After studying a number of threads I have decided to start a thread re: the relationship between police and citizens, what's wrong, what needs to be changed, what you can do about it.
The first major change I think needs to happen is to turn the tables of electronic monitoring away from citizens, and turn that spotlight on law enforcement. I would also include that on all political activity. We have the technology (it's being used on you Joe citizen) to record, tape, videotape, digital storage etc. of encounters between law enforcement and citizens, and we should insist that we change our approach to the vexing problems of police accountability.
Here is one site that is dedicated to this very concept, an excerpt:

"We the authors and maintainers of this site are a people who pride ourselves on having our eyes open wide, the truth at all costs, forcing society to have no nonsense accountability of all its representatives. And there is no more need for this but for in the realm of law-enforcement, where much of the rules for the rest of us, easily fall away with the convenient excuse of "emergency response needs" (rightly or wrongly).
The argument here is not that police don't at times need to do some unsavory, and unorthodox things in their job to deal with emergencies, and to enforce law, but the fact that there is no (by law) objective means in place in this nation, much less in the state of California, to monitor the validity and appropriateness of these practices.
We here do not think we are asking for too much...quite the contrary. In our day and age of immense technological advance, to have simple recording devices capturing suspect/police interaction; to have in place computer tracking of all police performance/discipline records; and to have the "non-personal," " business related" portions of police officer files made a matter of Public Record are all simple, reliable, cost-effective means to secure our most fundamental values as sacred beings (human and civil rights).
Yet these few basic measures have been/are/and will be harder to bring about into reality (in this "freest country on the planet") than it was to bring down the Berlin Wall, due to very politically powerful police officer and prison guard unions across this nation. We ask you and them this simple question, why? Why the knee jerk rebuke of unimpeachable, unassailable evidence gathering means? Why the knee jerk need for secret police disciplinary files in a free state?"
http://policewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=26

Why did you re-register as zeNII today.....did Zen the First get kicked off? Like you did before under you older handle?

I think whack-jobs like yourself need to be monitored more than the very,very low number of cops who cause the profesion to come under a glaring spotlght. Just like any profession.

Get a job,boy! Your nonsense got old quick!

how about a thread just about zeN...or whatever he calls himself this week?


call it Idiot Watch.

I can't begin to believe you are for real. No Way!!!!!

Terry...You are so RIGHT.

Right on Bob.

Steve.....I believe you already know the answer.

Jim

Who is "we here"?

Okay, you first. Show us the video/photos of your encounters.

Dude, where are you living? Have you been around many police interactions lately? Everyone with a cell phone has a still and a video camera. Police action gets recorded every day. It just doesn't make the news because so much of it is uneventful and/or totally justified.

Watch away. Hell, follow me around and record everything I do. I operate under the assumption that SOMEBODY is recording me that way, if they are, I don't have to worry about it. I "sir and ma'am" people to death, even when I'm rollin' with them.

You are one funny guy. You might want to ask the Free-Staters in Keene how this is working out for them.

George

My footage would be even more boring. Four hours with the State this morning discussing allocation of resources for the evacuation of special-needs citizens and now constructing resolutions for City Council. Woohoo

Ask me again why I'll never give up my stripes .

George

It just doesn't make the news because so much of it is uneventful and/or totally justified.
==========================
Except for militant smart-assed punks like himself and his sheep brained fringers who foolishly search for oppurtunities to push the limits and, unfortunately, their luck.

This zen dbag, because of his HS here, couldn't garner any sympathy if he was tased while innocently helping a elderly woman across the street. He comes here thinking folks are OK with police over-stepping their bounds and he can't figure out why he isn't getting anywhere trying to convince us we're not getting it.

He must be a pledge with one of those anti-police fringe groups!

That's code for "taking the bar to be a defense attorney", right?

George

You REALLY are an optimist Bob.

If you had video of my entire career you would be BORED to TEARS for 25 of my 26 years, that is an optimistic guesstimate of the physical encounters I had, as most last less than 10 minutes max.

Police work consists of hours of boredom interrupted by a few minutes of adrenalin once in awhile.

=====================================

Those in car videos and other video reporter wannabes, while making a very small select few rich,have mostly forced defense lawyers and their clients into plea deals. Can't tell you how many times I've heard a defendant version of what happened before an arraignment only to have that version significantly modified by the prelim because of a video.

With the exception of a few instances,videos have hurt defendant's and their counsel more than they've helped.

Well, it's obvious the POLICE COMMUNITY and their little minions don't like the idea of the police being monitored by the citizenry, that's a big suprise, isn't it? LOL Oh well, it may take some time for the LE community to realize that you work for us, and monitoring your activities is really a done deal, even if the Police State really happens, but you have to ask yourself, is it really appropriate for police officers to make replies on a citizens forum re: this topic, and attempt to censure public opinion? After all, on this subject, LE is the SUSPECT

Who said it wasn't okay?

ZeNII,
How can you expect to have a rational discussion on this forum since your anti-law enforcement bias is so blatant?

In case you didn't know, the LEO's on here are among the best folks on this website and that also includes others such as Isaac and Steve NO-all good folks, if you will show them some respect.

I would suggest that you sit back, take a deep breath-if you do so, you may find that you actually like it here.

I will go back and sit in my corner now.

He's referring to all those other voices in his head.

Out of my corner too ... just to say it appears to me that zeNII is out on parole. His cop-hating attitude MUST have come from a bad experience that way.

Well the Founding Fathers had a bias against law enforcement, and if they saw the bloated Police State and how they actively harasses and violates the rights of citizens under the color of law they would be screaming for revolution,
as far as their character goes their comments speak for themselves, I will let the readers make their own judgement on that:)
In the future let me reccomend that you confine yourself to the topic, and avoid making personal aspersions, I attempt to do the same but occaissionally due to the assinine remarks made by this little gang I must do a little arse-kicking myself, but rest assured I will attempt to avoid any collateral damage:)

yeah, I was wondering the same thing, highwayman.
If that is the case, I can understand it souring a guy SOMEWHAT, but not enough to assume that the whole organization nationwide is corrupt.

It is called freedom of speech azzhat! And I am long retired but have a daughter that is still an active Deputy Sheriff, everything they do out on public is recorded at least on audio and a lot on the dash cam. GET A FRICKIN LIFE!

I don't care what you say, but reserve the right to call BS on what you say.

As to the "Police State" that is reference to an over regulatory GOVERNMENT, not the Police or Sheriff's Departments.

If you think his views are so self-evidently absurd, why not just destroy his position with counter arguments and contradicting facts? You'd have more credibility that way. Being the first to do the name calling thing just makes it seem like your arguments must be weak or non-existent.

I realize the fact that your daughter is a cop (and you're a retired one) makes it hard for you to keep your cool when this topic comes up, but it would be well worth the effort.

Right there Hawk and the following post about "Police State".

PLUS my qualifier: "I don't care what you say, but reserve the right to call BS on what you say."

Aside from the fact I am tired of arguing with idiots like this, as well as the rest of the tinfoil hat club.

That is just pure rubbish!
Also, we need laws that make it a RIGHT (it already is) for citizens to videotape the police when they are making arrests, etc., if they are doing things right, why would they object? You will get harrassed, your video confiscated or arrested or ? if you try videotaping the police (knowingly);
The case for the public taping police can be made on youtube, scores of police misconduct are available for the public to view, and I will be posting them, good day!

It is FACT on our Department Sir. And sure saves frivolous lawsuits from idiots.

here's another interesting site for citizens who want to investigate this subject in the LA area


DARE to break the Police Code of Silence

Since November, 2001, L.A. PoliceWatch has published information online about police misconduct in the Los Angeles area, including summaries of press-reported police shootings, recent important published opinions in the federal and California courts, and complaints of police beatings, shootings, false arrests, illegal searches, harassment, and prisoner abuses, providing contact information for thousands of victims to attorneys.

If you have been a victim of unlawful conduct by police in the Los Angeles area, or if you are a qualified civil rights attorney who is interested in further information, please call the L.A. PoliceWatch hotline (213) 387-3325. Dare to break the police code of silence.

On this website, you will find news about recent incidents of police use of force, as reported in the local press; summaries of recent cases ruling on signficant police misconduct issues; useful forms, including a sample form for use in reporting police misconduct to the LAPD, and filing notice of intention to sue a government law enforcement employer, as well as a sample form for making a California Public Records Act request for information from a law enforcement agency. You can use this website to contact LA Police Watch, help fund LA Police Watch, or read That's How It Works, the police blog

LA Police Watch

Hands down one of the most ridiculous statements to date.

What we need is more, lots more, like you locked up in the funny farm.

Here's one case on LA Police Watch worth reading:

"Bruce v. Beary, 11th Cir. Case No. 06-15304, 9/6/2007. Based on report of improper VIN, sheriff�s department SWAT team conducts armed raid on auto repair shop as an �administrative search�; holds employees at gunpoint all day; refuses to consider evidence of lawful ownership; seizes business and personal property; retains it even after courts rule the search was unlawful. Trial court dismisses �1983 claims on summary judgment. Vacated and remanded. Administrative searches can be based on some suspicion of criminal activity, but must not be conducted like warrant-based search (e.g., holding employees at gunpoint for ten hours); must be limited in scope. This was a criminal raid.

Bigbuck are you a cop?

I believe he is the anti military goof, that is on a 60 day ban from another site.

His rants are almost verbatem.

Are you doing anything to change the system or are you content at whining on the internet?

Here in this interesting case we have the LA police arresting a partially deaf man, and taking away his hearing aid batteries, the case is dismissed because he cannot communicate effectively (duh)

Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff�s Department, 10 Cir. Case No. 06-1027, 9/10/2007. Deaf plaintiff is jailed. Jailers booking him note that he has difficulty hearing, and book as property his hearing aid batteries. Later, he is unable to communicate with lawyer or participate in CCTV hearing, because he can�t hear what�s going on. District court dismisses his ADA claim of jail failure to accommodate his disability on summary judgment on ground that defendants were not aware of his disability because he had not reported to them his inability to hear. Reversed. Evidence raises material dispute, and even though at hearing charges were dismissed. His inability to participate in the hearing is an injury.

Here's an interesting statement from former Presidential candidate Bob Barr on the Liberty Papers site:

�Absent exigent circumstances, not present here, so-called no-knock raids are an affront to the Constitution,� explains Barr. �So is a shoot first, ask questions later philosophy by the police. Yet the Prince George�s police have done this before�last fall they invaded a house at the wrong address and shot the family dog. All Americans are at risk when the police behave this way. Just ask yourself what might happen if a suspicious package is delivered to your home and the cops bust in,� says Barr.

�But there is an even larger point. Law enforcement agencies have become more arrogant and less accountable in cases other than those involving drugs. Most people are aware of well-publicized examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, but similar abuses are common across the country, though they usually receive little or no public notice,� notes Barr. �We all want police to do their jobs well, but part of doing their job well is respecting the people�s constitutional liberties.�

�As president I will ensure that federal law enforcement agencies set a good example for the rest of the country,� says Barr. �In a Barr administration, government officials will never forget that it is a free people they are protecting.�

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/08/13/barr-weighs-in-on-no-knock-raids/

I have cameras on me from the moment I enter the facility, I now work in, to the time I leave. I could care less if I'm on tape because I do my job and do it well, along with the other 23 officers that I supervise. If you are arrogant enough to throw around the comment, we control you and you work for us, it would appear that you have forgotten that we too are citizens and pay taxes. Have you stopped to consider that I pay my salary too. I answer to the Sgt, the Lt, the Major, the Undersheriff, the Sheriff, the County Commisioners, the feds and most importantly the citizens that I have sworn to protect. That is much more control and oversight then you have working at Walmart answering to the night manager. You want to follow me around with a camera give me a call, I'll get it cleared through the chain of command and you can watch me all day long. It won't make one bit of difference in how I perform my duties. Ryan

A Case Involving a Swat Team's 4th Amendment Violation

Fifth Circuit Says No SWAT Teams for Regulatory Inspections
Monday, May 11th, 2009

It�s a "Well gee, you�d hope so" sort of victory, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that using a SWAT team to conduct an administrative or regulatory search is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case stems from what was clearly a drug raid conducted on a bar in Louisiana by the Rapides Parrish Sheriff�s Department. But the raid was conducted under the auspices of an alcohol inspection, which allowed the department to get around the need for a criminal search warrant.

The Fifth Circuit ruled such a raid violates the Fourth Amendment, and is allowing a civil rights suit against the officers involved to go forward. From the opinion:

Taking plaintiffs� factual allegations as true, defendants did not enter Club Retro as would a typical patron; instead, they chose to project official authority by entering with weapons drawn in a S.W.A.T. team raid. They lacked any particularized suspicion or probable cause when they subsequently searched Club Retro, its attic, and the separate apartment and seized and searched all of its patrons and employees. Thus, defendants� entry and search was not a reasonable acceptance of Club Retro�s invitation to the public. Any other conclusion would be an invitation for S.W.A.T. team raids by law enforcement officers of any business that is open to the public and would severely undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded to owners of commercial premises.

We are likewise not convinced by defendants� second argument that they conducted a permissible administrative inspection. Although Louisiana statutes and Rapides Parish ordinances authorizing administrative inspections may have provided justification for an entry and inspection of Club Retro, no such law permits the scope and manner of the raid that plaintiffs allege occurred here�

Administrative inspections, by their very nature, require more limited, less intrusive conduct than is alleged to have occurred here. We thus conclude that defendants� S.W.A.T. team entries and extensive searches, as described in the amended complaint, unreasonably exceeded the scope of Louisiana and Rapides Parish administrative inspection laws. Any other conclusion would allow the administrative inspection exception to swallow the Fourth Amendment�s warrant requirement for searches of private property.

http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think he just likes to piss & whine. He probably enjoys the warm feeling it gives him, as it runs down his leg.

Barr makes a lot of sense. Too bad he didn't win.

Keep 'em comin'. You're putting some up that I wasn't aware of.

Out of fairness, though, you're going to put up a bunch where the cops do their job correctly, right?

No, didn't think so. The millions of cops who do their job daily don't rate the news.

George

.

AMEN Hunter!

You DO work for us (the citizenry) and you ARE under our control (at least Constitutionally, certainly not in practise right now, as can be judged by the everyday experience of citizens, and the outrageous attitudes expressed by LE here-if some of you were publicly identified in your communities making some of the statements you have made here you would be out of a job, and rightly so)

Unless you live in small town NH, that's not exactly true. Your wants and feelings on LE are, most likely, vastly different from what the citizens of my town demand.

George

What outrageous attitudes,moron?

You have as much brains as a loaf of bread!

And, no one is under your control, sport.

Catharsis is good for the soul.

George

BINGO! George

Although I personally think he needs a high colonic and 10 mile hike!

Here's another court room case where it shows if you are a cop you can get away with drunk driving and handgun violations and pretty much go scot-free

Retired N.Y.C. cop gets probation in drunken crash
Friday, May 1, 2009
Last updated: Saturday May 2, 2009, 12:02 PM
BY STEPHANIE AKIN
NorthJersey.com
STAFF WRITER
Comment on this story
17 Comments
Email this story Printer friendly version Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size

HACKENSACK � A retired New York City police officer was sentenced to four years' probation today for driving into a car full of teenagers while he was drunk and carrying an unlicensed handgun.

However, the Hackensack Superior Court judge, in a separate set of rulings on lesser police summonses, said he did not think there was enough evidence to say Santos Tirado, of Monroe, N.Y., was intoxicated. A conviction on that charge would have entailed additional penalties.

The watery eyes and slurred speech reported by Fair Lawn police the night of the Oct., 26, 2007, accident could also have been caused by a head injury, Judge Eugene H. Austin said in court.

�I�ve struggled with this case since we finished and got the jury verdict,� Austin said. �I have gone over it and over it and over it in my mind. It�s a very difficult decision to make under all the circumstances.�

A jury found Tirado guilty in March of two counts each of assault by auto causing bodily injury, drunken driving and refusing to submit to a breath test. He was also found to be guilty of unlawfully possessing a Browning .380-caliber handgun without a New Jersey permit and possessing hollow-nosed bullets, which are illegal in New Jersey.

The teenagers from Lodi, Garfield, Hackensack and Elmwood Park were leaving a church function when Tirado drove his Honda Civic through a red light and hit their Audi A4 as it was crossing Broadway on 32nd Street in Fair Lawn.

The teenagers had passed Tirado�s car before they turned right, into a jughandle, to cross Broadway. They testified that he was hunched over his steering wheel and did not have his headlights on when they passed him.

Deanna Bruno of Lodi, who was riding in the middle of the back seat, suffered a broken pelvis and tailbone in the accident.

Bruno, who was 14 at the time, was forced to repeat her freshman year of high school because she missed so much school after the accident. She has been told that she may have trouble with natural childbirth, her family said.

They said probation was not a strong enough punishment.

�This has been about someone who lacked character and hid behind a badge,� her father, Peter Bruno, said in his pre-sentencing statement. �We want justice, your honor, not a slap on the wrist.�

The case pitted the Fair Lawn police officers who responded at the scene against their counterparts from Tirado�s former department in New York City�s 30th Precinct, who described Tirado as an outstanding police officer who would never put another person at risk.

The Fair Lawn officers, several of whom testified in court, said Tirado smelled of alcohol and had an empty Coors Light can in his car.

They said he was belligerent when they attempted to arrest him for carrying the handgun without a permit required in New Jersey. He also asked them to give him special treatment because he was a fellow officer, they said.

Tirado refused to take blood and breath tests to measure his blood-alcohol level after the accident.

�It puts a police officer in an awkward position between the brotherhood of law enforcement and the truly victimized,� said Fair Lawn Detective Sgt. Michael Uttel. �We did everything according to the letter of the law that night. The laws are definitely not in favor of the victim.�

Five retired and active New York City police officers defended Tirado at the sentencing.

�He approaches legendary in my profession in New York City,� former co-worker Kieran Breen said.

�He taught me, if you drop a prisoner off to central booking, and he doesn�t shake your hand, chances are you did something wrong.�

Tirado�s family said he missed a turn while driving back to their upstate New York home after spending the day in Manhattan. He was tired from taking his wife to the airport early that morning and having trouble seeing because it was raining, they said.

They contend he refused the alcohol screening because the Fair Lawn police hit and kicked him when they pulled him from his car. They also said he always carried the gun.

�They don�t know my father,� Tirado�s daughter, Jessica Acosta, said. �If they knew my father, they would have never dragged him through this.�

In addition to his probation, Tirado must pay more than $5,000 in fines and restitution. His driver�s license will be suspended in New Jersey for a year.

E-mail: [email protected]
Page 1 2 >> Fit story on 1 page

HACKENSACK � A retired New York City police officer was sentenced to four years' probation today for driving into a car full of teenagers while he was drunk and carrying an unlicensed handgun.
STAFF PHOTO BY ELIZABETH LARA
Buy this photo
Retired New York police officer Santos Tirado during his sentencing Friday at Bergen County SuperiorCcourt in Hackensack.

However, the Hackensack Superior Court judge, in a separate set of rulings on lesser police summonses, said he did not think there was enough evidence to say Santos Tirado, of Monroe, N.Y., was intoxicated. A conviction on that charge would have entailed additional penalties.

The watery eyes and slurred speech reported by Fair Lawn police the night of the Oct., 26, 2007, accident could also have been caused by a head injury, Judge Eugene H. Austin said in court.

�I�ve struggled with this case since we finished and got the jury verdict,� Austin said. �I have gone over it and over it and over it in my mind. It�s a very difficult decision to make under all the circumstances.�

A jury found Tirado guilty in March of two counts each of assault by auto causing bodily injury, drunken driving and refusing to submit to a breath test. He was also found to be guilty of unlawfully possessing a Browning .380-caliber handgun without a New Jersey permit and possessing hollow-nosed bullets, which are illegal in New Jersey.

The teenagers from Lodi, Garfield, Hackensack and Elmwood Park were leaving a church function when Tirado drove his Honda Civic through a red light and hit their Audi A4 as it was crossing Broadway on 32nd Street in Fair Lawn.

The teenagers had passed Tirado�s car before they turned right, into a jughandle, to cross Broadway. They testified that he was hunched over his steering wheel and did not have his headlights on when they passed him.

Deanna Bruno of Lodi, who was riding in the middle of the back seat, suffered a broken pelvis and tailbone in the accident.

Bruno, who was 14 at the time, was forced to repeat her freshman year of high school because she missed so much school after the accident. She has been told that she may have trouble with natural childbirth, her family said.

They said probation was not a strong enough punishment.

�This has been about someone who lacked character and hid behind a badge,� her father, Peter Bruno, said in his pre-sentencing statement. �We want justice, your honor, not a slap on the wrist.�

The case pitted the Fair Lawn police officers who responded at the scene against their counterparts from Tirado�s former department in New York City�s 30th Precinct, who described Tirado as an outstanding police officer who would never put another person at risk.

The Fair Lawn officers, several of whom testified in court, said Tirado smelled of alcohol and had an empty Coors Light can in his car.

They said he was belligerent when they attempted to arrest him for carrying the handgun without a permit required in New Jersey. He also asked them to give him special treatment because he was a fellow officer, they said.

Tirado refused to take blood and breath tests to measure his blood-alcohol level after the accident.

�It puts a police officer in an awkward position between the brotherhood of law enforcement and the truly victimized,� said Fair Lawn Detective Sgt. Michael Uttel. �We did everything according to the letter of the law that night. The laws are definitely not in favor of the victim.�

Five retired and active New York City police officers defended Tirado at the sentencing.

�He approaches legendary in my profession in New York City,� former co-worker Kieran Breen said.

�He taught me, if you drop a prisoner off to central booking, and he doesn�t shake your hand, chances are you did something wrong.�

Tirado�s family said he missed a turn while driving back to their upstate New York home after spending the day in Manhattan. He was tired from taking his wife to the airport early that morning and having trouble seeing because it was raining, they said.

http://www.northjersey.com/bergen/NYCCOP0501.html

See there the 5th Circuit ruled against LE. That's how the system works. As i've mentioned before situations will be handled in either criminal or civil court involving issues with LE.

The Parish will end up writing a check to the club owner and procedures will change. This case will have impact in other jurisdictions across the country. You have to be patient, things don't change at the snap of the finger. I still believe in Ol'Lady Justice and the pendulum swings both ways for the Govt. and for the citizens. The Govt. will win some, the citizens will win some.

'Mighty men' cops save 2 girls in 'heroic' fire rescue
By DAVID GAMBACORTA
Philadelphia Daily News

[email protected] 215-854-5994

Eyes brimming with tears, 7-year-old Bianca Scott and her older sister, Ketura Lang, pounded their fists against the second-floor window of their grandmother's smoldering rowhouse.

They were trapped, and time was running out.

The girls choked on plumes of black smoke from an out-of-control kitchen fire Saturday morning while their relatives watched helplessly and prayed for a miracle.

The miracle arrived, whether by fate, luck or divine intervention, in the form of three city police officers. What followed was an improbable heroic rescue that played out like a scene from a Hollywood film.

The officers - Ryan Sullivan, Michael Pazdan and Ryan Clement, from the 22nd district in North Philadelphia - were on their way to the scene of a street fight when they rode past 19th Street near Susquehanna Avenue and spotted a frantic Ida Jackson outside the burning house.

The blaze was accidentally caused by one of her grandsons, who left the stove unattended while he ran out to pick up a tux for his prom, she said.

"Oh, I was just in a tizzy!" said Jackson, 68. "Everything had happened so quickly, and [the girls] were trapped in there."

Pazdan, 26, said that he and Clement forced Jackson's front door open, thinking that they could dash in and rescue the girls. They were repelled by the thick smoke and intense heat.

"It burned my lungs, so I thought, 'There has to be another option,' " Pazdan said.

Thinking fast, Pazdan yelled up to Bianca. "I said, 'Sweetie, I can't get up there. You have to jump. I promise I'll catch you.' "

Pazdan figured that the girl would feel about four times her actual weight if she made the jump as he prepared to make the catch of a lifetime.

"Sure enough, out the window she went," he said. "She fell right into my arms and didn't budge. It felt great."

Worried onlookers let out a brief sigh. But the drama wasn't over.

Sullivan, 23, noticed that Ketura, 13, was getting overwhelmed by the smoke she had inhaled.

"She was in bad shape," said Sullivan, who served a four-year tour in the Marines. "She looked delirious. Her eyes were rolling in the back of her head and it looked like she was about to pass out."

One neighbor rushed over with a ladder, while Pazdan scrambled into another resident's house to scrounge up couch cushions, in case Ketura tumbled.

Sullivan clambered up the ladder and lunged for the teen. The two made an awkward climb back down the ladder to safety.

Both girls were uninjured, Jackson said. "They're already fussing with each other again," she laughed.

Jackson said she "can't put into words how I feel towards those officers. They were mighty men."

"God sent them on the right path; otherwise, I would have been sitting in a funeral parlor," she added.

Sullivan and Pazdan humbly described their actions as simply part of their job.

"You never know what you'll run into," Pazdan said. "We were determined to not have those girls leave this earth. We're really happy it all worked out." *

Philly Narcotics Team in Action

Update on Bodega Raids by Rogue Philly Narcotics Unit
Friday, May 1st, 2009

Previously (here and here), I blogged about a rogue narcotics unit in Philadelphia that was raiding bodegas on the flimsy excuse that the stores were selling resealable zip-lock bags that could potentially be used by drug dealers. Bodega owners say the cops were cutting the lines to surveillance cameras, then stealing cash, alcohol, cigarettes, and snack food from the stores. The Philadelphia Daily News was able to obtain footage of the cops cutting off one of the cameras during a raid, then inquiring to the store owner about whether the camera feeds went to a computer that was on or off-site.

The lingering question, here, is how this unit was able to operate like this for so long without any oversight. Why wasn�t anyone questioning the use of such aggressive tactics in searches not for drugs, but for no more than an otherwise legal product? Why did no one in the department ask why an �elite� narcotics unit was wasting its time busting immigrant shop owners with no criminal record for selling bags instead of pursuing actual drug distributors?

It�s one thing to have a few rogue cops that, once caught, are fired and�hopefully�criminally charged. It�s a more wide-ranging and serious problem if there are institutional failures in the Philadelphia police department that allowed Officer Jeffrey Cujdic�s scam of terrorizing immigrant shop owners to flourish.

Now, the Daily News has published the results of its review of the search warrants obtained by Cujdik�s unit over the last several years, and the results are troubling. They find a wholesale lack of supervision of Cujdik and his men, even as complaints against them mounted.

Narcotics enforcement is ripe for corruption because officers handle large amounts of cash and drugs, legal experts say.

So the Police Department has procedural safeguards: A supervisor must review and approve all applications for warrants, officers must never meet an informant without another officer present, and at least two officers should conduct drug surveillances.

Yet supervisors and officers often disregarded those rules, a Daily News review of hundreds of search warrants found.

In several cases, officers worked alone with informants and were the only ones to watch drug buys. Yet supervisors approved those search-warrant applications�

Cpl. Mark Palma, a narcotics-squad supervisor, was apparently not bothered when Officer Richard Cujdik, Jeffrey�s brother, worked alone on a three-day surveillance job in September 2007.

Palma approved a search-warrant application for Jose Duran�s West Oak Lane grocery store, based on Richard Cujdik�s assertion that he watched a confidential informant - CI #142 - enter the store to buy ziplock bags three times.

The validity of that search warrant is now in question.

For the last buy, Richard Cujdik wrote that he �observed� CI #142 enter Duran�s store at about 4:30 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2007. Yet the Daily News watched the time-stamped Sept. 11 surveillance footage of the store between 4 and 5 p.m., and no one asked for or bought a ziplock bag.

Sgt. Joseph Bologna supervised the ensuing raid, part of which was captured on video. The Daily News obtained the video and posted it on its Web site, philly.com.

The video shows Bologna directing officers to �disconnect� camera wires. They do so with pliers and a bread knife. Bologna makes no effort to stop Richard Cujdik when the officer searches Duran�s van, allegedly without a warrant.

Duran alleges that officers seized nearly $10,000 in the raid but documented taking only $785.

While Cujdik has been demoted to desk duty pending the results of internal and federal investigations, Bologna has since been promoted to lieutenant.

The Daily News reports that all of this has happened less than five years after an agreement between the city and civil rights groups expired, stemming from a scandal in the 1990s in which narcotics cops went to jail for lying on search warrants, shaking down drug dealers, and making dozens of wrongful arrests. That agreement required more vigilant oversight of the city�s narcotics units by police supervisors to guard against mistaken raids, corruption, and false statements on search warrant affidavits. Not only does it appear the brass in Philly didn�t learn from that scandal, the Daily News writes that it�s unclear if Philly PD officials ever actually carried out the requirements put forth in the agreement.

Hats off to Daily News reporters Wendy Ruderman and Barbara Laker for pursuing and sticking with this story, despite attacks on their character and credibility by Cujkik�s supporters in the Philly police union.

http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/

Hmmmm, you have a bone to pick?

so are zeN and zenII the same dipscheit?

New and improved. My guess is that he got talked to about his little potty mouth. Keep it up zeNII, only about 649,990 to go.

I like the fact that you take one snipit out of my comments to poke at, completely out of context. Do you work for ABC News? I have thrown no attitude and offered to let you video tape me all you want. I am sure we can find just as much case law and abuse cases about Enron, Exxon or even ABC news as what you are finding. The reality is there are more cops then work at ABC News and I am sure they have more lawsuits against them then we do. You want to place all of us into one basket, because it makes it easy for you to despise us, but individually we all do our job extremely well. While I will never dispute that there are bad apples among us, that is no different then any other profession. That is called the human factor. I make no apologies for the work that I do, the people I serve and the performance of my officers. We are doing it right and that is what matters. Now, you will have to excuse me, I am on call tonight and I have several of the nieghborhood boys that like to treat me as their favorite play toy and chase me around the green belt with nerf guns......Want to video tape me? Ryan

OK, why don't you just put it out there, what are YOUR innovative new ideas?

..and by the way you were asked why you felt the need to re-register under a new name, but you didn't answer. You were asked who "we here" are, and you did not answer Around here that would be considered an unresponsive reply..you can get tazed for that, you know.

I'm beginning to think you started this thread just so you could copy and paste your way out of therapy. OK, we'll help you my brother, tell us about that ass whupping you took at the hands of some cop who you felt should have to take your verbal vomit, but should not have responded.

He axes a lot of queshions for somone who want respond to an anser.

after more than 33 years of police work it never suprises me how much someone gets into a fit over something and just cant let it go. now retired i am so glad i dont have to put up with this kind of self apointed zellot. dig into it and find his personial faults and then you will see why he/she rants. god help there tormented soles.

yes, and they're the same guy as that worm BPML who got booted a month ago.....

wasting a lot of bandwidth with his cut and paste

my guess is he's a little miffed about being a prison wife for the whole cell block when he was doing that crack stretch.....and now he's, like, mad at the system.

You have to admit he's funny though.

Prison wives don't like it when guys on the outside say "crack stretch"

crack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretchcrack stretchcrack crack stretchstretchcrackcrackcrack stretch stretch stretchcrack stretchcrack sccrack stretchrack stretchtretch

I'm flattered you actually took the time to do all that. You are definitely the man to cook the pig in Caryonah.

Cannabalism.

Pat...you know what I meant by "pig", right buddy?

Thank you, it'll be my honor. But you only have to type it a couple of times, then copy and paste, ask your secretary.

We really should see if zeN will go. I bet he'd really be a hoot around live people!

THE HUMAN SHIELD

Family sues feds over agents' raid prompted by mistaken identity

BY John Marzulli
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, April 29th 2009, 4:00 AM

Federal agents carrying out an early morning raid to catch a violent gang member terrorized an innocent family when they hit the wrong house, a lawyer for the victims charged Tuesday.

The Carter family of Staten Island, who merely shared the same last name as the suspect being sought, are seeking monetary damages for emotional distress from Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents Howard Stern and Corey Hill and deputy U.S. Marshals Salvatore Spica and Steven Tocci.

Lillian Carter, a nursing assistant and mother of four sons, said she was so traumatized she demanded that her husband install a video surveillance camera outside their home and attached bells to the gate to alert her to intruders. Later, the couple lost their house to foreclosure after Lillian, suffering from depression, left her husband and moved upstate.

"These armed men stormed into her house, wreaking fear and terror that would stay with her forever," attorney Sam Gregory told jurors Tuesday in his opening statement of the civil trial in Brooklyn Federal Court.

In the early morning hours of Feb. 25, 2004, scores of lawmen fanned out to arrest 24 drug gang members named in an indictment. Around 6 a.m., Lillian Carter was drinking coffee in the kitchen when their Chihuahua named Chili Bean reacted to noise outside. Two of her sons and a cousin were still sleeping.

"I heard a lot of screaming: 'Open the effin' door before we knock it down!'" she testified. "I started opening the door.... They just charged in."

She said a gun was put to her neck and she was led upstairs like a human shield while the agents searched room by room.

"I was afraid of them hurting my kids. My family. Me," she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Landau contended the agents acted on information "checked and confirmed with many sources," and denied Lillian was used as a human shield. "Nothing forceful, excessive or extreme occurred that morning," Landau said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/200..._raid_prompted_by_mistaken_identity.html
[email protected]

Pat...I'm figuring he'll be zenIII by week's end.

Not being able to be a cop because of his shrink eval has really taken it's toll on the dimwit!

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!

Poor Chili Bean. 649,989 to go.

5 Ala. officers fired for beating caught on tape
AP

In this undated photo released by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Anthony AP � In this undated photo released by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Anthony Warren in seen. A video �
36 mins ago

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. � Five Birmingham police officers were fired Wednesday for beating an unconscious suspect ejected from a car after a chase, an attack captured on a patrol car videotape that didn't surface publicly for a year. Police Chief A.C. Roper said the officers, who were not identified, were seasoned veterans but acted in a "shameful" manner.

The video shows police pursuing Anthony Warren's van on Jan. 23, 2008. One officer on foot was hurt when the van swerved through traffic. It overturned on a ramp, ejecting Warren, who lay motionless as officers ran toward him. The video shows them beating him with their fists, feet and a billy club.

An attorney representing Warren in a civil case said he was hospitalized after the chase and didn't realize he'd been beaten until a prosecutor preparing for his trial requested the tape, saw the attack and told the defense about it.

Roper said the department had "terminated 50 years of combined service due to 10 seconds of injustice."

The officers can appeal.

Wendy Crew, an attorney for Warren, filed a claim against the city in March, the first step before filing a lawsuit seeking damages. She said Wednesday the claim was over the "horrific" beating and an attempt to suppress the video of it.

Authorities believe numerous Birmingham officers and as many as a half-dozen supervisors saw the video over the past year, but none reported it.

"In addition to these terminations, we're also reviewing our supervisor's actions, reporting mechanisms and policies," Roper said.

He said supervisors may face discipline, and the Alabama Bureau of Investigation will review possible criminal charges.

District Attorney Brandon Falls said Wednesday the tape of the beating surfaced unexpectedly as prosecutors were preparing to try Warren.

He said prosecutors had a video of the chase "but the beating was not on the copy we had."

Falls said the prosecutor wanted to play the video for the jury but, for technical reasons, she needed another copy and asked for the original.

"We got the original the week before the trial ... and that's where she saw the rest of the tape," he said.

He said they contacted the defense, the Alabama Bureau of Investigation and the Birmingham police chief.

Warren, who was held on $1 million bond after the chase, pleaded guilty in March 2009 to first-degree assault and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Because of his plea, no trial was held, and Crew said Warren knew about the tape when he pleaded guilty.

Crew said police "deliberately tampered with the evidence" in their handling of the video prior to the criminal trial.

"As horrific as the beating is, the deliberate tampering of evidence is just as horrific," she said.

Crew, who did not represent Warren in the criminal case, said he fled in the van because he was confronted by a man who never identified himself as an officer, was not in uniform and drove after him in an unmarked car. She said he had not been accused of any crime when the pursuit began.

She said Warren, who was hospitalized for a few days after the chase, was "totally unconscious" when he was beaten and did not know it happened until the video surfaced.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_police_beating_video

649,984

By the way, 5000 new cops have been hired in the time in which 24 have screwed up.

Soldier beaten by Las Vegas Police

KVVU Fox 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygPiLBilxWs&feature=related

Pretty sure that one asked for a asswhippin. Try again.

Army Iraq War Veteran/Soldier beaten at McCarran Airport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaX0dSRl9zw&annotation_id=annotation_484556&feature=iv

Why are ya'll letting this douchebag raise yer hackles, fug him, we know what is gonna say. Les

Let 'em go Terry. A long rope is the only weapon we have.

Don't tell me not to raise my hackles! Wait...what's a hackle?

In yer case, it's on top of yer shoulders.

On a lighter note, the cop who ate pot brownies and called 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLkOddgjYuY&feature=related

No hackles raised here, my friend. This is actually pretty amusing from where I'm sitting.

George

Okay, if yer havin' fun, I abstain.

I get a kick out of guys who lose their cool like this.

Compare to your first post when you started this thread as some sort of academic study on police - public relations but has now morphed into a full blown temper tantrum that has completely torn away any guise of a neutral study thread that you tried to pass this off as.

It's just a bitch when people read through you so quick, and then you can't help yourself but to affirm their suspicions.

I am not a cop and I still think you are full of

Wow Soctt, I think thats the closest I have ever seen you come to cursin.

That is certainly a 'picture is worth a thousand words' moment.

Outrageous statements? Only one here is making them.

Thank God it's not scratch and sniff.

That is the truth!

Heck man he has a whole skeleton!!!!

Jim

What is, is. No need beating around the bush.

Since when did you abstain from anything.

Jim

Do fish swim??? He is aka sappy, goblin, covered in sap and others. On a few other sites. Banned on a permenant basis and reincarnates/infests under another name.

Here's another dandy, a teenager has a fall from an overpass, suffers multiple fractures including his back, situation unclear, but what IS clear is after the police arrived he was tasered multiple times,
what is important in this case along with numerous other examples I am posting is the mindset of police, how they justify the unjustfiable, how they couch their responses in codespeak,
imagine if this had been YOUR teenage son, had a fall, was lying in unbelievable pain and suffering, and the police tasered him (up to 19 times according to the story);
alls you hafta do is look at the attitude that the cops in here are expressing about the myriad examples of police abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnI_xM5ujo4&feature=related

Even news crews are not exempt from being harrassed, of course the most interesting part of many of these stories is the excuses police use to justify what they do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBZOdBqMgo&feature=related

sounds like a typical troll.

by the way, welcome to the forum

CNN feature story on an English teacher in Chicago who gets beaten up by a cop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBZOdBqMgo&feature=related

Citizens,
Judge for yourself by the many examples of police criminal behaviour and misconduct that have been posted (videos, see for yourself),
and the responses and attitudes expressed (ever so eloquently) from LE on this forum

This is why police should be banned from the NRA Eddie Eagle Program

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0&feature=related






(citizens-I just couldn't resist!)

I guess this is zeN's only job. Surfing the net and getting kicked off of forums. Does anybody know; with a crak history, is getting full time employment hard to do? kwg

Here's a PASTOR who claims his 4th amendment rights were severely violated, along with getting the &^%$# out of him,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCe0zYqBQ3g&feature=channel

The police ask him in the video,

"Pastor, why don't you go along with this (illegal search and harrassment)? 'Because my freedoms mean something to me'!"
I'm not religious, but I have to say amen to that one:)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCe0zYqBQ3g&feature=channel

Yeah, but sometimes ya' just gotta laugh.........


One afternoon, Jake is driving down a highway to spend some time at a lake and relax. On his way to the lake, he spots a guy dressed from head to toe in red standing on the side of the highway, gesturing for him to stop.

Jake rolls down his window and asks, "How can I help you?"

"I'm the red jerk of the highway. You got something to eat?" the guy in red says.

Smiling, Jake hands the guy a sandwich and drives away. A few short minutes later, Jake comes across another guy. This guy is dressed completely in yellow, and he's standing on the side, motioning for Jake to stop.

Slightly annoyed, Jake stops, rolls down the window, and says, "What can I do for you?"

"I'm the yellow jerk of the highway. You got something to drink?" the guy in yellow asks.

Barely managing a smile, Jake hands the guy a can of soda and takes off again. Wanting to reach the lake before sunset, he decides to go faster and not stop, no matter what.

Much to his frustration, he sees another guy on the side of the road. This guy is dressed in blue and is signaling for him to stop. Reluctantly, Jake stops one last time, rolls down his window, and screams, "Let me guess. You must be the blue jerk of the highway. Just what the hell do you wanna have?"

"Driver's license and registration, please!"

It's interesting to note that Obama/Biden, being the great socialists devils that they are ALSO support adding 50,000 cops on the streets (from the NRA site):

CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Support Local Law Enforcement: Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to fully funding the
COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on the street and help address police brutality and
accountability issues in local communities. Obama and Biden also support efforts to encourage young
people to enter the law enforcement profession, so that our local police departments are not
understaffed because of a dearth of qualified applicants.


and support Homeland Security

STRENGTHEN HOMELAND SECURITY
Allocate Funds Based on Risk: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the president and Congress
should direct our precious homeland security dollars according to risk, not as a form of general
revenue sharing. To address this pressing issue, Obama introduced an amendment, supported by the
Families of 9/11 and former 9/11 Commissioners Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer, to increase
risk-based funding in the 9/11 bill.

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaurbanpolicy.pdf

Are you under the illusion people are still reading the info you are posting, or is just an exercise for yourself in anger management?

zeNII says:

Hey Barkoff,

What's the matter, don't you take a guy that looks like me seriously?

No, I am not a troll.

sorry, just going with the tide of popular opinion.

That's cute:)

ARE THE POLICE SPYING ON YOU ON THE INTERNET?

"The Internet offers intelligence agencies an amazing potential source for information collection and for monitoring the activities of their targets. They not only can plug into communications through the names of senders and receivers of e-mail, but also through keyword monitoring of messages as they have done for many years. If you add e-mail to their monitoring of telephone and other credit card transactions, they can get a very complete picture of a given person's activities."


http://rwor.org/a/cyber/netpig.htm

ANABOLIC STEROIDS IN USE BY POLICE

One of the remarkable anomalies of the anti-steroid campaign of the past two decades is that it has virtually ignored the many reports of steroid use by police officers in the United States and in other countries. Unknown but clearly significant numbers of policemen have imported, smuggled, sold, and used anabolic steroids over this time period. According to an article that appeared in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin in 1991: "Anabolic steroid abuse by police officers is a serious problem that merits greater awareness by departments across the country." (1) In 2003 another expert offered a similar assessment. Little research has been done on the use of steroids by police, said Larry Gaines, former executive director of the Kentucky Chiefs of Police Association. "But I think it's a larger problem than people think.".(2)...
It was no accident that the "60 Minutes" segment paid special attention to a "hard core group" of steroid users on the Miami police force. Two years earlier the Miami Herald had run a long article on steroid-using police officers. The seven notorious Miami "River Cops", who in 1987 were on trial for alleged crimes including cocaine trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder, included Armando "Scarface" Garcia, a weightlifter who had publicly admitted to taking steroids. "There's a great potential for an officer abusing steroids to physically mistreat people," said the police chief of nearby Hollywood, Florida, who had told his investigators to be on the lookout for officers who looked like "small mountains." (3) The Miami Herald article may have been the first of the tiny number of analytical treatments of this subject that have appeared in American newspapers since the 1980s....
"The thinking is that big is better than small, tough is better than weak," says Gene Sanders, a former police officer and a longtime police psychologist in California. "There is sort of an underground, unspoken tradition among several departments that I've worked with that if you really want to bulk up, this is the best way to do it." (8) A website maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reports the same attitude toward functional steroid use by police officers: "Law enforcement personnel have used steroids for both physical and psychological reasons. The idea of enhanced physical strength and endurance provides one with 'the invincible mentality' when performing law enforcement duties." (9)



http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/hoberman/cops-on-steroids.htm

...the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has been investigating the increasingly widespread use of steroids by police since 2005. The scope of the investigation, code named "Raw Deal," is nationwide. In the story "Big Guns: When Cops Use Steroids: Steroid Abuse Can Contribute to Police Brutality�Even Murder" by ABC�s Marc Lallanilla (May, 2005) it was noted that, "From New York City to Norman, Okla., police departments are investigating a growing number of incidents involving uniformed police officers who are using steroids to build beefy, muscular physiques."

Aside from the unprescribed possession and use of steroids being legally akin to possession of heroin and cocaine, steroids have also been known to cause violent, aggressive behavior in those who use them. If drinking and driving is a bad combination, then so is pumping steroids and carrying badges and guns..."


http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20071022.htm

zeN said
It's interesting to note that Obama/Biden, being the great socialists devils that they are ALSO support adding 50,000 cops on the streets (from the NRA site):

Job security for zeN.

kwg

Socialism FYI is always a "Police State".

So that's why so many cops these days look like that Officer Kenneth Freeman who knocked down the old man working as a greeter at Walmart for asking him to show his receipt.

You have to love this story-no charges AGAIN-way to go LE


Officer Will Not Face Charges In Shoving Of 71-Year-Old Wal-Mart Greeter
posted January 6, 2009

Chattanooga Police Det. Kenneth Freeman will not face charges in an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Wal-Mart in Collegedale to the floor after he tried to stop him while doing a receipts check.

Collegedale Police declined to bring charges, then the employee, Bill Walker, filled out a complaint himself. Collegedale Judge Kevin Wilson has reviewed the complaint and did not issue an assault charge.

In the incident on Christmas Eve, Mr. Walker said an alarm went off when Det. Freeman and another city police officer, Edwin McPherson, were leaving the store.

He said he reached to try to stop Det. Freeman and he was pushed against a soft drink machine and to the floor. He said the officer then hovered over him as he lay on the floor.

A police report says a customer then told Det. Freeman, "You can't push down an old man" and began struggling with him. It says Det. Freeman then shoved that man, Gholom Ghassedi, through a glass door. Officers found Mr. Ghassedi with blood on his neck, but he declined medical treatment.
Sgt. McPherson broke up the fight between Det. Freeman and Mr. Ghassedi.

Rick Watkins of Wal-Mart said an alarm was sounded when the 48-year-old Freeman walked by, causing Mr. Walker to try to stop him. Sgt. McPherson had already stopped for a receipt check.

An officer from the Chattanooga Police Department's Internal Affairs division arrived at the scene to look into the incident.

Cpl. Larry Robbins Jr. of the Collegedale Police said he decided not to bring assault charges against Det. Freeman, saying the incident was a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of an officer, there were no injuries requiring medical attention, the suspect is not a flight risk, and "there were no other crimes committed along with the possible simple assault."

He said the investigation would be ongoing, but he said he "was unable to determine at the scene that there was any intent to commit an assault."

Collegedale Officer Paul Crosby said when he arrived at the scene he found a large group of people gathered outside the door of the store. He said some "were obviously angry and were pointing fingers and yelling."

He said one man was "livid" and was pointing his finger at Det. Freeman while saying, "You are a police officer? Shame on you."

Det. Freeman was involved in a scuffle with attorney Lloyd Levitt at the Courts Building in May 2007.









http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_141946.asp

The responding officers were correct as to the law in this state. If it's a misd. and didn't happen in their presence they can't make an arrest. The victim was then required to take out a warrant himself of which he did.

If the citizen didn't like the Judges verdict, the citizen could of presented the case before the next setting of the Grand Jury in that Cnty.

I AM pretty fine.

Not you Kevin! The guy you're talking about.

This must be LE steroid day in the press. I pulled up a PNW newspaper and saw a case in Clackamas Co. OR. This involving a small Dept in that Cnty. and a citizen who was selling steroids to officers, this from an FBI investigation.

Then i pull up a paper in this state and two Deputies in two neighboring counties in West TN. were pinched for selling steroids.

I've never personally been involved with the stuff, nor do i, to my knowledge know anyone who is. We get physicals yearly in which blood is drawn in the agency by a Nurse, they can check for what ever they want to.

Plus if the Sheriff or his Admin. suspects or has a warm and fuzzy, you have to pee in a cup on their say so.

zen is a knobby idiot from another site. He is fun to drop kick from time to time.

Wait until nezII goes on one of its anti American, anti military and PRO gay rants. Just waiting....it will happen soon.

He is a little big man in So Cal....raises "endangered" chickens.

On his landlords property, neighbors hate him.

That ought to be good for at least 2000 replies.

ZenII, are you a retard or what? I mean I'm usually on the ball about keeping an eye on the police myself, but you give guys like me a bad reputation. Come on dude, if you want to argue in the big leagues, don't come in half prepared. I feel like I've failed because of you're silly nonsense. aaaarrrghhhhh !!

Just post more chit like this and move on,!!! The more you type the worse the cause looks. Your blatherin' ain't helpin' at all. Take it from another anti LEO member .

link

Wow...you admit you're anti-LEO. Too bad the average officer doesn't have access to a database that catalogs people like you.

It was a joke dude -- don't try to be an example of what the joke was about

I mean I don't really have nothin' against cops, it's just cops like you, GeneL, and Hunter1960, and a very few others that would be azzholes even if you were plumbers or somethin', that I don't like.

Wow, I've never heard somebody actually come out and admit it, usually the anti-LEO crowd tries to pass themselves off as unbiased, concerned citizens. Kudos on your honesty.

I am concerned about attitudes, TLee, (who I think was probably a great cop) Mac, and NH KN9 seem like gentlemen. Just give me my ticket and I'll pay it, no problem -- I'll even be polite to you when you write it out. But if you're a bunghole, like may me construed, from the way you post on the internet, you probably bring that attitude to my window 'cause I was going over the speed limit a little bit, and bring it with a chip on your shoulder, then don't be surprised if I get one too. I can appreciate someone doing their job, and if their job is to give me the ticket, so be it.

After that it's all in the manner that they carry out their job -- Like I said, if you can't even post something on the internet that's polite and appropriate, you're chances at dealing with the living public effectively are pretty slim -- and I have friends that are LEOs that feel the same.

That is something we do need to watch out for IMHO.

You, nor anyone on this board, has any idea of what kind of "cop" I was.

Ain't to hard to guess!

I mean I could be wrong, maybe you're really cool in person, and only an Azzhole on the internet, but I doubt it, unless you're a puny little fugger, then I could see it going down that way.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's funny, some folks base their whole interpretation of people and the world, based on the Net. As you've stated they don't know you or I, nor how we perform our duties. They don't have a clue, as to what is good or bad in the business.

I guess they're assumption is that unless you let everyone go with warnings or turn your head to crime and tell people, "Please don't do that again, because I don't want to arrest you", your a good guy.

I'll remember that next time a victim's home has been burglarized, to tell them that the perpetrator is really a great person, who's been misunderstood. The same with Meth. cookers, they really didn't intend to do that, it's just the circumstances of which they were raised, and should get a free pass.

At the same time, they don't know the others that they assume are so called good guys, they've never spent a day on the street with them.

Jacques, you don't have a clue as to what is good or bad, other then what you read about in incidents on YouTube etc. You assume that if an LEO turns on the blue lights and makes traffic stops or makes arrests, they're bad. If they drive around and do nothing, but wave at the public all day or night, they're good. You assume unless you play "kissy ass" on the Net, then your a monster in public.

Considering where you live, you probably haven't seen or dealt with real crime. You live in a world of peace, love and harmony. This along with the fact that your only involvement with LE is with a uniformed LEO in a marked unit, who's stopped you for a traffic violation. That you feel you didn't commit or isn't really that important in your beliefs. That's only the tip of the iceberg as to what LE involves.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And you base this concept on what?? You'd be surprised at the number of traffic stops made in this country that are nothing but pictures of politeness, between the parties. In my case you don't know me, nor have ever been on a traffic stop with me.

People in my business, who work for an elected official. Excessive complaints will end with unemployment. I am not related to my Sheriff, nor born and raised in this county or have social/political importance within it. It's all about courtesy and professionalism.

After exhaustive (and continued) research into the Police Mind, I have come across a partial answer to the mystery of WHERE Americans, the proud, the free, the independent started to go wrong, by allowing a civil servant class, ergo the Police become this overbearing overdominant Megapyle of control, ever present in daily life; inspections, roadside inspections, inspections for drunk driving, and here lately in California by F&G roadside stops for driving while hunting (that is, in one popular mountain gateway if you look like you are driving to or from a hunting trip you get flagged over, and you and your car are searched for guns, game, violations, and your serial numbers may be recorded),
they practise a cultish ritual, regularly, how long this has been going on is anyone's guess-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqOiejxdEWA

Fish and Game Kills Hunter on his own Property, FOX NEWS


http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-hunter-killed-090412,0,4986126.story

Well, the man was hard of hearing so it was his fault, not the cops. If you're hard of hearing in this day and age, you just have to expect that a cop will shoot you for failing to immediately comply with whatever orders he shouts at you. We cannot have a society where folks don't instantly grovel in compliance to a cop's commands, can we?

CITIZENS, SHOULD MARGARET VISCHERS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AND HUMILIATED BECAUSE OF "DISCRETIONARY ARREST?"

As they drove through the first dark intersection, neither of them noticed the park ranger's vehicle. Andre, 58, recalled seeing a stop sign and lightly touching the brakes but not coming to a full stop.
After they were pulled over by the rangers, Vischer said he told them about the bottle of wine he and his wife had shared during their four-hour dinner. Both Vischers were given Breathalyzer tests. Andre's blood alcohol registered .08, the minimum at which a person is considered legally drunk. Margaret tested at .06.
Andre was frisked, handcuffed, read his rights and taken away by two rangers. Another ranger drove the couple's rental car while Margaret remained at the side of the road where a male ranger frisked her, handcuffed her and took her to Yosemite's small jail to spend the night. There, she was fingerprinted, photographed, questioned and told to strip, shower and put on an orange jumpsuit.
When Margaret asked why she was being jailed even though her blood-alcohol level was under the legal limit and she was not driving, she said rangers told her they considered her a danger to herself and others. The next day she was released without being charged.
The couple spent Margaret's 60th birthday a few days later at the park's federal courthouse, where Andre pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and paid a $2,500 fine.
"The whole thing was totally intimidating and humiliating and totally unnecessary," Margaret Vischer said in a recent telephone interview from the couple's home in Sydney.
Cam Sholly, Yosemite's deputy chief ranger, said the decision to arrest Margaret Vischer was discretionary "This was a fine line between taking someone into custody for their own safety and releasing someone whose judgment is impaired to a degree that they could be a danger to themselves," he said.
But Margaret Vischer's story has a familiar ring to other visitors, employees and defense attorneys with similar accounts of alleged overzealous policing in a place where people come to relax and expect to be treated like guests. Most of the people who have questioned the conduct of park rangers acknowledged doing something out of line. Nonetheless, they contend that the treatment by park rangers was out of proportion to the minor infractions they committed and out of place in a national park.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/13/local/me-yosemite13

And you once again have judged without knowing the facts, haven't you? You have already judged that F&G officer of murder, and you weren't there, you have no idea if he was drawn down on.

I have a question for you. By judging this F&G officer without knowing the facts, aren't you acting in the very same manner that you regularly accuse the police of. Isn't this the same thing as cops pre-judging somebody and acting before they know all the facts? You just accused this officer of gunning down an old man becasue he was deaf, or becasue he did not comply, when in reality it is possible the officer had a firearm pointed at him. The truth does not concern you, you have pre-judged.. the very same criticism you level at LEOs.

My "jumps to judgment" can never result in the death of a police officer. That's the difference.

Really, how do you know?

How do you know that somebody on this very page will not be fired up by your opinion and then take it out during his next interaction with a game officer? How do you know that old man up in the tree reacting with anger towards that game officer was not the result of being whipped up by opinion just like yours?

That is a weak justification. Because you're feeling confident that your opinion won't result in death, does not excuse the prejudgment of others.

On the contrary, yours is a weak argument if you are suggesting that to express a steady state of suspicion concerning a roving force of armed uniformed men under the command and authorization of government agencies is the problem. If that's the case, you'd also better ban the publication, distribution, and possession of copies of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, but then that's likely right up your alley too.

is that what you call this absurd cut and paste exercise you've been doing?

you couldn't research a dog turd, kid


and to make matters worse, you've kidnapped TRH and have some lunatic posting under his handle

Do you have a problem with the legality of the stop and arrest of the husband who was driving the veh.? Do you feel that it was a petty stop and arrest?

I don't know the reasons for the arrest of the wife other then what was posted by the writer in this case. I've seen people who were well below the legal BAC limit, but were stumbling and unable to care for themselves, darn sure not able to safely operate a motor vehicle.

If this was the case she should of been charged with Public Intox. And for that a BAC test isn't required, in this state anyway. There is a clause in the statute in this state, that does state if the offender may be endangered as a reason for arrest, this as many things in LE are discretionary.

This may also be the case in many other states PI laws. If she wasn't considered PI she should of been taken to a motel etc versus being held and released later.

I am not even going to speculate any more on this case involving the wife.

No, no, that was not suspicion you posted, that was accusation. Don't try to take accusation without knowledge of fact and turn it into something noble, worthy of our founding fathers. It was not suspicion, you posted accusation. You stated it as fact.

Hey, I can't say I mind the fact that Zen has siphoned off some of the heat that used to be directed at me, but I challenge you to demonstrate what aspects of my opinion have been altered of late. My views on political issues have been fairly consistent over time.

Really? Where?

I won't, and never argued that. Yes, you have been consistent. In the case mentioned, I have not exonerated that game officer, I just realize that sometimes we will never know what happened, therefore there are sometimes when judgment at all will be unfair to either of the parties involved, and that is unfortunate.

I'll go one further for you, if the cop would have died and the old man lived, I don't think the old man would have been afforded the same degree of trust, that this officer has received, that being said, it could have gone down just as the officer said, I can't know, I can't judge.

Well, the man was hard of hearing so it was his fault, not the cops. If you're hard of hearing in this day and age, you just have to expect that a cop will shoot you for failing to immediately comply with whatever orders he shouts at yo


You stated as fact that this man died only becasue he could not hear and comply, and we don't know that. If memory serves me, that was speculation by friends and family who were not there.

I am presenting these stories and allowing the public to make up their own minds about it, all stories are referenced, these reports are already public

You must be reading something different than what's posted above if that's what you take from it.

I think this cop's attitude about the foreign elderlly woman, who broke no laws, as the story reports she was BAC .06 which is legal even in Mexifornia here, she gets searched, stripped, put in orange and in jail by a male, apparently for the comfort and safety of the officers-it sure as hell wasn't for HER comfort, and this is all LE can say?
Wait till it is YOUR wife, and tell me then pardners~

*You know the more I think about it, some people here are not morally fit to be LE, if they can justify this BS End Of Story



Wake Up Already

Well, then my apologies for the misunderstanding, though I still have no idea how else to take it.

Sarcasm: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She may have been patted down on the road, by a male probably either using the back of his hand or an ASP baton. You have no proof that a male, stripped her down and watched her shower or dress or anything else. All your doing is taking some words and speculating.

Maybe if hubby had paid a little more attention to his driving or had the Mrs. drive they might of not been in the situation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She may have been patted down on the road, by a male probably either using the back of his hand or an ASP baton. This isn't out of the ordinary. You have no proof that a male, (AKA-dressed her out) stripped her down and watched her shower or dress or anything else. All your doing is taking some words and speculating.

Maybe if hubby had paid a little more attention to his driving or had the Mrs. drive, they might not of been in the situation, to begin with.

UNF&&& believable ctizens-there's your law enforcement ,that's what they think of your rights! Good God....



Wake Up Already [/quote]

Yes, I did recognize it as sarcasm, but that sarcasm can still be interpreted as you stating as fact this man died because he was hard of hearing. The sarcastic part of the statement was that it was alright that he did so.

[/quote]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We have a legal right to pat a person down prior to arresting them, along with prior to placing them in our LE veh's. This patdown procedure is used throughout LE across this country, with no issues. All the LEO was doing, was patting her down for weapons.

Your arguing things regarding patdowns, that are done all over this country, and have for years without issue of violation of civil rights.

As i've stated, this woman may have been wrongly held. If she was that's why we have a Civil Court process in this country. She shouldn't have a problem finding legal counsel to represent her in Fed. Crt. You don't know for 100% that this woman was dressed out, by a male, now do you?

I bet it pissed you off to be searched when you were arrested. It probably really upsets you when your probation or parole officer, makes you pee in a cup, everytime you go see them.

Hunter, he's a troll. You will never win even when you win. You are playing mental volly ball with a mental midget. Say good day, Hunter. zeN, you are an angry guy. Step away from the computer. Check your blood pressure, take your medicine. It's time for a nap. kwg

You're right-you do have a so-called legal right, but you don't have a Constitutional right and your law is null and void-you are commiting a criminal act when you violate a citizen's Constitutional rights, PERIOD.
Be it known among citizens that we should be enacting JURY NULLIFICATION when we sit on juries judging cases of police misconduct, violations of citizen's rights, false arrests etc., and insist on criminal penalities for the offenders

'Hawk,
I said it earlier in either this or the Memorial thread: at least you argue your views coherently and based on your own thought process. You also have the ablitity to separate the men from the job and realize that there are good and bad in LEO. We may not agree on everything, but I'll give credit where it's due.

The cut-and-paste does little for me. I've said a thousand times that I'd love to be able to drive the dirty cops off the job but all he sees is "cops bad, me good". Now I'm just sitting back and laughing at how absurd it is.

George

PS
You are nothing if not consistent.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your right. How's everything in Ghan. and with DynaC. going?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We have a legal right to pat a person down prior to arresting them, along with prior to placing them in our LE veh's. This patdown procedure is used throughout LE across this country, with no issues. All the LEO was doing, was patting her down for weapons.

Your arguing things regarding patdowns, that are done all over this country, and have for years without issue of violation of civil rights.

As i've stated, this woman may have been wrongly held. If she was that's why we have a Civil Court process in this country. She shouldn't have a problem finding legal counsel to represent her in Fed. Crt. You don't know for 100% that this woman was dressed out, by a male, now do you?

I bet it pissed you off to be searched when you were arrested. It probably really upsets you when your probation or parole officer, makes you pee in a cup, everytime you go see them. [/quote]

We have a legal right to pat a person down prior to arresting them, along with prior to placing them in our LE veh's. This patdown procedure is used throughout LE across this country, with no issues. All the LEO was doing, was patting her down for weapons.

This is social rape, it is thuggery and people view it as thuggery, cops that search people and or arrest citizens without an extremely rational good proven reason are THUGS

My sarcasm expressed my steady state of suspicion concerning a roving force of armed uniformed men under the command and authorization of government agencies.

Thanks George.

Why don't you educate us, as to according to ZenII or whoever you are today. This as to what are rational good reasons to arrest people? I'ld like you to list them according to your opinion?

Probable Cause?

Quite the definition, sounds pretty damned dark. I had no idea I was in such danger when I left the house each day. Do they come out during the day, or only at night?

That too was sarcasm, leveled at your state of paranoia.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We've got an older General Sessions Crt. Judge in this county, who describes probable cause. This to Defendants and their Attorney's as, a crime was probably committed and your client probably committed it. The frequent fliers and their Attorney's know he's right.

jeez, but you're a pompous little ass, aren't you?

He is definately a different breed Steve.

Jim

I had an FTO once that described what Probable Cause was to him specifically...."Kid, if your driving down the road at say 55 MPH and you see something out of the corner of your eye that makes you come to a screaching halt and say, What the F!ck was that. Thats Probable Cause." Always thought that was a funny way to explain it to a rookie.

With that being said, there is much more to Probable Cause than this. It has to be articulable in nature and pass scrutiny by the judge and jury, otherwise the case would get thrown out at arraignment or at the very least Preliminary hearing.

I wouldn't expect Zen to now or realize that incident to arrest we pat search everyone before placing them in the back seat of a cruiser because we don't like getting shot in the back of the head or stabbed in the neck, for those cars that still don't have cages. Research how many cops have been killed in the line of duty because of failing to do a proper pat down for weapons and contraband.

Hawkeye, on some things we agree like the quality of a Smith and Wesson .357 or a Colt Detective Special and that a Cigar while fishing in dark just seems right. The fact is, an armed society is a polite society, but anymore there are too many that can't or won't fend for themselves. So our government has seen fit to ask men and women to police for those that can't or won't do it for themselves. That is the reason this isn't like Somalia, where roaming bands of killers control every aspect of life. It's the citizens and the legislature that ask for our existance. I understand that you have a hard time trusting the police. But I would ask you, once again, to realize that there are more good ones out there, then bad. That we do a job because we feel its an honorable profession and there is nothing I like more then when I can make a victim feel safer at night. That I can help that little boy that wandered off, get back home to his frantic and scared parents and when I can send a bad guy to prison, because he has no honorable qualities and in doing so, makes the community a little bit safer at night.

I don't carry a badge around because it makes me cool and gives me power. I accept the responsibility of my badge with humbleness and humility because its a calling, just like the military. Just some random thoughts before I join my family this morning for brunch. Ryan

I appreciate what you're saying, and I understand if your personal closeness to the subject makes it hard for you to understand my position, but I already know that cops are, for the most part, decent folks in their personal and family lives. My problem, however, is with the police force phenomenon and how it's been developing over the decades in conjunction with the changing laws on the books (along with supportive court decisions), more than with individuals working in that profession, who I assume for the most part are well intentioned in their career choice.

this has got to be one of the most pointless and simply stupid threads in campfire history.....which considering the moron who started it isn't surprising.


what is the point? cops screw up? wow, there's a news flash!

here's another....cops are human..so what did you expect?

the fact that the screw ups are newsworthy....to the point that even a semi-literate douchebag like DPML/zeN can google them up and post them.....shows that they are the exception and not the norm.

and of course the whiner brigade has no solution and no suggestion other than the idiotically simple observation that they should not do those bad things.....well, d'uh

there is a rational discussion, which has been had several times here, about excessive militarization of police forces, which is a valid point and a disturbing trend.

But that's not this thread.....this is simply a troll making repetitive posts he lifted off prisonplanet or some similar place......and then self-importantly appointing himself to inform the populace. I'm sure his prior bad experiences with the police and prison scarred him.....but the normal folks got his point after the first couple of stories. To the extent there was a point in the first place.

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? It is precisely in light of this fact that a free society ought not create a class of human beings with the level of arbitrary power that we've allowed to be given to policemen, and then send them out in large numbers amongst us as the societal norm. It would be different if such a force (on a much smaller scale) existed for the sole purpose of serving warrants, or perhaps even (like the Fire Department) to respond to specific calls for assistance. The problem is the patrol atmosphere. This creates an environment that's fundamentally inconsistent with a state of liberty, and one which encourages our legislators to create an ever expanding list of unlawful activities needing to be enforced. If it were deemed impractical to enforce such lists (no such thing as a perpetually patrolling army of government enforcers), such legislation would never be enacted.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This already exsists with many SO's who have no LE patrol/investigatory duties. There mission is to serve civil & arrest warrants, run the jail, and guard the Courthouse/Judges as Court Officers.

In your rural/suburban areas, the SO is the only LE outside of the incorporated areas, that provide patrol & investigatory services to the citizens.

I've never understood why some of your larger urban areas have SO's in which the entire county is covered by PD's every square inch of it, yet they have Patrol & Investigative Div's. The Deputies do nothing but run around in an urban setting. I do understand that in some areas, the cities don't have PD's but contract the SO to do their LE duties.

We like the FD do respond to specific calls of service. Unlike the FD people won't call them unless it's on fire or smoking. They'll call LE for anything be it civil or criminal in nature. We're the only 24/7 365 community service/social service organization availible.

BTW if you polled the folks in the rural/suburban settings, they'll tell you they want their SO to patrol. You wouldn't believe the citizens who call in asking for additional patrol on their county roads and subdivision streets. This for everything from speeders, loud veh's, suspicious veh's etc etc. Like i've suggested to you before, go ride with your local SO and see what they do.

So it would better if we didn't prevent crime by patroling but remained at the station house to await calls like the Maytag repairman? I guess I don't understand that logic. Citizens already complain that we can't be everywhere all at once and in reality we go from call to call anyway. Except for dayshifts and the odd slow evening our guys are running calls back to back. 6 Deputies for 2640 square miles.

What laws would you have abolished then. Which ones would you keep and how do you keep the free society you desire without keeping the thugs from taking over. The dream of a perfect Utopia starts on the basis that there are no bad guys. In reality there are a lot of bad guys that would love to take advantage of the sheeple that would believe in Utopia. In the perfect society everyone loves each other, acts honorably and with the health and wellbeing of their fellow man in mind. I am sorry Hawk, that just isn't realistic.

I am all for personal protection and looking out for ones self, but what do you do with those that won't or can't protect themselves and become victims. If you get rid of Stalking laws, for example, and the suspect becomes bolder and goes to B&E, gets bolder yet, because the women he's stalking are scared and there is no law to protect them, so the suspect moves into Rape. Now we come in after the fact when we could have prevented it sooner. How many robberies, assaults and drunk driving accidents are prevented by the prescence of law enforcement patroling.

What do you do with those that won't take responsibility for their own conduct. Look at our country and how many people refuse to own up to their mistakes or take responsibility for the position they are in. In a perfect Utopia that wouldn't be a problem and we could be the Maytag Repairman and just go out to sweep up the occasional mess, after the fact, but people want us out there as a deterrent and as proactive crime prevention. If you have a better idea, I am all ears, I just don't see the logic behind hiding in the office because we are doing what the general populace has asked us to do.

Hawkeye doesn't get it and probably never will. I've suggested manytimes that he go ride with his local SO. That or go through a Citizens Police Academy Program. I'ld like to see him go ride, to truly see how things happen and experience the call response tempo on a weekend evening.

I think he's got a bit of i know how it is, so i don't have to go see for myself. I am sorry to say that he, really truly doesn't have a clue.

See, it's this kind of arrogance that's the problem. You really think we need a constant Big Brother presence to remain free? That's amazing to me. Quite the contrary, in fact, is the case. Hardly anything more formidable to a criminal element than a free people.

Also, you seem to equate the absence of a constant police patrol with the absence of law. This is not the case. In fact, the more people become dependent on a constantly patrolling police force (combined with thousands of victimless crimes to be enforced) the more real crime becomes a problem in society.

Hawk, I'm not attacking you and I'm not arrogant. I see it day in and day out that there are people out there that hold laws in contempt and do not follow the laws of man, much less of our society. I do not dispute that a free people willing to protect themselves and their own is more formidable then law enforcement could ever be. The problem is that there are too many that will not and cannot protect themselves. We are past the point in this society where everyone was taught how to protect themselves.

I was brought up knowing how to survive outdoors, take game, build a fire and survive on my own. But would you take a person that never grew up with that education and mindset and drop them off in the middle of the wilderness and expect them to be alright? Thats why I asked, what do we do different, nationally to get there. I know that you would be capable and willing to protect you and yours, but what about your neighbors, the old guy down the road and teenager going to college, living by herself for the first time.

How do we deter those that will not respect the laws of man, that would rape, murder and steal with no concscious, from harming those that don't have the ability to protect themselves and how to we decipher between the two. I don't know the answer to that, so I continue to do my job in the hopes that I am making a difference for those that need me. I am not trying to come across as arrogant, just expressing the view from here, from my life experiences.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the only possible alternative to a police state is anarchy. How did things work out for folks in America before there were cops continually patrolling society?

Thats what I was trying to get at up above. Society is different now, then it was back then. (wilderness analogy) People were already much more dependant on themselves for survival. At this point, I'll agree to disagree. I was trying to have a genuine discussion and it appears that my point of view is immaterial. I'm not saying I'm right and not saying you are right. I wish we could have our society made up of self reliant folks, but I don't know how to get us back to that place.

Whatever society accommodates you will have more of. Accommodate helplessness and dependence on police, and you'll have more of that.

When I lived in a community further south in Florida our neighborhood was having late night vandalism problems. What did we do? We didn't demand more police coverage. Instead we organized and the men volunteered to take turns doing night patrols. On my night, me and my dog (at that time a protection trained Doberman Pinscher), along with my two friends Smith & Wesson, went out and walked the streets till about 2:00 AM. Vandalism stopped.

Hawkeye, that is just paranoid nonsense. the fact that there are police abuses mean police shouldn't patrol? and we've been all over the many and ancient exceptions to the warrant requirement. I mean, maybe you live where vandalism is the biggest kind of criminal threat and want to give up active patrolling local LE as an expression of your Liberty Guy credentials, and if you can sell it to your neighbors more power to you....and you new bff Zen.


But I will pass, thanks just the same.

I'd still like to know what happens for all the folks incapable or unwilling to protect themselves.

They live with their family. At the very least, they live within a community, not out in the wilderness on their own. Also, we have laws and the courts and elected sheriffs and volunteer militias and volunteer night watch and neighborhood watch groups, and countless other ways for maintaining order and punishing criminals. Decent folks with guns, if their hands are not tied by tyrannical laws, can generally intimidate an actual criminal element into moving on or getting honest employment.

You folks seem to be convinced that the only alternative to millions of patrol cars snooping into everyone's business is anarchy and the slaughter of the innocents. That's what you've been indoctrinated into, so that's what you believe (also, it likely gives you a heightened sense of self-worth), i.e., you believe that civilization would collapse if we didn't have constant patrol by cops. Not the case. Decent folks can take care of themselves and their own communities, if given half a chance, and are far better off when they do just that. Neighborhoods, worse comes to worst, could hire private security services, and replace them with another service if they decide they're not happy with them.

I have no issue with people protecting themselves within their property. I have no problem with people protecting themselves out on the street as individuals.

I do have problems with people playing vigilante out in their communities. I feel you'll have more abuse of civil rights in this concept, then i do by trained LE.

What are you going to do in a situation of a B&E or other crime that requires an investigation to aid in prosecution. Do you feel that this is something that Joe Citizen should accomplish themselves?

You mention private security, they have no arrest authority. They still have to call sworn LE to take care of the issue.

Thank God!

So have them call the sheriff.

PS Cops actually don't have much if any more "arrest authority" than any other citizen.

TRH....you and your goofball buddy zen can come up with a few dozen police abuse incidents....

There are MILLIONS of violent crimes committed in the US every year.

And your solution is to have less police, less patrolling and rely on families and neighborhood watch. Get a freaking clue, man.

Many don't have families and the community around them could care less. Don't equate your experience with that of the average citizen. Many didn't have your opportunities and don't see the world the same as you. The urban jungle makes the wilderness look like Disney. Elected sheriffs? Aren't they LE? You'd be hard pressed to find a group of people, in the real world, willing to give up their time and safety to serve in a militia nowadays.

"You folks seem to be convinced that the only alternative to millions of patrol cars snooping into everyone's business is anarchy and the slaughter of the innocents. That's what you've been indoctrinated into, so that's what you believe (also, it likely gives you a heightened sense of self-worth), i.e., you believe that civilization would collapse if we didn't have constant patrol by cops. Not the case. Decent folks can take care of themselves and their own communities, if given half a chance, and are far better off when they do just that. Neighborhoods, worse comes to worst, could hire private security services, and replace them with another service if they decide they're not happy with them."

Never said anarchy was the only alternative, just trying to point out your world is not the same as the guy's down the street or the 90 yr old with no relatives, etc.

The only thing I've been indoctrinated into was taking care of my family and myself, while not relying on anyone else to do so. I think you're the one suffering from a heightened sense of self worth.

"Decent folks can take care of themselves and their own communities, if given half a chance, and are far better off when they do just that. Neighborhoods, worse comes to worst, could hire private security services, and replace them with another service if they decide they're not happy with them."

Cause everyone has the discretionary funds to do that and let's not forget the most important ingredient, the will to do so.

"What are you going to do in a situation of a B&E or other crime that requires an investigation to aid in prosecution. Do you feel that this is something that Joe Citizen should accomplish themselves?"

I hear waterboarding works.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even with citizens arrest, LE still has to take control of the suspect. All the citizen has to do is sign the Mittimus and take out the warrant and appear in court. All the other admin. requirements LE still has to do.

Like i've stated you need to go ride with your local LE to see some reality. That or get involved as a Reserve Deputy in your local SO. You might learn that things aren't as you think they are.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Call the Sheriff? I know that you probably have read Zen's Sheriff story of being the only LE. FYI, for the most part if the incident took place within a jurisdiction of a PD, that PD will be the responding agency.

Yes, the Sheriff and his/her Deputies have jurisdiction throughout the county. The agency within the incorporated boundaries if you live in a city/town will respond. If you live in an unincorporated area of the county or contracted city, for the most part the SO will respond.

when you say silly things like that, I despair at your chances of ever passing a bar exam.

The reason for this is that the entire culture has been warped by the police patrol/nanny state mentality. The sooner we change that, the sooner our culture will begin to heal itself.

PS Imagine a boy who was raised by a hypochondriacal and over protective mother who insisted that he wear a network of body braces from the time he was three. Now he's ten years old and a doctor examined him and told the mother that there was never anything wrong with him and she should remove the braces right away so he can learn to do all the normal things a boy is normally capable of doing. You folks are that mother, the boy is our culture, the network of braces is the police patrol/nanny state mentality, and I'm that doctor in this debate.

The differences are artificially imposed in the modern law, but even still they are (practically speaking) only slight. However, I'm aware of the slight differences, so you need not despair.

is "artificially imposed in the modern law" your way of saying that's what the law is? What does that mean? How is law artificially imposed? Does that just mean you disagree with it?

and the differences between the arrest powers of constables, bailiffs and sheriffs and those of private citizens are ancient and significant.

Where the rubber actually hits the road, they are only slight differences, and most are the result of court decisions which have gradually and artificially elevated the police officer in relation to the ordinary citizen.

PS I've already taken and passed the Multistate (MBE) Exam with flying colors. Did particularly well on the criminal procedure aspect, in fact. Ethics (MPRE) Exam is also under my belt, and also passed with flying colors. Now it's on to the Florida distinctions Exam (the last of them). In Florida, they permit you take these tests at different times, which I've chosen to take full advantage of.

I took it in the dark ages.....pre-multi state. You took it for eight hours on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday. La. has adopted the multi-state only on the ethics part, due to our Frog and Spanish based civil law.


If you passed criminal procedure, you must have been giving different answers from those you put up here

Nope. As I said, I'm aware of the slight distinctions in arrest powers between cops and the folks. Basically, the folks can accomplish the same result. Most of the modern distinctions would have been alien to the Founding Fathers.

GOD BLESS THE 5TH AMENDMENT

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation





"The few can�t control the many unless the many control each other"

Taken from an excerpt about the scene in Britain, the peach of the tree known as the Orwellian State, but the interesting thing about studying Britain and the Police State there is how it parallels our own, in fact the writer even suggests Britain's plan is the grand scheme for the rest of the world.
But I will be following up with this story later,
Today we will be looking at a lecture by A professor who emphatically informs us citizens WHY

YOU SHOULD NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVq6N0xAEEM

Your not showing anything new. This has been posted long before you showed up.

BTW the not talking to LE didn't do you any good you still got smacked. And now if you try any smartass'd responses. The Judge will revoke your probation, and you'll have to serve the remainder of your sentence.

You know Hawk, I like you and I think you are a smart guy, far from a loon, but you have really lost a realistic perspective on this subject. You have got carried away for your longing of the wild west days.

Think about it, what will keep any of the "volunteer militias and volunteer night watch or private security" from becoming abusive, aren't they people just like cops? Who's to say that the "volunteer militia" won't stomp the hell out of somebody, they don't even have their jobs on the line? Remember this thread started over police brutality, and now you are advocating what would most likely lead to more brutality.

At first you decried cops for a lack of professionalism, now you advocate taking even more professionalism out of the game, and then expect less excessive force and corruption?

This would lend other to believe you flat out believe LEOs to be bad people, and wish to put law enforcement back in the hands of the good people.

Would you call vaccination and preventative medicine hypochondriacal? Just as we have evolved into preventing illness before it inflicts, we now try to prevent crime before it inflicts. I guess you would see both of those as the softening of our society?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The majority of people won't be involved in patrolling their neighborhoods on a 24/7 365 basis. If a crime did occur and the suspect is unknown and out of the area of the neighborhood, prior to apprehension. Do you think that the neighbors are going to spend the hours and hours required to investigate the crime?

Including recover the evidence and go through the legal procedures to insure that if the suspect is found, the case doesn't get tossed on a procedural error? Now i know you don't believe it, but LEO's do have the training to conduct those investigations etc.

It's interesting that in some places you can't get enough volunteer's trained to respond to fire and rescue calls. This in places that don't have full time fire and rescue service. People aren't even willing to spend the hours needed to learn how to fight a fire, to keep theirs and the neighbors home from burning down.

They darn sure won't spend the time conducting proactive patrolling and criminal investigation in their communities. If folks want to get involved, they need to join a reserve LE program in their community.

Again i think your reading off the Net and have no real world experience. If you got out and see things in "real time", it might surprise you regarding LE.

Good grief, talk about arrogance.

The voluntary posts would be held by your neighbors and friends, and probably you as well. If they should violate the law, press charges against them with the elected sheriff and a warrant will be made out if there seems to be legitimacy to the complaint. Do you think I'd have been ok with the law if I had used my post as volunteer nightwatchman to break into someone's home or rough up a neighbor? Absurd right? Use your head.

As for the private security force, I've lived in communities where we had them. The reason they work well is that it's all very local and small scale. That's why conservatives are always preaching about local self-government, local accountability, and local control. When it's local, you can exert a huge amount of influence over what happens in your community. If they don't serve you the way you think they should, they get fired and replaced. Try firing the NYC Police Department, for example. Small is good. Local is good. Accountable to the local community is good.

No, those would be such as the rule of law, the courts, the elected sheriff ready to serve warrants when called upon, or to send out some deputies if assistance is asked for, i.e., things that are helpful to society. The network of braces would be an over reaction to the point of creating a destructive dependency in areas where folks are capable of doing things on their own, i.e., the surveillance state that we've recently been developing into. Want to see the future of it? Travel to London.

You folks are stuck on this idea of all or nothing, aren't you? If I'm not in favor of the current status of ever-increasing ever-expanding police/government monitoring/surveillance and the nanny state, then I'm an anarchist, is that the idea?

Wow, you have put way too much thought into this which tells me one thing, this exercise is pointless becasue you are obsessed with what will never happen becasue society evolved away from what you advocate.

I guess we could also go back to private fire depts, those who can afford a policy will have their fires put out, those who can't can watch their homes burn.

I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with Barak

Yeah, I guess to a mouse there aren't any important differences between a cat and a dog.

Sheeeet, don't get lost in your own bravado friend, it's just talking. When you need them, you'll call them, same as me.

Sure I will. Did you ever hear me complain about the availability of armed assistance?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As has been stated private security forces have no authority other then to be a night watch service. They don't conduct proactive criminal investigations. If a crime has been committed LE will still have to come in and investigate. Private security's more reactive then LE is at times unfortunately.

Do you truly understand how much crime is stopped by proactive LE? In let's say a subdivision by LE looking for such things as suspicious veh's. Private security doesn't have that authority to conduct traffic stops.

I'd rather have LE stop Johnny the thief, in his car while he's casing the subdivision, versus having private security around. Johnny isn't worried about private security. He knows that private security won't make a traffic stop on him, LE will.

Let me give you a scenario, it's 2.30AM in a subdivision, an LEO who works that zone, knows that not many folks are out at that time of morning. A computer check of the veh. cruising around comes back to a veh. not registered to a homeowner in the area. The driver of the veh. is acting suspicious. A cross check of the registered owner comes back to a previously convicted burglar.

Private security doesn't have the data base to know these things. Besides they probably wouldn't even stop the veh. to determine what the person is doing in the subdivision.

Well, just seems a little mousey that's all.

Just to clarify, Barak is a variety of libertarian, while I'm a conservative. The goal in both cases is liberty, but the approaches are very different. The main difference is where we look for solutions to society ills. A conservative looks to the tried and true, i.e., what has been beneficial to, and consistent with, liberty in the past, while a libertarian couldn't generally care less about the past, and seeks solutions in innovation, i.e., new ideas which seem to them most consistent with liberty.

But in this case they lead to the same place, no?



Then why did those who lived in the past under the rules you now advocate, then opt for change?

Generally speaking, they didn't opt for it. Remember what Franklin said to the lady who asked him what kind of government they had given the people? He said "a republic, if you can keep it." He knew that, absent a vigilant and educated populous, it would eventually be taken from them by those who seek individual advantage by way of corrupting government, and that primarily through demagoguery.

How so?

I believe your and Barak's ideas on law enforcement to be the same, doesn't he also advocate private police?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As long as you've been alive LE has performed the duties of patrol. They've even been performing SWAT type duties since the early to mid 70's.

Your not old enough to have lived in a time that LE wasn't performing proactive patrol and other type duties. Please don't tell me how the "good ol'days" were so much better, because you didn't live in them, nor did i.

As far as LE, it has progressed in many ways far better then it has in years past. This in such areas as communication between agencies due to technology. This along with investigative tools such as DNA and other evidence gathering technology.

This has led to the conviction of many cold case murders and other crimes, that couldn't of been solved any other way.

Actually police corruption and brutality is less today across the board, then it was in the 60's and 70's as shown by statistics.

I believe that Barak has advocated the elimination of all authority entirely and completely switching to a private policing system. He opposes even locally elected sheriffs. He also opposes courts that have any real authority.

I believe you are once again making the error of equating with anarchy any degree whatsoever of reversing the current trend towards a police survailance/patrol/nanny state society.

I am reminded of the situation of a doctor who has each of his patients chronically on twenty to thirty different heavy duty oral medications and, when someone points out the superior wisdom of exercising prudence when prescribing medication, the doctor suggests that he must certainly be opposed to all modern medical science and would likely prefer witchcraft or voodoo.

and brutality, corruption, and fourth amendment violations were far more rampant in the nineteenth century than in the twentieth.....this is more of that nostalgia for what never was.

I'm old enough to remember more cops like Andy Taylor and less cops like Sledge Hammer though!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes and citizens understood the general concept of good citizenship. The idea of "thug for life" wasn't a statement of their attitude.

Petty criminals wouldn't kill a cop either. Just because he stopped a veh. they were in, for a minor traffic violation. All back in the good ol'days. Poor Andy would be shot down on the streets of America, as it is today in many locations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Very true. Thanks for adding that.

Never before have there been so many police in society, bloated budgets, special cars, special equipment, eavesdropping equipment, computer equipment, buildings, education, books, food, (lots of doughnuts), salaries, (payment to cops for the time it takes to put their uniform on, the story of late), uniforms, boots, more boots, fully automatic weapons, automatic pistols, shotguns, ammunition, range time, helicopters, planes, SWAT teams, on occasion a hoor or too, etc. (basically the militarization of police)
Pro-Active LE sounds like a modern euphemism for breaking down your door and using the first victim as a human shield as they scour your home for the rest of the little terorrists:)


I think it was said earlier

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED OUR POLICE STATE A STANDING ARMY

Well like I said before, ya doing anything about it or are you content to whine on the internet?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's break some of these things down that you've stated.


1. Bloated budgets, the majority of budgets are spent on payroll. This as it is with private industry. What do you think LEO's should work at minimum wage or work for free out of the goodness of our hearts? The second highest expense is operation, LE doesn't get a discount other then not having to pay sales tax on the products that it has to purchase, such as fuel, office supplies etc etc to operate the agency.

2. Special cars? What do you think that LE should be driving Honda Civic's or Mini Cooper's? The biggest supplier of LE veh's is Ford and the veh. is the Crown Vic. Some Chev. Impalia's and Dodge Intrepid's are used. You spend hours in a subcompact, then tell me about it. Besides we need veh's that can be relied upon to stand up. In the rural areas many use Chev. Tahoe's due to having a higher ground clearance and 4x4 all weather capabilities.

FYI to equip a patrol unit is expensive, radio's costs, lights cost money, audio/video camera's cost money, etc etc. Again the suppliers are in business to make money, no discounts there.

You have no idea as to the amount of things that are carried in an LE veh. many are life saving med. equipment and investigatory equipment needed at the location of the call. This along with such things spike strips, that can be used to stop a dangerous situation before the public is put at a high risk.

3. Special equipment? Well i've already mentioned some such as med. equipment like AED's that cost in the thousands and saves lives. I've been to 911 calls of patients who've gone into cardiac arrest and used an AED, long before EMT's were ever on the scene. Things such as spike strips, can stop a pursuit or a dangerous driver before it endangers the citizens.

4.Eavesdropping equipment? It has it's place, and is used within the constraints of a warrant.

5.Computer equipment? Used as it is in private industry, to lessen the amount of paperwork and cuts down on time preparing reports and increases quality.

6. Buildings? Should we work out of a tent? If your talking about such things as Jails the standard of square footage is set by the Fed. Govt.

7. Education and books? Continual LE training is set by the state in which you reside. What issues do you have with LEO's getting additional training? I can't even believe that you complained about this.

8. Food? I've never seen an LE agency pay for the food of it's employee's. Food for the detainees in a jail, is a big cost of operating an SO. The suppliers don't give LE agencies a discount, just like your neighborhood grocery store doesn't either.

9. Salaries? Do you think LEO's should make minimum wage? Do you feel they should work for free out of the goodness of their hearts? A lot of the reasons we don't have some of the corruption and other issues in LE is that the pay is better then it was many years ago. It's still not good in some places, i know folks in LE who're only making about ten dollars per hour for sworn and certified patrolmen.

10. Uniforms and boots? What do you want LE to wear blue jeans and flip flops? These items cost money, again the suppliers don't cut LE agencies a break on these. Many LEO's have to buy them out of their salary. Another i can't believe you asked that question.

11. Weapons in general? They have there uses, it's better to have it and not need it. Then to need it and not have it. Other then a handgun, shotgun, and possibly a patrol rifle. That's about all Joe Patrolman has with him. Less then lethal weapons can consist of pepper spray, collapsible baton and possibly a Taser.

12. Range time and training ammunition is normally set by the State POST Commission and the agency as to how much training is conducted. This is another, i can't believe you asked this question.

13. Helicopters? There is a place in large metro. areas, that they are useful.

14. SWAT/SRT? There is a need and usefulness under certain situations.

Lastly, proactive LE is catching the criminal before the criminal preys upon the citizen.

Another good cop doing a good job.....!

We need more like him.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/05/25/9563836.html

At the end of a New Year's Eve traffic stop on Interstate 94 in St. Paul, State Patrol Sgt. Carrie Rindal rammed Salter's 2001 Toyota Sienna van, causing $1,500 damage to his vehicle, and arrested him at gunpoint while his three children, ages 2, 3 and 6, sat in the van. His wife had to pick up the kids as he was taken to jail.

Rindal said Salter was attempting to flee. He said he was merely looking for a safe place to pull over.

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/38980869.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsl

Domestic Violence and Your Gun Rights
by Paul Velte, Attorney-at-law

After decades of trying to ban guns, and failing (for the most part); Gunbanners have now changed tactics in the past decade from simply banning guns to banning broad classes of people from possessing them. Persons subject to a "protective order" and persons convicted of an assault involving "domestic violence," are two such groups. The argument made for these laws from the gun-hating crowd is, "Wife beaters and child abusers should not be allowed to have guns."

Traditionally in American law, conviction of a felony resulted in the loss of a whole host of civil rights; but not for misdemeanors. Felonies were considered heinous, misdemeanors were not. In the old days, all felonies were heinous, there were far fewer laws, and far fewer felonies back then, than there are today. Today, the lawbooks are full of felonies declared for all sorts of activities. Unless you wish to blur the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors, why would you support stripping a basic human and Consitutional right (what can be more basic than the right to preserve one's very existence?) upon conviction of a mere misdemeanor? Such is true for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. But the matter does not stop there. We now have laws stripping gun rights from people who have never been convicted of any crime--much less a felony. These people are subject to a "protective order." Protective orders are issued in any case where someone claims domestic violence occurred to them.

When you consider that the definition of "domestic violence" has been expanded to include anyone you ever lived with or dated romantically, and that "violence" itself is defined to include mere threats alone, you can begin to see the huge scope of this law. At this point in time, it is possible for you to lose all your rights to possess firearms (and even ammunition) if someone you lived with, or dated, many years ago pops up tomorrow and says, "he threatened me." Warrants can issue and arrests made all upon the accusation of someone who wants revenge. If you have the time and money to fight it in court (few do), and you have good legal defense counsel (few do), you might be able to win a court fight, and keep your guns. But why should anyone's rights be subjected to such a whimsical process? How often and how extensively these cases are prosecuted depends entirely upon your local DA. Gun owners need to pay strict attention to the persons they elect as criminal prosecutors. Common sense candidates will not waste the taxpayers' resources trying to strip people of their gun rights. Gun haters will.

In the 1995 session of the Texas Legislature, a bill was passed (SB 130 by Royce West, Dallas) that made it illegal to "transfer" (e.g., give, loan, sell) a handgun to a person who is subject to a "protective order." This bill passed and is now law. It mirrors federal law on the same topic. It was promoted by the same anti-gun advocates who introduce anti-gun legislation every session. They used the argument that this law would reduce family violence. This law made it a crime to transfer a handgun to a person who is subject to a "protective order" that was granted under chapter 71 of the Family Code.

Here is what is wrong with this kind of law:

First, it impacts on people who have not been convicted of anything. The Brady Law prevents sales to felons. Why? Because felons cannot legally own firearms. Why do felons lose the right to own firearms? Because under American legal tradition, conviction of a felony is considered serious enough to result in the loss of your civil rights. Thus, a judge's protective order strips you of your right to possess guns, without any proof you committed any crime. Since the right to keep guns is a basic right enumerated in both our Federal and State Constitutions, that it can be so easily annihilated establishes a dangerous legal precedent.

Before one can be convicted of a crime, our Constitution requires in all cases: 1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) the right to the assistance of legal counsel, and 3) the right to have a jury decide the case. Compare a protective order hearing: A judge decides your case; you have no right to a jury. If you cannot afford a lawyer, too bad, you have to represent yourself. The only proof needed meets our lowest legal standard: "preponderance of the evidence." There is no conviction for any crime. There is no jury trial; no right to a lawyer. And in Texas, there is no right to appeal.

Protective orders are often the product of vengeful motives by ex-lovers. These orders are frequently used for revenge against former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. This law creates yet another incentive to abuse family legal proceedings--which are already rife with perjury in battles over custody and property. Indeed, most protective orders are entered by agreement, because few people object to being ordered to leave each other alone. For such an "agreed" order to be entered, **proof that any violence occurred is not necessary.

The protective order cases that do end up being fought in court frequently amount to little more than swearing matches between former lovers, where one party says "he hit me" and the other says "I did not," with no other proof available. As a result, many judges err on the side of caution and enter an order even in questionable cases so that the people are forced to avoid each other. And remember, you have no right to appeal the judge's order. It is outrageous that a basic, Constitutional right is made conditional upon these protective order proceedings, which afford none of the due process protections seen in criminal prosecutions. But hey, if you're a gun hater, any law that strips someone of their gun rights is a good thing, right?

Consider the effectiveness of these laws in protecting anyone against a person who is really intent on killing his ex-lover. Is the only way to kill an ex-lover with a newly purchased gun? If so, then this law would indeed be effective. Of course, these restrictions cannot stop one from obtaining a gun secondhand, or by illegal, black market means. If one is willing to commit the crime of murder, why would anyone think he's going to obey the law that makes possession of the murder weapon illegal? Clearly, this law is not intended to save lives, but to thwart, and diminish, gun ownership by the law abiding segment of the public. Its only purpose is to further curtail the right of gun ownership in this nation, and to establish a precedent that the "right" to bear arms, can be taken away for the most trivial of reasons.

This set of laws is useless for doing what their proponents claimed--saving lives. But it will serve to trip up unwary citizens with another technical legal rule, and to the extent some portion of the public is dissuaded from becoming firearm owners, that is a good result, in the minds of the gun haters. To them, guns are the evil; not the persons using them. So anything restricting their use, is favored. Never mind that technical gun laws like this are ignored by the criminal element as they go about committing their crimes.

Maybe this is not much of an infringement, but it is an infringement. Another bite at the apple by the gun-hating faction which will pave the way for further restrictions in the years to come. Besides denying gun ownership to as many people as they can, gun-haters have another goal they hope to achieve with this type of legislation: to establish a new legal precedent in American law: That gun rights can be taken away for lesser crimes than felonies. Once they establish that this can be done, there is no limit to the reasons why gun rights can be infringed. Up to now, you had to have committed a felony before you lost your rights. If domestic violence is horrible enough to warrant loss of gun rights, then it is horrible enough to be prosecuted as felony crime. And if you feel that is too harsh, you are right. Perhaps we should not punish misdemeanors as if they were felonies, and perhaps we should re-examine the entire domestic violence dogma, so that we punish it only as the rather trivial matter that is usually is.

With these "misdemeanor gun bans" in place, you can expect to hear the anti-gun crowd call for additional bans for other misdemeanors. Does it make any sense at all that you can lose your gun rights forever for tussling with your own family, yet not if you regularly attack strangers on the street? Clearly, this is the next step for the gun haters. If these laws are not repealed soon, this will be the next target to expand them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Prepared for

Peaceable Texans for Firearm Rights


http://www.io.com/~velte/po-crit.htm

You probably never thought of yourself as an activist, but since Napolitano/BATF stated in a memo "gun owners might pose a terrorist threat."
As staunch activists for Constitutional rights, especially the 2nd amendment I present this lesson in how to handle the inevitable harrassment, detention and arrests that are taking place now in our country, and are sure ti increase-



Dealing with Police Page 1
Dealing With the Police:
General Guidelines for Activists
I. In General.
When dealing with the police, park rangers, health officers, or other law enforcement officers (collectively referred to as �police�), keep your hands in view and don't make
sudden movements. Avoid walking behind the police. Never touch the police or their equipment (vehicles, flashlights, animals, etc.).
II. Police Encounters.
There are three basic types of encounters with the police: Conversation, Detention, and Arrest.
Conversation: When the police are trying to get information, but don't have enough evidence to detain or arrest you, they'll try to get the information from you. They may call
this a �casual encounter� or a �friendly conversation.� If you talk to them, you may give them the information they need to arrest you or your friends. In most situations, it's better
and safer to refuse to talk to police.
Detention: Police can detain you only if they have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. (A �reasonable suspicion� occurs when an officer can point to
specific facts that provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.) Detention means that, though you aren't arrested, you can't
leave. Detention is supposed to last a short time and they aren't supposed to move you. During detention, the police can pat you down and may be able to look into your bag to
make sure you don't have any weapons. They aren't supposed to go into your pockets unless they first feel a weapon through your clothing. If the police are asking questions, ask if you are being detained. If not, leave and say nothing else to them. If you are being detained, you may want to ask why. Then you
should say: �I am going to remain silent. I want a lawyer,� and nothing else. A detention can easily turn into arrest. If the police are detaining you and they get information that you are involved in a crime, they will arrest you, even if it has nothing to do with your detention. The purpose of many detentions to to try to obtain enough information to arrest you.
Arrest: Police can arrest you only if they have probable cause that you are involved in a crime. (�Probable cause� exists when the police are aware of facts that would lead an
ordinary person to suspect that the person arrested has committed a crime.) When you are arrested, the cops can search you and go through any belongings.
III. The Miranda Warnings.
The police do not necessarily have to read you your rights (also known as the Miranda warnings). Miranda applies when there is (a) an interrogation (b) by a police officer (c) while the suspect is in police custody. (Please note that you do not have to be formally arrested to be �in custody.�) Even when all these conditions are met, the police intentionally violate Miranda. And though your rights have been violated, what you say can
be used against you. For this reason, it is better not to wait for the cops � you know what your rights are, so you can invoke them by saying �I am going to remain silent. I want to
see a lawyer.�

Some excellent advice.

Not bad, but a little misleading. A search beyond a "pat-down" can be conducted with PC and it should be added that resisting said search is a really bad idea.

Fleeing man in coma after shove by Seattle deputy
By Tim Klass
Associated Press

[This is an excellent case why any suspect should always be considered innocent until proven guilty-this suspect WAS INNOCENT]


SEATTLE � Video released Thursday shows a burly King County sheriff's deputy slamming a man into a tiled wall earlier this month in what a sheriff's spokesman said was "a tragic accident."

A lawyer for the family of 29-year-old Christopher Harris said the video and witness accounts show the Edmonds restaurant worker was a victim of excessive force by Deputy Matthew Paul, 26.

As of late Thursday, Harris remained comatose and in critical condition at Harborview Medical Center, said Todd Keeling, his stepfather.

Sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart, who released surveillance video of the May 10 episode, said a preliminary investigation by the sheriff's office showed there was probable cause to arrest Harris because he fled from two deputies who repeatedly identified themselves as police.

The deputies pursued Harris after a witness wrongly identified him as a suspect in an assault in the Belltown neighborhood, the sheriff's office has said.


http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1835181-Fleeing-man-in-coma-after-shove-by-Seattle-deputy/

Police admit planting evidence
Huntington Beach chief says officers routinely employ tactic with civilian vehicles as part of training exercises.

By JENNIFER MUIR
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

HUNTINGTON BEACH � A Huntington Beach police officer's exoneration for planting a loaded gun in a suspect's car has led to the revelation that police routinely plant evidence in unsuspecting civilians' vehicles for training exercises.

Chief Kenneth Small said Friday that police plant contraband � including unloaded weapons, fake drugs and drug paraphernalia � in suspects' vehicles after they're arrested as a method of training new officers in searches.

The training practice came to light Friday after a Huntington Beach man said he learned that an officer who planted a handgun in his car during a traffic stop was exonerated of wrongdoing. Thomas Cox, who was later convicted of traffic and drug violations, said he watched in horror as another officer found the gun in the trunk of his Hyundai, igniting laughter among officers.

News of the training technique sparked surprise and criticism from police officials across the county, who said planting weapons in civilian vehicles is "inappropriate" and a "bad idea."

"I've never heard of anybody doing that," said George Wright, chairman of the Criminal Justice Department at Santa Ana College. "You're using someone else's property, and that can lead to other problems. � What if someone forgets about the gun and just leaves it behind?"

Police in Las Vegas abandoned a similar training tactic for drug-sniffing police dogs last year, when a man was falsely charged with drug possession after a canine officer forgot to retrieve drugs planted in the man's car, according to published reports.

Still, Small said the exercises teach newer officers how to search vehicles in realistic situations.

Performing the exercise in a parking lot with a police vehicle would not be as effective because the officers would be expecting to find contraband, he said. The training is usually done after suspects are arrested and the cars are being readied for impound, Small said.

But Cox said he was feet away from Officer Brian Knorr that January evening when Knorr flung the gun into the trunk.

"I was thinking, 'what the hell is this?'" said Cox, a 45-year-old construction superintendent. "I thought I was going to get a weapons charge. I thought I was going to get my ass kicked."

An officer found the gun minutes later, Cox said.

"That's not my gun!" Cox said he shouted.

Cox had been pulled over by police after a witness said he saw Cox hit another vehicle and flee the scene.

Cox said he was never told the officers were performing a training exercise.

He filed a complaint with the police department in August against Knorr and another officer, who he said barreled questions at him and called him names like "Slick.''

Several officers testified about the incident during Cox's October trial. Knorr testified that he planted the loaded gun because he "saw an opportunity to create a realistic search of a vehicle."

He said he and another officer "had a little chuckle" that night because the gun was found by a veteran police officer instead of the intended subject of the exercise.

Cox was convicted of hit and run, driving without a license, driving under the influence, reckless driving and possession of marijuana. He awaits sentencing Dec. 15.

Last month he received a letter from the police department saying the officers in his complaint had been "exonerated" of wrongdoing.

Small said Friday that using a loaded weapon during training � as Knorr testified he had done � is against department policy, and that performing the exercise in front of Cox "could have been done in a better way."

But he said Knorr was exonerated because the policy was not widely understood.

"I didn't feel comfortable holding one officer accountable for it when others were doing it as well," Small said. "I think the department did something wrong because we didn't make sure people understood what our policy really was."

The department doesn't have a formal protocol for using the public's vehicles in training exercises, department spokesman Lt. Craig Junginger said. However, vehicle owners typically aren't told their cars are being used for training because they're not usually present when the training occurs, Small said.

The training exercises are "designed to be very controlled situations, planned � and discussed with a supervisor in advance,'' Small said.

Ed Pecinovsky, bureau chief of training for the state's commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, said that no matter how careful officers are, using an arrestee's car in a training exercise is "asking for problems."

Cox said he's considering a lawsuit.

"This is police abuse," he said. "Huntington Beach used to be my dream home. Now, I'm moving away."

CONTACT US: 714-445-6688 or [email protected] Huntington Beach
http://truthinjustice.org/huntington-beach.htm


* One comment to this story is worth noting:
"Nice plausible deniability bullshit there. If the officers in a precinct like this one feel like busting someone for drugs or weapons or who knows what else, they can. If they are "caught" planting said evidence, they can deny it, saying they were just performing a "training exercise." This needs to be made 100% illegal in all 50 states, pronto. Talk about an open avenue for abuse of power. Every day, more and more little baby-steps of abuse of power come to light, meaning every day, the ACTUAL abuses of power must be increasing at AT LEAST the same rate. Slowly but surely, the police-state commences. "

Somebody here needs to get drunk and get laid...with the lifeform of their choice.

Cop should be charged with attempted murder. If he dies, it becomes a murder charge. Two big guys start chasing me in a dark alley, and my first reflex would be to run also. Once he got himself into a lighted public place, he stopped running and was slammed into a stone wall. This kind of thing needs to stop. The only way it will is if we make examples of these cops.

Are you LE?

Somebody here needs to get drunk and get laid...with the lifeform of their choice.
++++++++++++++++++++

Gotta be careful saying that to a chicken farmer.

Ninja cops, I see them everywhere. They are bored with their lives writing tickets and hiding behind bushes with radar guns. They wish they could have and action life, like all their TV heros. So when they get excited, look out. We have them here tasering an innocent civilian 5 times, or until he didn't move anymore, in the airport because he raised his hands to quickly. No wonder they get no respect or aid anymore from the communities.

Looked like a good candidate to me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPe_hf7aBXM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esalem%2Dnews%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Fmay242009%2Ftaser%5Fdeath%5F5%2D24%2D09%2Ephp&feature=player_embedded

Yep.

Catsup Terrorist Convicted, People Everywhere are Safe Again.....



Former SoCal schools trustee sentenced to informal probation and fines in ketchup theft

By Associated Press

10:51 PM MDT, May 26, 2009
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) � A former school board trustee from Southern California has been sentenced to two years of informal probation for stealing a bottle of ketchup from a college dining area.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Jacki Brown on Tuesday also ordered Steve Rocco to pay about $200 in fines and stay 100 yards away from the college.

Rocco was convicted by a jury last month of misdemeanor petty theft for stealing a 14-ounce bottle of ketchup from a Chapman University dining area.

The eccentric former Orange Unified School District trustee known for espousing conspiracy theories claims authorities planted the ketchup near his bicycle to make it look like a theft when he was recycling the bottle.

He says he will appeal.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/sns-ap-us-ketchup-caper,0,1951120.story

I guess the DA presented a better case to the jury, then the defendant's defense Att. did. I guess ketchup theft is a serious situation to the juries of SoCal.

If the citizens of King Co. WA. and whatever county Huntington Beach is in, put in input, as to it being wrong. The DA's of those jurisdictions may put the cases before a Grand Jury. They may just let both cases play out in civil court.

The eccentric former Orange Unified School District trustee known for espousing conspiracy theories claims authorities planted the ketchup near his bicycle to make it look like a theft when he was recycling the bottle
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Seems like a guy who could be in your inner circle!

Here's another little gem compliments of the Mayor and Police SERVANTS of D.C. from last year-

SafeHomes Safety Check Program

"Take the danger of weapons out of your home safely. If you have concerns about handguns, pistols, and other weapons that you think may be in your home, we can help. The Metropolitan Police Department�s SafeHomes Program is a way for you to safely alert law enforcement to the possibility of illegal weapons in your home without question or prosecution."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031202717.html

This same nonsense about police asking to search your homes is spreading to other cities, namely Boston for one:

"I noted this last month and also pointed out a similar program in Boston that I had mentioned previously. The current Washington Post article notes the Boston effort:
That department has yet to get a call to search a home.
�We�re still waiting for the phone calls to come in,� said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston police.
How shocked can anyone be that the phones aren�t ringing off the hook with calls from people inviting the police over to search their homes?"
http://www.gunpundit.com/447.php

(I'm not sure how this program played out after the inital startup, but you get the idea)

Your shrink must be having an Hell of a time getting your dosage right!

Get ready for more of this, if you ever doubted that tickets have more to do with generating revenue (translate that to 'getting robbed of your money at the point of a gun") read on-


Driver Responsibility Tax

Virginia Introduces $3550 Speeding Ticket
Virginia legislator introduces new speeding ticket tax that boosts penalties beyond $3550, driving business to his traffic law firm.

Delegate AlboVirginia motorists convicted of minor traffic violations will face a new, multi-year tax beginning July 1. Led by state Delegate David B. Albo (R-Springfield), lawmakers slipped a driver responsibility tax into a larger transportation funding bill signed by Governor Tim Kaine (D) in April. Albo, a senior partner in the Albo & Oblon, LLP traffic law firm, can expect to see a significant increase in business as motorists seek to protect their wallet from traffic tickets that come with assessments of up to $3000 in addition to an annual point tax that tops out at $700 a year for as long as the points remain.

"The purpose of the civil remedial fees imposed in this section is to generate revenue," the new law states. (Virginia Code 46.2-206.1)

Driving as little as 15 MPH over the limit on an interstate highway now brings six license demerit points, a fine of up to $2500, up to one year in jail, and a new mandatory $1050 tax. The law also imposes an additional annual fee of up to $100 if a prior conviction leaves the motorist with a balance of eight demerit points, plus $75 for each additional point (up to $700 a year). The conviction in this example remains on the record for five years.

Other six-point convictions include "failing to give a proper signal," "passing a school bus" or "driving with an obstructed view." The same $1050 assessment applies, but the conviction remains on the record for eleven years.

Although the amount of the tax can add up quickly, the law forbids judges from reducing or suspending it in any way. The tax applies only to Virginia residents, so that out-of-state motorists only need to pay the regular ticket amount. Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas also impose a somewhat more modest driver responsibility tax which they apply to out-of-state residents.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp

Nitwit.....overturned by the Va Supreme Court well over a year ago.Didn't survive 4 months. Thanks for playing though.

I think if you spent a little more time reading current laws and being a little more educated as to a topic before you post it, you might elevate yourself past brain-dead status to just a mere moron.

Pretty OCD, too.......this bizarre repetitive posting is pretty, uh, clinical, don't you think?

He's providing a valuable service, if you ask me.

He's providing a valuable service, if you ask me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only to the likes of a very goofy few.

If an idiot like zen can provide it, then it can't be very valuable. What, you don't have your own google button, or you can't find prisonplanet.com?

Hawke, I know you'll just say I can protect my own and don't need any LE assistance for anything, but if ever you and ZenII are in need of police assistance, when seconds count, I hope they are minutes away. Not wishing any ill will on you, but damn son, you really need help for your paranoia.



Clyde

Paranoia? The Founders would have been positively ready for the rubber room by your standards, son.

PS I have never opposed the availability of armed assistance to citizens via the elected sheriff's office.

What standards would that be? Never stated any. I think there are good and bad in every profession. Obviously, most other professions don't have the ability to put you in jail or do you bodily harm. That being said, I really don't see this issue being as bad as you make it out to be. Are there issues with deriliction of duty and misconduct, sure. But, that is the exception rather than the rule, and there are avenues that can be taken to address said issues. A private police force does not make sense in today's world. Maybe at one time it did, but the misconduct in a private industry would be just as bad if not worse.

By the way, the "son" was just a figure of speech. Meant nothing by it.


Clyde

First of all, that's absurd. You can fire a private police force. Secondly, you may have confused me with Barak on this point. I favor policing by an elected sheriff and his staff with a high level of assistance by the public at large, not the elimination of legitimate authority. Far from it. Could private policing be part of that at the local levels? Certainly. That's not the same as advocating the elimination of lawful authority, which is essential for public order.

For your information for 99% of situations I neither WANT or NEED the help of current LE, if they were not involved in violating my rights and jacking the citizenry that would be just fine with me-the other 1% is what they are PAID to do, what is their OBLIGATION to do,
it's pretty clear from the responses that 99% of LE are not mentally or morally qualified to wear a badge

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Wow, your are such a fountain of Bullschitt zeN, you even have me beat, and that in itself is a feat! LEO basher's are downright pathetic. I truly hope the day comes when you need one, and they decide, "Sorry, we can't help you, it might denigrate your rights!"

no, little boy, I think you'd probably have serious need of LE if you ever had the misfortune to meet most members of this forum face to face. if they didn't split a gut laughing at you first.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where do you get this silly concept that there's a difference between sheriff's deputies and police officers?

They both go to the same type of academy training and do the same type of work. They're both required to do the same type of continual training and carry the same type of equipment. They use the same type of procedures and tactics in dealing with situations.

Do you believe that deputies versus police officers, have more Constitutional training or act in a different way towards the citizens, because the sheriff is elected?

The sheriff as long as he/she doesn't get caught doing something too terribly illegal can stay in office forever. Most states have no term limits on the position. Do you think that unless it's in a small county that the sheriff is going to respond to your house or anyones house for calls of service.

They only have to get a small number of voters to vote them in. This due to the fact that the majority of folks don't vote or put much emphasis in local elections. This along with the fact that the vast majority of them are politicians first, lawmen second. They spend a lot of time campaigning on the job. Who's going to fire them? The county commission can't touch them.

I know sheriffs that the county commission is scared of them due to the power that the sheriff has politically, more power then they do. He can help run off a county commissioner, via supporting another candidate, who'll be more supportive to the sheriff.

Remember a sheriff has employee's who pretty well know if they get caught not supporting him it won't be good. They might not be fired due to civil service rules, but they won't get a slice of the pie, when it comes around regarding promotions and other career situations.

A county commissioner is just an individual. If the sheriff states that commissioner Y doesn't support the agency, and commissioner Z does. Who do you think the employee's and their family members are going to support?

I know a sheriff who's sued the citizens twice in his thirty year career. The cases went to court and a judge ruled in increasing the sheriffs budget. Both times causing a large property tax increase, and the citizens still reelected him. The last time was in 2005, less then a year before the 2006 election.

Chief's are hired by the city mayor or city council. They can be fired at the request of the mayor and a vote of the city council. Chief's positions are a whole lot more vulnerable to being removed from office as sheriff's are. But of course you have no knowledge or experience in the area, but you sure have opinions.

it's a fever swamp thing.....sheriffs are elected and date way back in the common law....police chiefs are appointed and have only been around a century or two. sheriffs = good, police = bad.

That zeN doofus probably got caught by LE stuck in one of his chickens crossing the road and that embarrassment causes him his current round of perpetual stupidity and LE bashing.

Now here is a situation in England years ago when some forms of hunting were banned, and people in society started to turn on each other, one group against another, being eyes for the police. The interesting thing to note is you could change the subject matter from "hunting" to all manner of other topics, like "speeding," "waving a flag," "posting comments on a forum," "speaking out against the police/government," "smoking," etc.
The real lesson here is that the Police State can never truly become functional unless and until they talk people into becoming wholesale informants:


"At long last (and with absolutely no thanks to the Labour Party or to Tony Blair) it looks as if hunting will soon be banned and as illegal as bear baiting, cock fighting and slavery. The hunters are taking it badly, poor dears. The thought of being deprived of the chance to chase stags, foxes and other wild creatures over the fields and through woodlands and gardens has driven them even pottier. Maybe it's the knowledge that they will soon have to buy pieces of liver from the local supermarket if they want to smear themselves with blood. Maybe they will just miss their ritual killings.
Many of the (soon to be) ex-hunters are now arrogantly shouting that they will defy the law and continue to hunt. Tut tut. When hunting was legal they were all such law abiding citizens - demanding that hunt sabs be hung, drawn and quartered for daring to interfere with the legal activities of the hunts. 'They won't stop me!' they cry. `I'll defy the law.'
Ah, what sweet joy this will be. How quickly they will capitulate when they are cornered by the police, tossed into vans, held in the cells and given criminal records.
What fun this is going to be.
Now it's our turn to see the hunters become the hunted.
The Welsh Princess and I have set up an informal organisation called LAUGH.
It stands for League Against Unlawful Grouping of Hounds.
And it is our task to help the police make sure that the new law against hunting is not broken.
We are forming a sort of Neighbourhood Watch for foxes and other animals.
If you would like to help us, and to become a good upstanding citizen, helping the police do their duty, here is what you do.
Keep an eye on your local paper and make a note of the names of all the local dignitaries, hunters and hunt supporters who are boasting that they will break the law.
Snip out the quotes.
Then all you have to do is send copies of the cuttings to the local police. The Government is constantly encouraging us to help the police stamp out crime. Let's do our duty.
Threatening to break the law, cause a breach of the peace, create public disorder and continue hunting is bound to be against several of Blunkett's new fascist laws. Would it not indeed be a conspiracy if several hunters announced their intention to break the law?
If you see a magistrate threatening to break the law (as some have done) report him to the Lord Chancellor. Magistrates who threaten to be lenient with hunters and hunt supporters will need to be removed from the bench.
If you hear about a solicitor saying that he will break the law, let the Law Society know. And the GMC will doubtless want to know about doctors who threaten to break the law. It is your duty to stop such criminal behaviour. Join LAUGH immediately.
After reporting hunters to the police it would be in the interests of the law abiding community for you to chase up the authorities to find out what action they have taken.
Keep an eye on local papers, local TV programmes, local radio programmes and so on.
Do your duty as a loyal, law abiding citizen.
Help us make sure that the new anti-hunting legislation is obeyed.
Joining LAUGH won't cost you a penny.
But knowing that you are helping to protect our nation against law breaking hooligans will make you feel warm inside.
Tell your friends about LAUGH. Encourage them to join."


http://www.vernoncoleman.com/laughdoyourduty.htm

zeNII:

You are trying to use reasoning and logic on these people. You might as well give up, because there is no reason or logic gene in them.

No matter how much sense you make to me, and others on here, all you are going to get is more and more frustrated.

Some, probably most, of these people you are trying to reason with are LEOs, and I think, prosecutors. You will never reach them. If they were really interested in solving a problem that really needs to be solved, they would be more reasonable and join in, but they are just like those you have been writing about, who are bullies and abuse the system for their own profit and benefit.

They are not part of the problem. Them, and others like them are the problem.

The founding fathers gave us the Bill of Rights because they knew, over 200 years ago, how local police and constables of that time abused their authority. It hasn't changed today. That is why we have courts and judges, and some of them arn't much better than the ones they judge.

The founding fathers knew that the elected constables and sheriffs could and would not use sound judgment and would use the law to abuse, rob, and cheat people. They knew the rights of the people were too important to leave it up to the descretion of an appointed or elected sheriff or constable, charged with enforcing the law.

Even most police departments have an Internal Affairs division. What does this division do? It polices the police, or is supposed to. If an organization was trustworthy, would they need other policemen to keep them honest? I think not, and in addition, I don't think Internal Affairs does much to keep the other officers honest.

I don't need to name names. Just go back through the 15 pages of this thread and you can see for yourself who they are, and what they stand for. When you start a thread such as this, trying to use reason and logic, they jump in and squawk like a bunch of magpies, and it is always the same ones, except for a few of their followers who stand on the sidelines, hoping to run in and steal a bite of spoiled meat.

Read the previous threads and it will be obvious who these are, too. They are nothings, and it makes them feel important to jump on someone who is already down. They don't have the guts or intregrity to stand face to face. The let the others lead, then come along like scavangers to feast on the left overs.

Don't stop at this one particular thread. Go to others of similiar content, and the same names with the same BS will appear over and over, making no better sense than they make here.

There arn't but about ten of them, plus a few hangers-on, but throw out some bait, and you will be sure to catch one or more of them.

They don't want change. They don't want to clean up their act. They don't want to support anyone who wants to help them clean up their act.

Of the LEOs that are frequent contributers to this site, how would you like to be stopped and arrested by one of the ones I am talking about? You would be lucky to survive. If their attitude and true feelings comes out on a public forum like this, imigine what it would be like in the backroom of a police station with two or three of them, and you helpless and handcuffed to a ring in the wall.

I know, after writing this and making similiar comments, that if I were to be arrested by one of them, that my life would not be worth a plugged nickel.

Convicted prisoners are not members of high society, nor are they pillars of the community. Well, some of them were. Most are pretty low on the food chain. But, if a police officer is arrested and put in jail, they have to be kept seperated from the general population, because these inmates, as low on the food chain as they are, still look down on policemen.

If I were a cop, that is something I would not be proud of, to be looked down on and considered a lower class of humanity by other prisoners.

As mentioned, you are not going to make any headway. They are beyond your's or anyone's reach, when it comes to decency and trying to use reason and logic.

Just to give one example, a detective lied to me about a search warrant, and made threats, so that he could illegally confiscate property of mine. I wrote about it on another thread. While the detective was questioning me and threatening me about why I moved the property, I told him that I did not trust him not to plant evidence.

You haven't lived until have questioned the intregrity of a police officer, and tell him that you don't trust him to follow the law. When I told him I was worried that he might plant evidence, he went into a tailspin, threatening to sue me for slander and a bunch of other stuff.

While I was listening to him rant, I thought, sue me for slander? How could you slander a police officer? They are below slander.

What can I do about it? Who can I complain to? Why, Internal Affairs, of course, who are police officers themselves, who might as well be the foxes put in charge of guarding the chicken house. I did talk to the Internal Affairs officer, and the first thing she said to me was that she was positive that none of HER officers would even consider doing something like that.

Well, I knew better, because I was the one who had just come into contact with the dirty end of the stick. I dropped the complaint right then, while I still outside the cell.

Do we need people like that protecting us and looking out for our rights and well being? They are supposed to be honest and upright, but when a LEO has to lie and use deceit and threats, and threatens members of your family, to enforce the law, then there is something wrong with that law. Actually, it is not enforcing the law. It is lying and using deceit to get a conviction.

If a prosecutor has to lie and falsify evidence and encourage a police officer to commit perjury to get a conviction, they there is something very wrong with that law, and even more wrong with the intregrity of the prosecutor.

The few whose names appear most frequently on this thread and others like it won't agree, but it is fact. They are very easy to identify, because their posts are the most untruthful, hateful, bullying, disagreeing and self serving of anyone who uses this forum.

I am a member of a hunting club in south Georgia. One of the members is a deputy sheriff in the county our lease is in. We go by state game laws, plus a few others we came up with ourselves to improve the hunting, all legal.

Last year, we found some bait, a hundred or so pounds of corn which had been placed in the proximity of a stand. Baiting is illegal in Georgia. After an investigation, guess who we discovered had put out the bait, all around the area where he hunted, and who had built and hunted out of the stand?

Why, it was the deputy sheriff. Who else.

That is what this country needs-LEOs like this to protect our rights and safety and wellbeing.

You're just boring as hell!

And just as stupid.

2 guys who are often in confrontations with LE understand the logic of one another. Go F***in figure!

Not too surprising...happens to cell mates all the time.

I've asked several here what they are doing to change the "wrongs" of LE. NOTHING! Not a damn thing. It's much easier to sit at the keyboard whining and crying.

Why in the world did either of you read it? There are people on this forum, when I see a post they make, I go right on by. Most of the time it is you two.

The only time I read your post is when it might be in regard to something I wrote.

Truth hurts, don't it?

You two are fine examples of those who are sworn to serve and protect.

.280, I guess this means that you won't answer my questions on the other threads.

That thread has hit about 60 posts, and you have made several replies, all sarcastic, nonsense and unhelpful, so I don't think I should hold on to any hope that this one will be any different. You claim to know the answers, but it is strange that you haven't come across with any helpful information.

What is wrong with you anyway? You act like you walk around with a king sized chip on your shoulder. I don't know what you have to do with LE, but it seems like if people don't give you the respect you think you are entitled to, then you will stomp their guts out or have someone else do it.

You are a sad, sad, piece of human creature. Just because you arn't as good or as smart as others on this forum doesn't mean you have to take it personal. I have been dealing with people who are less intellegent than me for most of my life, but I don't look down on them.

Some accept it as a way of life, but you seem to resent it.

Someone once said that the pen (keyboard?) is mightier than the sword.

That makes me feel better.

Other than zen, it would be pretty much impossible for you to find someone less intelligent than yourself. Unless you two are really just sock puppets....like to check those urls, along with the other newb who just showed up sounding very familiar.

I have never, ever had a problem with the police, or with the Highway Patrol, or with Game and fish. Not even a dramatic moment. They've all been good guys in my book.

That's basically how it is with 99.9% of the sane population.

"I've asked several here what they are doing to change the "wrongs" of LE. NOTHING! Not a damn thing. It's much easier to sit at the keyboard whining and crying."

If you will be kind enough to tell me where to report the fox, who was guarding the chicken house and ate all the chickens who to report it to, I will not hesitate to do so, but it is a waste of time to report it to the head fox who hires the guards.

Believe it or not, that is what a private citizen is up against when he tries to report LE wrong doing.

On another thread about search warrants, I went to the Internal Affairs department of that police department about it. I was talked to like I was a serial killer, and I dropped the subject and left, considering myself lucky not to have been beaten nearly to death, then thrown in jail.

If you can make a suggestion as to where to take it, you can rest assured that I will be first in line.

I have written to several congressmen, both federal and state, and also to the FBI, and Governor. All replies tell me there is nothing they can do and I might want to hire a private attorney.

Yeah, like F. Lee Bailey would represent me for what is left of my Social Security after I pay my rent.

I talked to one of those. He told me that no attorney in this county would take a case against local law enforcment, because of fear of retaliation. He said as he drove the streets, to and from court, he would be stopped and ticketed and prevented from going to court, and that any inmate he was representing and who was in jail would be mistreated and abused.

He said he would be denied access to confer with his clients in jail, and if any people who were represented by him had chronic illness or got sick, they would be denied medical treatment.

If all the attorneys who live in this town fear the police, what is a private citizen to do?

So, tell me again where to start doing something about it. I agree that LEO bashing is a step backwards, but the statements some of those on here make are so wrong that it is difficult to not be insulting.

I have talked to several attorneys, and very few will discuss the problem at all, and the ones who do will tell you there is nothing you can do about it.

You know what I think? Probably not, and you probably don't care, but I think the police in this area stop so many people and charge them for crimes so they will have to retain an attorney, and this town is thick as fleas on a dog with attorneys.

Then, when or if you hire an attorney, whatever deal he works out for you, he gives a kick back to the police officer who originally arrested you. He also gives a kick back to the DA who cut the deal by reducing charges. For the police to honestly enforce the law in this county, they would take a huge salery cut, as would the DAs. Plus, as many lawyers as there are in town, there would be a bunch of them living under bridges and begging.

The kickbacks from the fee you paid your attorney, plus the fine you agreed to pay, amounts to a lot of money to be split among the people in the justice system in this city.

The school superintendent recently announced that they were going to have to lay off several teachers to save money. Right after that was an announcment that the Sheriff's wife had been hired by the school system for $32.00 an hour. Before that, she worked for a local bank, but she was fired. I wonder why.

Yep!

Yes, I avoided it for 68 years, until I was attacked by someone and defended myself. Incidently, the person who I defended myself against was the one who reported me for watching kiddie porn.

And, when I was arrested for aggravated assault, he is the one I supposedly assaulted when I defended myself.

A little thing like the police not being able to tell the assaulter from the assaultee can cause a bunch of trouble and expense, plus very bitter feelings toward LEOs.

Then, when or if you hire an attorney, whatever deal he works out for you, he gives a kick back to the police officer who originally arrested you. He also gives a kick back to the DA who cut the deal by reducing charges. For the police to honestly enforce the law in this county, they would take a huge salery cut, as would the DAs. Plus, as many lawyers as there are in town, there would be a bunch of them living under bridges and begging.
================================================================
That is absolutely funny, i shouldn't even respond. I can tell you that I've never got any "kick back" from a Def. Att. or from the DA. Nor have i ever received an "arrest bonus" from my agency. And i don't think that any of the other LEO's have either.

Isaac, SteveNO, have you been making your POPO payments? Do you withhold taxes on the payments? I bet 280Rem is paying off LEO's to keep his case load up. That's because the great state of AL. is paying him a conviction bonus. Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

You live less then an hour from Atlanta. If you don't like the Att.'s in your area go out of the area, it's not difficult.

Have you spoken to the city mayor or council members, regarding your issue?

Have you spoken to the city mayor or council members, regarding your issue
______________________________

Would they accept collect calls from "Saint Elizabeths"?

I've lost 8 of my last 10 suppression motions. I'm obviously not paying enough! But, I'd love to stir up some schit by sending some 1099s to the Heat!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That would be funny, with the 1099's.

Jeez...what a thread...chickophiliacs and child porn aficionados!

Well Jesus loves us all...more or less.

some more, some less.

Hunter...no, in fact I tell them to take a hike when they call for a "contribution" to get one of those useless stickers for your car that some idiots think are some kind of get out of jail free card.


1234567 is obviously one of those clients that lawyers get a feel for and then very quickly realize what they're dealing with and show him the door. Paranoids with grandiose theories of massive corruption directed at them make really really bad clients, unless they have a rich, sane relative funding the freak show.

You might want to look into that a little more. I'm not OBLIGATED to do anything. There is no obligation on the part of LEOs to protect an individual. If I didn't do so I would probably be answering to the people of the Town, but there is no OBLIGATION. I do so because I care about the job I do, I'm a professional.

George

Well said George, anyone who thinks we do this job to fulfill an obligation is just STUPID.

I will take judicial notice of such in this case.

George

Really? The 24hourcampfire is hardly a representative crossection of Americana. Keep typing to the same people over and over. What's the definition of insanity again?

Oh, I'm all over the Internet. Not just here.

Oh my, I'll leave that one alone.

You must be better than I am at finding double entendre.

Steve No, issac, ippwell, hunter 1960, why do you keep taking offense at some of the comments that I, and some of the others are making?

Don't you realize that the louder and more you howl, and the more you make snide comments about other's intellegence and and orher derogaratory remarks, that it just further proves our point?

If I came on here cold, completely neutral about my attitude towards police and prosecutors, you four, and a few more like you would do more to turn me against LE than any LEO I have ever met, good or bad. If I trusted LE before I ever read the first post, the comments made by some of you would turn me totally against LE, and the entire justice system.

Some of you must think you are really something special. In a way, you are something special, but not in the way a decent person would want to be. With your attitude, you are hurting your professions far more than anything anyone not in LE can do to you.

You are causing more harm to LE and to the way the public percieves you than any remarks made by other posters on this forum.

With your comments, you are just digging yourselves deeper into the bottom of the barrel. You are the direct cause of the problem. It is up to you to fix it, not make it worse, as you are doing.

Nah. It would have been an easy opportunity to offer a jab or two if I was so inclined.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For the most part we've done nothing but give you good advise from the start. It just seems that your story started out strange. You gave us this "woe is me" of how you were treated at the scene, and how you were treated at the jail. You didn't even admit that the suspect in this was your son.

It's very interesting that the Secret Service, became involved. They don't without reason. The GBI is more then capable of breaking down and retrieving info. off of your computer. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test to me. I'm only hearing your side, which is only one of three.

Regarding your son, you didn't have to let him in the house. Especially if you were aware of his previous issues and background. I am sorry if these things have happened to you, but i believe that a lot of your problems you caused yourself.

There's two sides to every story, actually three, your side, their side and the truth. I like to view all sides and determine the truth. I, nor the other LEO's or Att.'s can help you via the Internet.

What is it that you want? Do you want the LEO's here to call the city LE agency and b1tch cuss the chief for arresting you? Do you want the Att's. here to represent you in court? Do you want the members to contribute to a "1234567 legal fund"?

You need to seek an Att. out of the area, if you feel the Att.'s within Cherokee Co. GA. don't represent your needs. It doesn't get any plainer then that.

Man, you must be on some serious drugs. You might want to try rehab or in a last ditch effort a tinfoil hat!

I have never read such wacko, paranoid and outright fabricated drivel in my life.

Uh, I do believe that is called transference in mental health circles Sir. See my previous post for further clarification.

...and why do you keep posting the same thing over and over? Why do you get offended when someone asks for clarification? Why do you specifically asks LEOs to answer questions so that you can say the answers are wrong?

One last question. You have stated that the entire County of Cherokee, Ga. is corrupt, LEO's, Judges, Attorneys and Juries. Assuming that is a fact, I doubt that the resources are available to frame everybody. I doubt that you are the only guy in the county with a bad kid. What makes you special and why is everyone out to get you?

It's Bush's fault.

"It's very interesting that the Secret Service, became involved. They don't without reason. The GBI is more then capable of breaking down and retrieving info. off of your computer. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test to me. I'm only hearing your side, which is only one of three."

I had planned on staying away from this, but there is one comment that I decided not to let pass.

It is about the SS being involved, and that it doesn't past the smell test. In a way, I agree. The FBI, the GBI, and the Cobb County police department and the state crime lab are more than capable of going through a computer. There are probably local experts who could do the same thing.

When the detective said he was going to send it to the SS, I didn't believe him. When I told my attorney about it, he also said that he didn't believe it, that the SS didn't do things like that.

Several people on here have expressed the same dis-belief, even some in LE, like yourself.

I am telling the truth. Some, it might have been you, have indicated that I am lying about this. I'm not, and since I know what actually happened, it is a bit irritating for someone to tell me what I am saying didn't happen.

I can prove that the SS took my computer, and I have offered this proof before. I have the name and phone number of the Special Agent who I talked to, explaining my concerns that the SS did not do this, and that I was wondering if the detective was telling me the truth.

The Special Agent, after arguing a little bit, and me arguing back a little bit, did admit that the SS did have my computer, but that was all he would tell me.

I wanted it back as soon as possible. This was back in the summer and fall of last year. The SS agent told me that with all they had going on, I guess with the presidential election coming up that they were very busy and could not tell me when they would be finished with it. I got it back sometime in the latter part of December, 2008.

According to you, there are three sides to every story. Well I have been told that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I might not be, but you can rest assured that if there had been kiddie porn on that computer, I would not have bugged the SS and the local police trying to get it back, calling even more attention to myself, and calling the SS agent about once a month asking him when they would be finished with it.

If you are capable of using just the tinyest bit of logic, surely you can understand that aI would not have called even more attention to myself if there was anything illegal on that computer.

If you want to prove in your own mind, or for whatever reason, I can furnish you with the name and phone number of the SS agent. I have offered to do this for anyone who really wants to know. You being in LE, they would probably give you the information. I doubt if they would anyone else.

If you want to do that, you can, or you can not bother and go through your life thinking that I am a lying about it. That is what it seems like you, and others on here prefer to do, that you had rather think I am a liar and call me one than know the truth.

That seems to be the typical mindset of LE. I can prove what I say is true, but instead of verfying the truth, and I have explained how you can verify it, you would rather ignore it and continue to call me a lier.

But then, if I gave you the information and confirmed that what I am saying is the truth, that would show that you and others on this forum were wrong, and you don't want that come out, do you. None of you want to admit that you might have been wrong. You had rather keep on trying to cover yourselves with BS.

Every statement I have made on here about what took place is factual, and I can prove it, if anyone is actually concerned about knowing the truth. But it seems like most of you had rather not know and continue call be a liar, although I don't understand why anyone but me would be interested in what I said is true or not. Seems like everyone had rather argue about it and make insulting comments than know for sure. Takes all kinds, I guess.

No, I did not tell anyone at first that he was my son. I had my reasons for that. First, when he attacked me, I did not want to hurt him if I could avoid it. I knew he had issues, but I did not know that they were as serious as they were. Like father, like son, I guess some of you are thinking.

I don't know if any of the others who are taking a negative attitude toward me have chillen, either grown or young, but you should know that you are more tolerant of what you own child does than you would be of a stranger who attacked you or committed any other crime.

When the officer arrested me, my son told him that I had access to rifles. I did, but during the entire incident, the safe they are stored in was kept locked. I could have unlocked it and removed a rifle, but that goes back to the father-son relationship. Can you understand that?

Especially LtPPowell, can you understand that, although at the time, the father-son relationship was a little strained, but not so much that I wanted a firearm in my hands? Do you understand that when you are in a state of excitement, or in an argument with a family member that the last thing you need is a gun?

The reason I singled you out, LTppowell, is that you seem to have a major comprehension problem of even the simpliest things, and I wanted to make sure you understood exactly what I was talking about. Do you understand that self defense with a firearm, even for LE, should be a last ditch action? Do you understand that what you might want to do is a far cry from what should be or should have been done?

The arresting officer asked me if he could take the guns. At first I refused, because, and I explained this to him, that the safe was never unlocked during the incident, and guns were not an issue. He said that he only wanted to take them for safe-keeping and they would be returned when or if I posted bond. According to Georgia law, he was supposed to give me a receipt for anything taken, but he didn't.

Later, when I saw the official complaint form, I noticed that the officer had written that the guns were confiscated as evidence. He had lied to me about taking them for safe keeping.

After I posted bond, I called the arresting officer and reminded him that he said I could have the guns back after I posted bond. He said, no, I could not have them back until the matter was settled in court. So, he lied to me again, first when he said he was taking them for safekeeping, and next when he said I could get them back after I posted bond.

Had I know he was being untruthful, I would have insisted on his getting a warrant, if I had that legal right. He might could have legally taken them anyway. When he asked me about the guns, I was outside, locked up in the back seat of the police car. When I told him, the first time, that he couldn't take the guns I might could have told him that I didn't want him back in my house without a search warrant. I don't know the law on this.

A few weeks ago, I was offered a plea, to a lesser charge. I was tempted to take it, just to get out from under this, but, I looked up some laws, and according to Georgia law, anything seized as evidence becomes the property of the police department if the accused is convicted. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge is considered a conviction in Georgia.

So, had I pleaded guilty, I would have forfieted the guns.

Even though a criminal might be a lier and a crook and a thief, that does not make it right for LE to lie to you and misrepresent the law in order to enforce the law and to take you property, if it is illegal to do so.

Police should be held to higher standards than normal everyday crooks.

If a crime is committed, that doesn't mean that both the criminal and the police have to be liers and crooks. It looks like one of the two involved could be honest about it.

If a police officer has to lie, as they did to me, when they took my computer, and lie to make an arrest and seize and keep property and to get a conviction, then there is something very wrong with that law, and also in that law enforcment department.

What I have told you is factual, although, from past experience, I know these facts are going to roll off of you like water off a duck's back. And the same for LtIppowel and T Lee.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you condone a police officer lying to a person when making an arrest, and lying to get a conviction and lying to seize property and lying to send an innocent person to jail, when you know beyond a doubt that the person going to jail is innocent? Do any of you condone that? Do any of you use that procedure during your duties of LE?

If you do condone this, then you are no better than the ones who arrested me.

When the district attorney offered the plea bargain, she listed about half a page of the things she wanted me to plead guilty to. None were true. Georgia law plainly states that an accused is entitled to a probably cause hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed.

I have asked for a probable cause hearing, but it was denied. I have asked for a preliminary hearing, and it was denied. I have not been indicted for any crime, nor has my case been heard by a grand jury.

I was cleared on the kiddie porn stuff. My son is the one who said I had it on my computer. He is also the one who said I did all the things that the ADA wanted me to plead guilty to.

If seems to me that by being cleared on the porno stuff, that would show beyond any doubt that he would lie. By showing that he was capable of lying, there should be a question about whether or not he is telling the truth about all the other stuff he said I did.

I don't expect this lengthy explanation to carry any weight with any of you. Someone is going to say that I am having a woe is me day and a pity party and that I need to wear my tin foil lined hat often, and I won't even try make a guess what LtIppowell will say, other than it will be something not even related to what I have written, or something just the opposite of what I have written which he misunderstood, either deliberately not.

What bothers me more than the charges against me is why it bothers me what any of you think or care or know. I know what happened. That should be all that matters to me, but I keep trying to convince some of you that I did not commit a crime at all, but was charged with one.

I can face the charges, and I can face going to prison, but careing about what some of you think is getting to be a problem, and I am probably going to have to seek mental care because of it.

What some of you think or know about me should be, and is, the least of my problems, but it is the one I dwell on most, and spend the most time trying to convince you of my side of the tale, and each of you have been 100 % wrong in your assessment of what I did, said, and what actually happened.

Who cares? If anyone has any advice about how to ignore the opinions of others, I would really like to hear from you. Perhaps take a large dose of strong, a fast acting and mind alternating dope.

The last attorney I retained charged me $2500.00 to get me out of this. For the $2500.00 he charged, he relayed the conditions of the plea bargain to me. When I refused to accept, he called me stupid and dropped me as a client.

When I first met with this attorney, I was asking him something and he remarked that he had an IQ of 150 and that he did not need me to tell him how to do his job. I remarked that my IQ is 165 (and it is, if anyone is interested in seeing my Mensa membership papers I can prove it).

That very quickly got him off the IQ subject and onto something else.

Right now, I do not have an attorney--after paying this one, I am out of money. I went to the office where they have court appointed attorneys, but they said I make too much, although my retirement income is less that what is considered government poverty level.

So, I do not have an attorney at this time. The only choice I have is to represent myself, which means I will have a fool for a client. Or is it a fool for an attorney?

The person at the court appointed attorneys office said that I was required to have an attorney and that if I showed up in court without one, that the judge would send me to jail for contempt. So, I don't see what difference it makes. Go to jail for contempt or go to jail for something I didn't do. Jail is still jail regardless of why you are there.

Georgia must be the only state that you are not allowed to represent yourself then, every other state I can think of will allow you to make an ass of yourself in front of a court.

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?

Roger Roots*

ABSTRACT

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles...


"The modern police-driven model of law enforcement helps sustain a playing field that is fundamentally uneven for different players upon it. Modern police act as an army of assistants for state prosecutors and gather evidence solely with an eye toward the state's interests. Police seal off crime scenes from the purview of defense investigators, act as witnesses of convenience for the state in courts of law, and instigate a substantial amount of criminal activity under the guise of crime fighting. Additionally, police enforce social class norms and act as tools of empowerment for favored interest groups to the disadvantage of others.10 Police are also a political force that constantly lobbies for increased state power and decreased constitutional liberty for American citizens"

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Try reading Zen.

Jim

"Georgia must be the only state that you are not allowed to represent yourself then, every other state I can think of will allow you to make an ass of yourself in front of a court."

Thats what I thought, too.

Surely, you don't think the Indigent Defense Investigater would have lied to me, do you?

After all, he works for the judicial system. He would't deliberately mislead someone would he? Surely officers of the court are above that.

He might not have even lied. He might have just been stupid and thought he was telling the truth. I know that he is surrounded by enough stupid people that if stupidity is contagious, he has certainly been exposed to it.

You need to file a complaint to the next higher court. You cannot be forced to hire a lawyer. Look up the Georgia code for Courts. Les

A lot of you are hitting on zen, but everything he has said makes a lot of sense.

If anyone has ever come in contact with LE in a negative way, then they know beyond a doubt that what both zen and myself are saying is factual, and more factual than any lawyer or LEO on here will admit.

Guilty or innocent, it doesn't matter. Get on their radar for any reason, and it is like trying to pick up a piece of sch*** by the clean end.

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE(CBS/AP)



A police official said narcotics officers were justified in returning fire on a 92-year-old woman they shot to death after she shot them as they tried to serve a warrant at her house.

Neighbors and relatives said it was a case of mistaken identity, but Atlanta police say there was no mistake concerning the address of the house, reports CBS Radio News' Pete Combs.

Police added that the woman, identified as Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years.

"I'm mad as hell! The neighbors know where the drugs are � ask the neighbors!" Johnston's niece, Sarah Dozier, shouted to reporters.

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier told WAGA-TV, adding that there were no drugs in the house. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in shooting once they were fired upon.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., "as we have it right now, the female opened fire on the officers. The officers returned fire, and struck and killed her," Dreher said.

One of the police officers was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

"They killed her, they shot her down like a dog, and I'm upset," Dozier said. "Somebody is going to answer to it, 'cause I'm going to sue like hell! I'm going to sue like hell! Let Atlanta know that."

Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

"Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE(CBS/AP)

This is one of the initial reports on this shooting:

A police official said narcotics officers were justified in returning fire on a 92-year-old woman they shot to death after she shot them as they tried to serve a warrant at her house.

Neighbors and relatives said it was a case of mistaken identity, but Atlanta police say there was no mistake concerning the address of the house, reports CBS Radio News' Pete Combs.

Police added that the woman, identified as Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years.

"I'm mad as hell! The neighbors know where the drugs are � ask the neighbors!" Johnston's niece, Sarah Dozier, shouted to reporters.

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier told WAGA-TV, adding that there were no drugs in the house. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in shooting once they were fired upon.

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., "as we have it right now, the female opened fire on the officers. The officers returned fire, and struck and killed her," Dreher said.

One of the police officers was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

"They killed her, they shot her down like a dog, and I'm upset," Dozier said. "Somebody is going to answer to it, 'cause I'm going to sue like hell! I'm going to sue like hell! Let Atlanta know that."

Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

"Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/national/main2205048.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2205048

2006 huh? I'm sure we never covered that story here.

But, thanks a bunch for filling us in!

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE(CBS/AP)
This is a follow-up story:

updated 11:58 a.m. PT, Thurs., April 26, 2007

ATLANTA - Two police officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter Thursday in the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid. A third officer was also indicted in the woman�s death.

Gregg Junnier, 40, who retired from the Atlanta police force in January, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation and making false statements.

Officer J.R. Smith, 35, pleaded guilty to the same four charges and to perjury, which was based on making untrue claims in a warrant.
In court, Smith said he regretted what happened.

�I�m sorry,� he said, his voice barely audible.

The state charges followed a Nov. 21 drug raid on the apartment of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her.

Junnier and Smith had been charged in an indictment unsealed earlier Thursday with felony murder, violation of oath by a public officer, criminal solicitation, burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and making false statements.

The third officer, Arthur Tesler, 40, was charged with violation of oath by a public officer, making false statements and false imprisonment under color of legal process. His attorney, William McKenney, said Tesler expects to go to trial.

Tesler is �very relieved� not to face murder charges, McKenney said, �but we�re concerned about the three charges.� He said Tesler had testified before the grand jury.

Tesler and Smith have both been on administrative leave from the force.

Federal charges expected
In Junnier�s case, prosecutors asked the judge to withhold sentencing until after a hearing later Thursday in federal court, where he was also expected to enter guilty pleas. Federal charges were expected against all three officers.

U.S. Attorney David Nahmias told The Associated Press the federal sentence for Junnier would be 10 years and one month in prison. The state and federal sentences were expected to be the same.

The deadly drug raid had been set up after narcotics officers said an informant had claimed there was cocaine in the home.

When the plainclothes officers burst in without notice, police say Johnston fired a handgun at the men, wounding three, and the officers returned fire. An autopsy report revealed Johnston was shot five or six times in the chest, arms, legs and feet. Initially, the medical examiner�s office said Johnston was 88, while her relatives insisted she was 92. Public officials now agree she was 92.

Questions about no-knock raids
The case raised serious questions about no-knock warrants and whether the officers followed proper procedures.

Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington asked the FBI to lead a multi-agency probe into the shootout. He also announced policy changes to require the department to drug-test its nearly 1,800 officers and mandate that top supervisors sign off on narcotics operations and no-knock warrants.

To get the warrant, officers told a magistrate judge that an undercover informant had told them Johnston�s home had surveillance cameras monitored carefully by a drug dealer named �Sam.�

After the shooting, a man claiming to be the informant told a television station that he never purchased drugs there, prompting Pennington to admit he was uncertain whether the suspected drug dealer actually existed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328267/

And a 2007 update. Man, you're really on top of things!

I bet you're a real hit at the 7-11 coffee counter with all your fresh, current event stuff.

I'm rollin!

were you and zen really cellmates? or just sock puppets?

Wow, all I can say is when I get to drinkin' I don't bash law enforcement. Not aimed at you Steve

92 YEAR OLD WOMAN KILLED BY POLICE

Finally here is one of the last updates:


Updated: 10:55 a.m. February 25, 2009
Atlanta police look to restore trust after drug raid killing
State senator asks department to release FBI report into fatal, botched raid

By BILL RANKIN

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Monday, February 23, 2009

The federal sentencing of three ex-Atlanta police officers for the illegal drug raid that left a 92-year-old woman dead closes only one chapter in the tragic case, the Atlanta Police Department said Wednesday.

�Restoring trust and confidence as well as healing the communities we serve are paramount in our efforts to rebuild a positive relationship with citizens of Atlanta,� the department said in a statement.
� Documents reveal details in Johnston slaying, cover-up
� Photos: The Johnston case



� Atlanta and Fulton County news

Atlanta police also will continue to review a report submitted by the FBI, which investigated the force after Kathryn Johnston�s shooting, �and take the appropriate action where necessary,� the department said.

The department statement came a day after a federal judge sent three fallen cops to prison for their roles in the raid on Johnston�s Neal Street home.

The judge said performance quotas influenced the officers� behavior.

�It is my fervent hope the Atlanta Police Department will take to heart what has happened here,� U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes said. After conducting an emotional two-day hearing, Carnes sentenced former officers Gregg Junnier, Jason R. Smith and Arthur Bruce Tesler to between five and 10 years in prison.

At the hearing, Tesler�s lawyer provided examples of other Atlanta police officers who broke the rules or violated the law and said a disturbing culture of misconduct pervades the force.

Following the sentencings, state Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), who represents Johnston�s neighborhood, called on Atlanta police to release the FBI report. Federal prosecutors have said it contains recommendations that could lead to some officers being disciplined, fired or indicted on state charges.

�The public ought to know what that report says,� Fort said.

Carnes imposed the most severe sentence � 10 years � on Smith, 36, who obtained the illegal, no-knock search warrant allowing officers to batter down Johnston�s door.

A terrified Johnston, thinking she was victimized by a home invasion, fired a warning shot through the door. Narcotics officers responded with a hail of gunfire, killing her.

Carnes sentenced Junnier, 42, to six years in prison. Junnier, the most experienced officer, was the first to cross the �blue line� � the unspoken code of silence among police � and divulge to the FBI what really happened at Neal Street and how the officers concocted a sophisticated coverup.

For Junnier�s cooperation, Carnes cut his time from the 10 years recommended by sentencing guidelines.

The judge gave the biggest break to Tesler, saying prosecutors� recommendation of a 10- to 14-year term was �unduly harsh� because, overall, he played a �minor role.� She sentenced Tesler, 42, to five years in prison.

There is no parole in the federal system, but inmates can carve 15 percent off their time with good behavior. Junnier and Smith are to be sentenced March 5 in Fulton County on state charges, including voluntary manslaughter. Those sentences are to run concurrently with the federal time.

Tesler�s lawyer, Bill McKenney, told Carnes his client was being made �a sacrificial lamb and a scapegoat.� A former military man and a rookie on the squad, Tesler followed orders � including adhering to the script Smith provided for a cover story, the lawyer said.

After the shooting, Smith planted marijuana in Johnston�s home to make it look like a drug house.

In court, McKenney divulged details of an FBI report forwarded to Atlanta Police that shows how other officers broke rules.

McKenney said the FBI found that at least two other officers took �handoffs� from Junnier.

A �handoff� occurs when one officer collects information on a drug case and passes it on to another officer, who then falsely swears on a search warrant affidavit as if he or she had firsthand information about it.

Another officer, McKenney said, split a rock of crack cocaine seized in one case and used it for another case. One officer, he said, padded expense vouchers and used the cash to buy tinted windows for surveillance cars.

The FBI also found performance quotas of nine arrests and two search warrants a month expected of officers, McKenney said. Officers who failed to meet their quotas risked being transferred, he said.

This helped explain, Carnes said, why Smith, Junnier and Tesler � devoted family men and who gave selflessly to the communities � began cutting corners through lies.

�The pressures brought to bear� by the quotas had an impact on Smith, Junnier and Tesler, as well as other officers, Carnes said.

Following the sentencing, U.S. Attorney David Nahmias noted the Johnston tragedy prompted Atlanta Police to require new training and to revamp the narcotics unit. The prison terms also send a strong message to other officers who may think the �ends justify the means� by taking shortcuts or telling lies, he said.

Carnes also ordered all three former officers to reimburse Johnston�s estate the $8,180 it cost to bury her.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/02/23/johnston_sentencing.html

Finally, something of interest from you. WTF is this?

Thanx for a great post,
I am well aware of everything you say, however I will not allow a gang to censor what the public needs to see and hear, I don't post for the benefit of some of the small minded miscreants who are attempting to censor public comment, but for citizens at large who do read (and perhaps do not comment out of fear of persecution) these posts and get something out of them-
thanks for your input and don't allow yourself to be censored or bullied on this forum, after a time more reasonable people will join the campfire and that will be a good thing:)

"Dumb and Dumber, The Sequel"

Hey all, found a picture of zeNII, he really is a nutbag! he is just pissed off cause the police won't let him run around in his regular clothes.

You guys are nuts to keep even acknowledging his presence. I have quit, period.

Zen:

It is just people with simple minds at work. They know what we are saying is the truth and how it really is.

They keep making rude and derogatory comments to cover up their own insecurity. What is on this forum is just a small sampling of what is really out there, carrying guns, killing people, arresting people.

I know how it feels to have a police point a loaded gun at me. It was not the gun so much as knowing that the combined IQ of the two nuts pointing guns at me was less than room temperature. For what they make, low IQ people are the only ones they can get to do police work. No intellegent person would do what they do for the money they make.

Of course, there is the fringe benefits--they get to abuse, beat, and kill people with immunity. Of course, they get all the free donuts they want, too.

I believe now, and always will, that their intention was to kill me, not for the commission of a crime they errounously thought I might have committed, but to add me to their trophy list.

Many people on this forum do not and don't want to believe what You and I, and others are saying. That is because they know it is true.

I have been arrested and charged and accused of a crime I did not commit. I was taken to jail and I am well aware of how police can and will treat someone, and how cruel they can be.

If I did not know first hand, and had seen it with my own eyes, and experienced it, I would not dare post the comments I have posted on a public forum.

But, I have lived it. I have been there. I KNOW beyond a doubt what they are capable of.

I am not writing this to talk down to LEOs and to be insulting to them. I am writing it in the hope that word will get out to millions of people who might read this.

Calling me names and crazy and making outrageous comments about my intellegence is not going to stop me. The things they say and do on confirms what I am saying is the truth.

I was present when a Highway Patrolman was presenting a driver a ticket for a traffic violation. The driver made the statement "I suppose you're doing this to satisfy your quota." The Patrolman replied that his Watch Commander told him "There are no quotas on tickets. You can write as many as you want to."

I don't know anything about free donuts! Where are they, I might actually have to start eating them.

George

Hey guys, I did manage to find a picture of 1234567 too, here he is in all his glory. Would explain a lot if you ask me!

Les---Man I must say you have quite the collection of art. I'm impressed. Frankly I was bummed out when you pulled the babe down but this is getting more interesting by the post!

You makin' me laugh!!

David Lee

Someone, either on this thread or one of the others of similiar content posted a picture of a squalling kid on a bicycle with a square front wheel.

You don't even have enough sense to realize that if you had made the wheel in the shape of a triangle, you could have eliminated one of the bumps on each revolution of the wheel.

And you have the nerve to call me stupid?

What guns?! Who has guns??!! Nobody here has guns! I got a big stick.

Steve No wrote:

"1234567 is obviously one of those clients that lawyers get a feel for and then very quickly realize what they're dealing with and show him the door."

No Steve, that is not true. I paid him $2500.00 because he said that he knew the assistant district attorney and that she was as stupid as a bucket of rocks, and it would be very simple to win in court. He said the case would be an easy win.

He negociated, or else she offered a plea, to charges only slightly less that the penalty for aggravated assault. When I first contacted the attorney, I said that I would not plead to a lessor charge, because I absolutely refused to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit.

When he told me about the plea arrangment, I told him no, that I would go to jail before I pled guilty to a crime I did not commit.

THAT IS WHEN HE SHOWED ME THE DOOR and refused to represent me any more.

No Steve, that is not true. I paid him $2500.00 because he said that he knew the assistant district attorney and that she was as stupid as a bucket of rocks, and it would be very simple to win in court. He said the case would be an easy win.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Any lawyer who carries on like that (if he truly did) to a client, isn't worth a buck much less 2500 of them.

But, for the most part, you don't come across as credible, at all.

"But, for the most part, you don't come across as credible, at all."

How do you mean?

I aggee with part of it, that he wasn't worth $1.00. He wasn't worth the $1.00.

In addition to what I wrote and the conversation I had with him, his paralegal sent me several e-mails outlining the plea, and the remarks about my intellegence for not taking the plea. I saved all the e-mails, plus documents in my file giving the details of the plea.

I kept them and made copies of them and I send them to the State Bar Association when I filed a fee dispute, and I also sent copies to the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar when I filed a grievance against him for violating State Bar rules.

Would you like to see them? I scanned them and saved them.

I would like for you to read them. I won't post them here but I will send them in PM. The reason I am volunteering to do that is that you stated that I don't sound credible. Your seeing the copies of the documents will not prove that I am credibable, and I wonder why I am even concerned about what you think at all, but here I am, writing a bunch of what I know will be considered a bunch of idiotic rambling. I believe my former attorney said that to me, too, about some of the things I said when I refused to take the plea.

Oh, I have copies of the plea, also, if you would like to see that. Actually I have copies of two different pleas. They are the same, in that they both spell out what I am supposedly guilty of. But one states that I should plead guilty of one crime, and the other states that I should plead guilty to a different crime. Even if I wanted to make a plea, I don't know what I would be pleading to, because I have two different plea officers, stating the same charges and the same penalties, except the list different crimes.

I also sent copies of these to the State Bar when I filed the grievance.

If, after reading them, plus notes that the police made, then lost and I found, and then you want to still claim that I am do not come across as credible, then that will prove, to me at least, that you are no smarter than I am, and I have been referred to as being pretty dumb.

I can also send you a copy of the contract that I signed and my wife initialed, which states about what I said above. That is the second page of the contract, although it appears to be the only page, the way it is formatted. Trusting him, I did not ask for a copy of this contract at the time.

I can also send a copy of the first page of the contract, which was not attached when I signed the original. The first page spells out that if it goes to trial, I will owe him another $2500.00. That was what the big argument was about, that he didn't do anything for the first $2500.00 but spend 5 or 10 minutes negociating a plea, that I would fork over another $2500.00. The first $2500.00 was supposed to be to take it to trial, if he couldn't get the charges dropped.

If the first page had been attached, I would never have signed the contract. It took every penny I could borrow to pay the first $2500.00.

No, I don't have an attorney right now. I can't afford one, and the indigent defense will not give me a court appointed attorney, so the only choice I seem to have is to represent myself.

I have told my story on here. I will probably tell the same story in court to the judge and jury. If the ones who have been answering my posts are anything like the jury, there is no doubt that I will be convicted and go to jail. You have already found me guilty. There is no reason that a jury that I tell the same story to will think otherwise, even though I do have a sworn affadavit from the only witness who was present at the incident stating that what I am charged with didn't happen, but I don't expect a jury to believe that either.

The $2500.00, as he put it, was a bargain, because it would be such an easy win because the ADA was stupid as a rock and he (the lawyer) was close personnal friends with one of the officers who arrested me. That would be another reason for the easy win.

I don't come across as creditable? I could say that I'm sorry about that, but I won't, because I am not. I was there. I know what happened.

If I go to jail, I probably won't serve much time. In 2002, I had the second of two heart attacks, this time a massive one. It done a lot of permanent damage to my heart, and I take about 8 different medications a day. No too long after the second heart attack, the heart doctor told me that my life expectancy was a lot less that of a person without my heart condition. I kind of suspected that. That has been 7 years ago. I did not expect to make it anywhere near that long. When I was in jail, although I explained all this, I was refused all medication, even though I explained it to the nurseing staff. I also have a pace maker. I went 5 days without any medication. That includes diabetes medication, too.

If and when I go to jail, my outside estimate is that I might make it a month at the most without my medication. It might be that I won't make it a month even with my medication.

Do you think with the life expectancy that I have that I am worried or concerned about what any of you think or that I want your sympathy? Worrying about my longevity is not something that keeps me awake at night. If I go, I would rather go in my sleep, like a friend did, instead of screaming and yelling like everyone else on the airplane.

I would like to get the case dismissed and get out from under it, to be able to live in a little peace for the time I have left, without the charges hanging over me, however long that is, but it doesn't seem likely.

I shouldn't have written this reply, but somehow, your remark about credibility didn't sit too well, not that it matters to either you or me.

Cyber hanky to you.

is that zen in his lap?

An accused is frequently not the best judge of what his exposure is to any particular crime.

A plea with a result you can live with is usually preferable to rolling the dice when you are the only one who thinks you are not guilty.

I'm not passing judgment on your particular situation, but I am saying being smart is not necessarily the same thing as being "right." Your call.

IOW....don't even consider taking the stand and speaking to a jury!

Yep, knew I shouldn't have done it, but every thing I write, you two confirm my point. Some people just don't ever learn. They are not capable of learning.

I guess it is better to be thought a fool than write something like the above two posts and prove it. Wherever you two live, the people are in pitiful shape for LE.

Let's see, now how are you going to turn this around? You'll find a way, but not a good enough one that I can't figure out a way to stick it to you and break it off.

I can do it because I'm smarter that either of you. The proof of that is that I don't make sarcastic and untrue comments and put people down on a public forum. I like to be nice and polite and treat people the way I want to be treated.

I know what I am, and my capabilities. I don't have to insult people and talk down to them or wear a badge to make me look like somebody. You take a piece of crap and pin a badge on him, he is still a piece of crap. The badge doesn't make him into something better than what he was originally, except now, he is a piece of crap with a badge. You two fit in there nicely.

See, I can be polite and respectful when I am treated that way by others, and also be respectful of their station in life.

Steve No, from some of your posts, I get the impression that you are a lawyer. Wouldn't you be black balled by your fellow attorneys if they saw the stuff you post here?

I thought an attorney would have more class than that. Nah, that isn't true. I have had some experiences with attorneys lately, and they are at the bottom of the class barrel

That Mac creature? I can understand why he is the way he is, but you, with a collage degree, if you are an attorney. When I was in collage, I met some real nuts, but you very easily could have been voted the head nut. Get it? Head Nut.

What I said about being courteous and polite to others, I try to be that way, but occasionally, I slip. Next week I am going to enroll in charm school, and I am sure it will make a lot of difference in how I get along with people.

Mac creature, if your fellow LE work mates saw how you fell into this pot of ###### and seemed to enjoy swimming around in it, I bet you would be drummed out of whatever it is you do.

How can anyone with a speck of decency come on here and say the things you do. I would put Konrad whatever in that class, too, but I can't spell his name. He seems to get off on looking at feelthy peectures, anyway. He is not someone I would want around my dog if she was in heat, or my male dog at all.

I bet the one with Mac in his lap is an actual picture of the Konrad. He is even telling us his IQ.

Now, you have to admit how polite and considerate I have been towards you. Denying it would make people think you were crazy.

When I was in collage,
++++++++++++++++++++++++

'Bout wraps it up!

" guess it is better to be thought a fool than write something "

You could have stopped right there and most here would have agreed with you (about you).

"You take a piece of crap and pin a badge on him, he is still a piece of crap. The badge doesn't make him into something better than what he was originally, except now, he is a piece of crap with a badge. You two fit in there nicely"

You take a whiner and give him the internet and he's still a whiner. Go figure?

Mac,

It does beg the question, did you go to collage???

George

"That Mac creature? I can understand why he is the way he is, but you, with a collage degree, if you are an attorney. When I was in collage, I met some real nuts, but you very easily could have been voted the head nut. Get it? Head Nut."

Too funny. You've made pletny of disparaging remarks about good folks here and claim the high road a few posts later. You are simply bi-polar and it's our fault for playing with someone who has a mental disability.

Cyber hanky to you. (BS)

toltecgriz:

I would have taken the pleas, just to get out from under it, except for one reason.

The arresting officer took several pretty nice guns that I had in my safe. He told me he was taking them for safe keeping and that I could get them back when I posted bond.

After he took the guns, and a few days later, I saw the actual complaint. On the complaint, it showed that he had taken the most expensive gun as evidence, a Rem LSS 700 in .300 RUM with a 3.5 X 10 X 50 Leupold, about a $1500.00 outfit.

On the papers I have, he seized it as evidence. As evidence of what, I don't know, because it and all the other guns were locked in my safe during and several months before the incident. None of the guns played any part in the incident.

Under Georgia law, all items seized as evidence are forfieted if the person is found guilty. Under Georgia law, a guilty plea, even to a lesser crime is considered a conviction, meaning that the police would keep that rifle. I can't prove it, but I think that is the reason he classified it as evidence instead of safe keeping.

So, no, whatever the outcome, I am not giving in to a bunch of thieves.

He also lied on the complaint, and when I went before the magistrate that sets bond and he asked if I understood the charges, I said that, no I don't, that they are not true and that Sargent lied on the incident report. The judge said that the Sergent was a close friend of his and they visited each other frequently and that he was sure the Sergent would't lie.

I'm sure that didn't help my position any, and when I am convicted, the Sargent will probably end up with it.

In all honesty I didn't George. I went to college. Some refer to it as Uni or university but never attended collage. I'm not the artsy type.

Yeah, I never had the money for one of those fancy French schools. I had to settle for putting myself through good ol' UNH.

"IOW....don't even consider taking the stand and speaking to a jury!"

Issac, what other choice do I have? The ADA is going to have two witnessess in court, who were not even there when the incident happened who will swear that it happened as they said it did.

Should I just plead not guilty and let the ADA prove otherwise, when these two say I am guilty? Who is the jury going to believe?

One is the arresting officer, and the other is the detective who came back later and took my computer.

My son, who I am accused of assaulting, has spent about 6 or 7 months in jail for cocaine possession, DUI, open container, reckless driving. He also attacked 5 GA state patrol officers with a knife. In addition to the jail, he has spent 3 or 4 months in different mental hospitals and drug and alcohol treatment centers.

I am sure the ADA will call him as a witness, so it will be three witnessess that I did it against my one not guilty. My wife was there and she gave a sworn statement that my son attacked me first and that I ran from him, but I seriously doubt that anyone will believe her, either, so what can I do, just sit there and watch them tie a hangman's knot in the rope?

On thing that might be in my favor, but I don't know how to bring it out if I don't talk. My wife still talks to my son on the phone, and he is so drug and alcohol addled that he does not even remember anything about the incident. It happened in July of last year.

All the police have is his statement, and the detective who was one of the officers present told my wife that he (my son) was drunk when he was giving the statement. The detective even made a note saying that, and also saying that he saw my son still holding the knife he attacked me with. The note is signed by the arresting officer, but he dropped it and I found it. I still have it.

But, if I can't get any of this before the jury, I am sunk. I am probably sunk, anyway, but I would like to at least bail a couple of buckets of water.

You said that I lacked credability. After reading what I just wrote, I might agree with you, if I didn't know for a fact that every word is true. In this day and time, it sounds incredable and unbelievable that something like this could happen, but it did. After writing it, and reading it over, I can understand why none of the other people on here believe it, either. It sounds like a piece of fiction that I should have published.

I guess that is why I am so obsessed with it, is because although true, it is so unbelievable.

Anyway, answer the question about saying anything to the jury or just pleading not guilty and taking what ever comes.

Get a lawyer....ASAP. Then, follow his suggestions.PERIOD! Believe it or not, they're trying to help you. You can work a plea deal which permits a return of your guns if the DA feels you're still competent enough to own them.

It is apparent to me there are some mental instability issues at play here and you need the help of others. Seek and accept it.

I'm feeling somewhat guilty as I think I may have overlooked a possibility that I've given short shrift to b/c of the nature and style of your delivery.

I've given the best advice I can offer you. Consider taking it.

Good luck. I'm done!

Mac84:

You are wrong about the bi-poler. There is something there, or not there, which ever way you want to look at it, but it is not bi-poler.

"it's our fault for playing with someone who has a mental disability."

That's what I have been trying to tell you all along, but you are too hard headed to listen. Who in their right mind would argue with someone who writes the BS I have been spewing for the past few weeks? I would not want to be within a thousand miles of anyone like me.

Go argue with a rock or a stump of fence post. I'm sure you will learn more and get more out of it that trying to talk to me. You don't want to back down, so you come back at me. Don't you realize that there is nothing to come back at? And it is not a mental disability. It is a mental disorder, and serious as a heart attack.

You won't win, because there is nothing I have that you would gain by winning. All you are doing is putting yourselves in the same boat with me, and that boat ain't going anywhere. I keep bailing, but it is not sinking because it is on dry land.

I have been trying to tell you that replying to my posts makes you sound even goofier than I am, but you keep right on doing it. Didn't you learn a thang in collage? Somebody on here said that you can't argue with a fool--all he would do is pull you down to his level and beat you with experience.

You will never sink to my level and I don't understand why you even try, although I am pretty smart. You can't be enjoying it. No one is that sick for enjoyment.

People used to ask me why I didn't attend Mensa meetings. My standard reply was that I didn't want to be around a bunch of people like me. My brother, who knows me pretty well, said that he could see my point.

When you are digging and you find yourself in a hole, most people know to stop digging. You don't seem to realize that, and you want to tell me you went to collage? A French collage at that?

Congratulations to Issac. He was the first to catch collAge, But NH K9 wasn't that far behind.

Oh, NH K9, I don't have a bone to pick with you. Say whatever you want and think anything you want about me. Probably your fist choice is not to think of me at all, but for some reason, you seem to want to in on the fun. I can tell you plainly, it is not fun. Of all the ones on here, I think you have the most intregrity and self respect of anyone who is playing this game, and certainly the only one I would trust to do the right thing if I were to be investigated for a crime.

I have heard that New Hampshire has some very competent LE, and I imigine you are very good at your job, probably on a par with the GA State Patrol.

I wish you would stay off here and give the others free reign before they pull you down to my level.

What I have written on other threads is truthful and actually happened to me, but why try to match wits with someone like me? I wouldn't try to match wits with a two year old, because I know I would lose. Out witting me is not a big accompolishment.

1234567

What I told you was good generic advice based on reading a small part of this thread. I agree with Isaac completely on what you should do. Good representation is going to help you a lot, whether you are nuts or not. I don't know of anyone who's been sorry they listened to Isaac.

Now get the hell off the internet and do whatever you have to do be well represented and do it now.