In a head-scratching WTH moment, apparently a member of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (on way too long of a leash) told a reporter that if the women of Oklahoma want to best avoid being sexually assaulted by a member of Oklahoma law enforcement then obey all traffic laws and 'don't get pulled over.'

Seriously? That's the opinion of law enforcement on how to avoid getting raped by one of their own.

And, in case you're keeping count, the article cites three law enforcement officers being accused of being rapists in recent days - in reality its at least 4 and if you broaden the timeline the numbers grow quite a bit....... And we are not talking about single accuser incidents - we are talking about serial rapes with multiple victims per officer.

As reported at HuffingtonPost.com.

Cop's Tip For Not Getting Raped By A Cop: 'Don't Get Pulled Over' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/oklahoma-police-rape_n_5870752.html?utm_hp_ref=women&ir=Women)


Love the troopers other suggestions;

1.) Keep your door locked and speak to the officer through a cracked window.

2.) Ask the trooper why you should get out of your car.

100% guarantee, if you refuse to pull over in an isolated location and instead drive to a public one, and then only lower your window while keeping your door locked you're gonna get yanked out of the vehicle and slammed to the ground. And when it happens, I hope the defense attorney kept a copy of this article to read to the jury.

Also hope this is thrown in DA Prater's face during the Pear Pearson trial.

What's is going on with our local law enforcement?

You should always keep your door locked and only crack your window when dealing with police. I've never had any issues with that.

That really is just unbelievable. Heads should roll at OHP and new leadership brought in from the outside.

As for local law enforcement, troubles almost always begin at the top. OCPD's Chief (Bill Citty) should never have had the office in the first place.

Almost certain this is not true:

Fact-check: Did Oklahoma Hwy Patrol Captain George Brown Blame Police Assaults On Victims? (http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-check-oklahoma-hwy-patrol-captain-george-brown-blames-police-assaults-on-victims/)

Besides if the cop really wants to pull someone over they will. No matter how well you are driving. Dash cams NOW!

That really is just unbelievable. Heads should roll at OHP and new leadership brought in from the outside.

As for local law enforcement, troubles almost always begin at the top. OCPD's Chief (Bill Citty) should never have had the office in the first place.

I don't know what your issue is with Bill Citty. He is one of the more progressive law enforcement figures in the state. In a locale with so many hang em high/Barney Fife types, OKC is lucky to have him.

Completely agree about Bill Citty. I've worked with and interacted with him on multiple occasions, and I think the guy is pure class. Very impressive from an enforcement standpoint, and yet not at all tolerant of misbehaving cops.

Almost certain this is not true:

Fact-check: Did Oklahoma Hwy Patrol Captain George Brown Blame Police Assaults On Victims? (http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-check-oklahoma-hwy-patrol-captain-george-brown-blames-police-assaults-on-victims/)It is true

from your source


There’s an image that claims Oklahoma Highway Patrol Captain George Brown made the statement that if women didn’t want to be assaulted by police officers, they shouldn’t do things that would cause them to be pulled over in the first place.

- See more at: Fact-check: Did Oklahoma Hwy Patrol Captain George Brown Blame Police Assaults On Victims? (http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-check-oklahoma-hwy-patrol-captain-george-brown-blames-police-assaults-on-victims/#sthash.BBy5SXWc.dpuf)

The police work for us... not the other way around. I'm not saying we can tell them what to do, but they need to remember their place. Saying "if women didn’t want to be assaulted by police officers, they shouldn’t do things that would cause them to be pulled over in the first place." is absolute insanity.

Besides if the cop really wants to pull someone over they will. No matter how well you are driving. Dash cams NOW!The OHP has dash cams in all of their cars, if I remember correctly.

I don't know what your issue is with Bill Citty. He is one of the more progressive law enforcement figures in the state. In a locale with so many hang em high/Barney Fife types, OKC is lucky to have him.

Well, for starters, read this post from Brian Bates - http://www.okctalk.com/politics/38866-oklahoma-police-officers-body-cameras.html#post824604

Completely agree about Bill Citty. I've worked with and interacted with him on multiple occasions, and I think the guy is pure class. Very impressive from an enforcement standpoint, and yet not at all tolerant of misbehaving cops.

I would take major issue with that. But, I will leave it alone. Friendly guy, I will say that.

I don't know what your issue is with Bill Citty. He is one of the more progressive law enforcement figures in the state. In a locale with so many hang em high/Barney Fife types, OKC is lucky to have him.

I'm really curious....you base that on what? You obviously don't know Bill Citty. A "progressive law enforcement official" who has successfully kept dash cams out of this city's patrol cars. He doesn't want the accountability. Anybody who really knows him knows this!

All I can say is that I have been in a number of meetings with the man and he has struck me as genuinely concerned about the issues that a few people here have suggested he is UNconcerned with. I'll leave it at that.

The OHP has dash cams in all of their cars, if I remember correctly.

Did not know that. I try VERY hard to stay off any LEO's radar.

Well, for starters, read this post from Brian Bates - http://www.okctalk.com/politics/38866-oklahoma-police-officers-body-cameras.html#post824604

I believe this to be a more insightful than "he's a friendly guy."

The OHP has dash cams in all of their cars, if I remember correctly.

Yes, Plu, they do. However, each one has a switch that permits the trooper to turn it on and off.

It's rather difficult to see how a dash cam which can be easily overridden by a trooper (and apparently this has happened in time frames which match up to some of the allegations) is of much use to the motorist.

I believe this to be a more insightful than "he's a friendly guy."

Oh, Jersey Boss, no doubt. I was really just trying to gracefully exit the conversation by mentioning the fact that he's personable (because that's all some see)...my link to Brian's post says much more about Bill Citty. No way most anybody could rise to the top with a blemish like that on their record - I don't care how long it's been.

Yes, Plu, they do. However, each one has a switch that permits the trooper to turn it on and off.

It's rather difficult to see how a dash cam which can be easily overridden by a trooper (and apparently this has happened in time frames which match up to some of the allegations) is of much use to the motorist.

The legacy of Rose Mary Woods:
Rose Mary Woods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Mary_Woods)

"Don't break the law" is not the best response. While OHP does have dash cams, was there not a discussion that the video shot by them is exempt from public record (pardon my non-lawyer terminology)?

"Don't break the law" is not the best response. While OHP does have dash cams, was there not a discussion that the video shot by them is exempt from public record (pardon my non-lawyer terminology)?

That changes in a few weeks.

It is true

from your source



The police work for us... not the other way around. I'm not saying we can tell them what to do, but they need to remember their place. Saying "if women didn’t want to be assaulted by police officers, they shouldn’t do things that would cause them to be pulled over in the first place." is absolute insanity.

Wasn't this also from his source?

"Here’s the problem: the quote “then follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over” comes from the newscaster at the end of the video, not the Highway Patrol captain. This quote pulls two parts of the entire news story together completely out of context. Captain George Brown’s appearance on the video tells people about what they should expect when dealing with law enforcement when pulled over and offers safety tips. However, the deputy who was arrested for assaulting women was responding to a call at a residence, not making a traffic stop. The “then follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over” quote is also not only not uttered on the video by the officer, but it’s at the end of the video when the anchor is talking about traffic stops, and not directly in regards to the story about the accused deputy. -"

OHP has enough image issue at present without any need for trashing the group based on someone else's comments.

If you read the entire fact check article it mentions that it was a newscaster who made the comment, not the chief. The Texas group that posted this info seems to have cut some things together out of context. It also posts links to the original video, not the edited version.

"Here’s the problem: the quote “then follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over” comes from the newscaster at the end of the video, not the Highway Patrol captain. This quote pulls two parts of the entire news story together completely out of context. Captain George Brown’s appearance on the video tells people about what they should expect when dealing with law enforcement when pulled over and offers safety tips. However, the deputy who was arrested for assaulting women was responding to a call at a residence, not making a traffic stop. The “then follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over” quote is also not only not uttered on the video by the officer, but it’s at the end of the video when the anchor is talking about traffic stops, and not directly in regards to the story about the accused deputy."

I agree with kelroy here....

People are great for pulling things out of context. I don't think ive ever found anything that shows the OHP being anything other than supportive of the people. Both OHP and OCPD immediately started trashing the accused officers before a trial...basically at arrest time. I thought that rather odd considering they usually just don't comment. It's the best non b.s. comments they could have had. "we know they did it and we're not going to try and cover it or good-ole-boy it, we threw their butts in jail". I'd say that's pretty good. Identify the problem and handle it...what more do you want?

Not to be confused with the retired officer from Detroit that did say "just don't break the law" or "do what I say" or something. It's not exactly what he meant, but of course the media focused on that line. The main idea here was, if you know you aren't supposed to run a red light or whatever, then don't get all pissy when you get pulled over for it just because you finally got caught. And arguing about it isn't going to do anything other than get you in more trouble. There are great officers out there and there are plenty d-i-c-k-s too. But that's true of all people.

So...a special interest with an axe to grind intentionally misrepresented a statement by someone from the group they oppose for dramatic and sensationalistic effect? Say it isn't so...

All I can say is that I have been in a number of meetings with the man and he has struck me as genuinely concerned about the issues that a few people here have suggested he is UNconcerned with. I'll leave it at that.

Obviously your perspective is valid within the scope of its foundation - his public face at public meetings.

I'd argue to the contrary that he is an unprofessional man who forwards his own agenda when the public isn't watching.
Brown vs. Oklahoma gives an Oklahoma judge's perspective of him. An interesting twist is that records indicate that racial slurs were used while violating the citizen's rights (the victims were black). Records also indicate that there were depositions and transcripts that provide all the details of Citty's rights violations and possible racist attitude. However (and conveniently), if you request those records, they will tell you the record files have disappeared. I know, its been requested.

Chief Citty is also a hypocrite and is not blind when it comes to justice. He covered up his own step-daughter's crimes of possession of a fake ID and obstruction. She sent a text to her friend that their upscale home was getting ready to be raided by police with a search warrant after Chief Citty told his daughter about it. Citty has had other officers fired and criminally prosecuted and convicted for the exact same thing. His daughter's actions not only obstructed justice but also placed the officers in unnecessary danger by tipping the alleged offenders off. His daughter was never charged with anything.

Last year Chief Citty told a local high profile non-profit that if I was allowed to attend their fundraising banquet or if I was acknowledged in any way that he nor OCPD would participate in their event. This, even though we were both in attendance the year before without issue and I provided thousands of dollars in donors that were personal friends. What did Chief Citty provide? He and his entourage attended (for free), insisted on their own reserved private table (paid for by a close friend of mine at my request) and they provided a single auction item (ride in Air1).

Chief Citty has insisted on GPS for OCPD patrol cars but regularly avoids the installation of dash cams because that footage he knew would eventually be deemed a public record. Though he is all for GPS on patrol cars and the recording of record searches by individual officers - because those items are not public record and he can use them to target officers that cause problems for the department - like whistle blowers.

This thread isn't about Chief Citty, but I felt the need to throw in my two-cents. I literally have dozens of specific examples of how corrupt and unprofessional Citty is. I receive correspondence from police officers on a somewhat regular basis and he is not well-liked within the department by patrol officers - at least based on my perspective.

That changes in a few weeks.

Good! Should never been allowed to be non-public.

Besides if the cop really wants to pull someone over they will. No matter how well you are driving. Dash cams NOW!
If they are anything like the Austin PD dash cameras they always seem to "fail" at the most inopportune times or all action happens just outside of camera view. It's amazing how easily video of critical incidents just happens to "disappear" off the devices.

I really have no love whatsoever for the ACLU . . . still, if you read the editorial commentary in this week's Gazette and then do a little browsing on the topic it suggests, I think that any reasonable person's level of concern about police excesses might be increased.

Particularly interesting is the little Video Game-based study on the nearly irresistible urge to abuse authority if the opportunity is provided. (it's all about Civic Asset Forfeiture as compared to Criminal Asset Forfeiture. in other words, "stop and rob" on the highway.)

If they are anything like the Austin PD dash cameras they always seem to "fail" at the most inopportune times or all action happens just outside of camera view. It's amazing how easily video of critical incidents just happens to "disappear" off the devices.

Well with a dash cam, there are some inherit problems. One being, all you have to do is go out of view of the camera and you're able to do whatever you want without a record. Not every officer does this, but it seems to be the case when some bad crap goes down (funny that). The worn cameras will alleviate that. The ability of the officer to turn the camera off is another problem. If they choose to have a private conversation in the patrol car (which why shouldn't they expect to do this), then there's no reason that should be recorded. There is such thing as an officer's right to privacy...they didn't lose it just because they are driving a patrol car that day. But there's the sticker....how do you balance the two? Do you tie it to the lights so if they have them on, it records (and continues to record for X minutes after they are shut off...in case they try to turn them off to avoid capturing something). Do they get any indicator that it is recording? I'm not going to pretend to have the answers, but just pointing out this it's a bit more complex than just turning it on and leaving it running all day without any questions.

Bomber - about the officers right to privacy?

I get your general post but I wonder why the deserve a right that none of us are afforded. By that I mean almost all employees are monitored through emails, phone calls, cameras hidden or not and it's completely legal because they are on company/ government time. In alot of cases people are getting in trouble and now responsible for their actions outside of work too.

So why should an officer be afforded the right to privacy while performing their tax payer paid duties when the rest of us arent?

I don't understand the reasoning of assuming all police officers have some sort of executive privilege when you can look at any single month period and find numerous instances of rape, murder, drugs, and corruption.

My general thoughts are let's make it easier for good cops to excel through the ranks by removing the dead and toxic wood we all know is present.

You guys really think it's OK or appropriate to record and monitor all conversations in the car that aren't explicitly a part of a call or a suspect interaction/transport? I don't think that's right for any employee/employer relationship, public servant or not. Fair enough (actually an excellent idea) to have the dash cam recording all stops, and I'm very OK with the idea of body cams recording subject interactions. I also think recording audio in the car when suspects are in back seat is fine (actually a good idea considering the subject of this thread). But recording water cooler talk, personal phone calls and drive-thru orders? That's taking it too far.

Yes, I do think it is more than appropriate to record every conversation in the car that is funded by tax payers.

You think the same is true of all government employees? The Mayor's office? HR director at the City? Garbage collectors? Taxpayer funding is what qualifies a place for 24/7 sound recording? What about university research labs? They're publicly funded. The teacher's lounge at the high school? The Thunder locker room?

You think the same is true of all government employees? The Mayor's office? HR director at the City? Garbage collectors? Taxpayer funding is what qualifies a place for 24/7 sound recording? What about university research labs? They're publicly funded. The teacher's lounge at the high school? The Thunder locker room?The police are a completely different ballgame in my opinion. They have more authority to alter people's free will than other government officials and that should come with a price of them sacrificing their privacy when they're wearing a badge. Every police officer should be monitored when patrolling. Body cams and dash cams with no off switch recording at all times.

When my driving record gets cleaned up, in the distant future, I've thought about entering law enforcement. Seeing as I plan to be a good officer, I would NOT have a problem with me being monitored while on duty. If I planned on raping women, then yeah, I wouldn't want dash cams that I couldn't turn off.

I know that, at this point in time, this is Olde NewZ . . . yet, somehow it points up the spread of Law Enforcement Scofflawism spreading like Ebola . . . (for lack of a better alarming simile):

Spec.Ref/to wit/ad infinitum, etc.
Florida town infamous for speed traps disbanding police force - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-town-infamous-for-speed-traps-disbanding-police-force/)

I can't be certain, yet I would wager that the victims of The Great Disbanding (in [where's] Waldo) will join together in a class-action lawsuit and ask for disability, due to crapal tunnel syndrome, (yes: crapal tunnel) on account of having to write so many tickets. I hope they know Saul Goodman's or Jackie Chiles' phone number.

The police are a completely different ballgame in my opinion. They have more authority to alter people's free will than other government officials and that should come with a price of them sacrificing their privacy when they're wearing a badge. Every police officer should be monitored when patrolling. Body cams and dash cams with no off switch recording at all times.

When my driving record gets cleaned up, in the distant future, I've thought about entering law enforcement. Seeing as I plan to be a good officer, I would NOT have a problem with me being monitored while on duty. If I planned on raping women, then yeah, I wouldn't want dash cams that I couldn't turn off.

Put the cam in the badge.
btw: "altering" "free will" is sort of impossible.
yet don't take that as an affront to your primary point.
(or do, it's a free country and you have a choice. =)

Canadian County has some heavy duty hardware. Accoding to KOCO. I hope they actually follow the directions painted on the side of the Assault Vehicle loaded with M-16s : "To Protect Your Constitutional Rights"

I'm fairly sure they will on account of The Local Sheriff was wearing a tasteful blue plaid shirt, a spiffy cowboy hat and a badge. Plus he--and his Armory--were on camera. And he spoke with sincere authority. On camera.

Plus, "To Protect and Serve" is so . . . LA Blasé . . . ain't it?
Nothing at all like the photo I had tacked to my wall, when I was a kid, to express and remind me of my outrage at Law Enforcement Faux Pas when I was a Neo-NewLefter . .
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-VyAoYEuyRQDONal7thVwDM_Fi7OfxR0r0LyxCKi3AhPF0YrO

For the sake of Clarification (and communication) that was a shot of some of the Local Police accused of killing those Civil Rights Workers down in Mississippi way back when. The only flak I ever caught about the picture was from a University of Colorado Biology Student (from up around Nowata, OK) when my mom invited him to dinner on account of she felt sorry for him. He got all up in my face about "those are MY people" "why are you making fun of them?" I had nothing to say, in reply, at that moment. I saved it until now. =)

You think the same is true of all government employees? The Mayor's office? HR director at the City? Garbage collectors? Taxpayer funding is what qualifies a place for 24/7 sound recording? What about university research labs? They're publicly funded. The teacher's lounge at the high school? The Thunder locker room?

No. Just the ones with the guns that can do whatever they want to you and their union has bottomless pockets for lawyers.