a felony has occurred; homicide, assault, robbery, arson, etc. If people film those areas they may compromise evidence. It seems that public mistrust is going to really turn the current legal process on it's head.
What would be an example of evidence being compromised if someone is filming?
Police photos or reports introduced at trial showing the location of a weapon or shell casings and someone who filmed as it happened or after it happened showing no weapon, or a weapon closer/further to/from the body or distribution of shell casings different, or something entirely different that doesn’t jibe with witness testimony (position of the sun/shadows, lighting, number of other potential witnesses, etc. etc.).
Would we be in agreement if I said I found your example to be one of positive oversight? Because I'm reading tbergs as saying the person filming may be inadvertently compromising evidence.
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
It would have been helpful if they had created a definition because I could see people being wary of what crime scene means, but generally, it's a physical space where a felony has occurred; homicide, assault, robbery, arson, etc. If people film those areas they may compromise evidence. It seems that public mistrust is going to really turn the current legal process on it's head.
What would be an example of evidence being compromised if someone is filming?
Police photos or reports introduced at trial showing the location of a weapon or shell casings and someone who filmed as it happened or after it happened showing no weapon, or a weapon closer/further to/from the body or distribution of shell casings different, or something entirely different that doesn’t jibe with witness testimony (position of the sun/shadows, lighting, number of other potential witnesses, etc. etc.).
Would we be in agreement if I said I found your example to be one of positive oversight? Because I'm reading tbergs as saying the person filming may be inadvertently compromising evidence.
I’d assume “positive oversight” is relative to which “side” you’re on. Personally, I’d say yes. I can’t speak for Tbergs but he may have been referring to someone walking around on the other side of the police taped off crime scene.
Why would they ban recordings of that and couldn't they just say "we're investigating" anywhere and use that law to hide what they're doing? Has that been tested in court yet? And is it in a court that McConnell hasn't provided the judges who are not actually qualified. I may be off in the weeds but trust is definitely earned when it comes to some things.
It would have been helpful if they had created a definition because I could see people being wary of what crime scene means, but generally, it's a physical space where a felony has occurred; homicide, assault, robbery, arson, etc. If people film those areas they may compromise evidence. It seems that public mistrust is going to really turn the current legal process on it's head.
What would be an example of evidence being compromised if someone is filming?
Police photos or reports introduced at trial showing the location of a weapon or shell casings and someone who filmed as it happened or after it happened showing no weapon, or a weapon closer/further to/from the body or distribution of shell casings different, or something entirely different that doesn’t jibe with witness testimony (position of the sun/shadows, lighting, number of other potential witnesses, etc. etc.).
Is that you, Horatio?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
Update, 6/8/20: The Star Tribune has identified the officers puncturing tires as state troopers and deputies from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The officers strategically deflated the tires to “stop behaviors such as vehicles driving dangerously and at high speeds in and around protesters and law enforcement,” said Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bruce Gordon. The troopers reportedly targeted cars that “contained items used to cause harm during violent protests” such as rocks and concrete. The Anoka County Sheriff’s Lt. Andy Knotz said deputies were following directions from the state-led Multiagency Command Center.
In case it needs to be said, the explanation given is bullshit. The police are rioting.
2008 Tampa - 2013 Buffalo - 2016 Tampa - 2016 Fenway II Audioslave 2005 MSG
Update, 6/8/20: The Star Tribune has identified the officers puncturing tires as state troopers and deputies from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The officers strategically deflated the tires to “stop behaviors such as vehicles driving dangerously and at high speeds in and around protesters and law enforcement,” said Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bruce Gordon. The troopers reportedly targeted cars that “contained items used to cause harm during violent protests” such as rocks and concrete. The Anoka County Sheriff’s Lt. Andy Knotz said deputies were following directions from the state-led Multiagency Command Center.
In case it needs to be said, the explanation given is bullshit. The police are rioting.
and they weren't 'deflated' as they suggest.
They were slashed resulting in thousands of dollars in damage
Update, 6/8/20: The Star Tribune has identified the officers puncturing tires as state troopers and deputies from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The officers strategically deflated the tires to “stop behaviors such as vehicles driving dangerously and at high speeds in and around protesters and law enforcement,” said Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bruce Gordon. The troopers reportedly targeted cars that “contained items used to cause harm during violent protests” such as rocks and concrete. The Anoka County Sheriff’s Lt. Andy Knotz said deputies were following directions from the state-led Multiagency Command Center.
In case it needs to be said, the explanation given is bullshit. The police are rioting.
Police rioting might be a bit of a stretch. They know they are being watched. You think they are that blatant about what they did and would lie about it?
Comments
In MN there is statute that a municipality must provide emergency response services, if the municipality is unable to provide, the county sheriffs department must provide the service. So Falcon Heights has Ramsey County providing the police services.
With what Minneapolis city council is proposing, Hennepin County Sheriff’s department would then have to provide police services for the city.
As for what is happening in Camden, it doesn’t seem to be sustainable. Yes, there is no city PD, but they now have more county police who are being paid significantly less money. Not sure how that fixes any of the problems.
Ive been reading a book called the End of Policing by Alex Vitale. Lots of arguments and ideas for ways to reduce policing activities, reallocate funds to better serve communities without eliminating police.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are a lot of layers/ideas/options to be explored to resolving this issue. I’m open to them as reform is needed. After having spent numerous years working in adult education/workforce development for community based organizations, I guess I get a little skeptical when politicians throw out generalities stating they are going to do something like “disbanding” “dismantling” “community policing” without a plan to go along with it. Sounds like pandering.
Agreed...but the Minneapolis City Council is giving people the impression that they're just going to defund (the meaning of which people don't understand) and...well...that's it. There seems to be no plan. I hope it's just really poor communication.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/07/minneapolis-city-council-announces-intent-to-dismantle-mpd/
Both cameras and personal liability exposure are what keep people honest.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Adopted by the City Council April 21, Ordinance 11746 makes filming a crime scene a class two misdemeanor punishable by up to four months in jail and a $750 fine.
The ordinance does not ban the recording of police activity in general.
Thanks tbergs.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Unreal behavior by these uniformed personnel!
2008 Tampa - 2013 Buffalo - 2016 Tampa - 2016 Fenway II
Audioslave 2005 MSG
Too much credit to the PD?