It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Tells Cops They Can't Search His Home Without A Warrant, Cops Kick His Door Down & Kill Him

page: 6
85
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

So british police are lily white cowards cause they dont shoot first and ask questions later?


I would say cops that have to resort to violence are the cowards.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray
My dad is a retired NASA engineer/manager. This was tge first time either were arrested and they were about 60 and 55 years old when this happened. The official police report wa re-written about 10 times.

Of course you do not believe me, you are a police apologist.

My parents no longer trust nor respect the police after that incident.

Like I said, I know nothing about your parents so I cast no aspersions on them. But I do doubt your story with so many unlikely twists and turns to arrive at "cops bad". That's frequently the case in these stories, many of which get spoofed when the truth comes out later.

When you layer on bad cops, bad reporters, bad lawyers, bad luck, (throw in sunspots, high tide, full moon, etc)....the veracity of the tale gets lower with each new wrinkle.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
Long on hyperbole, myth, 100 % agitprop, and other creative writing. Short on fact, example (I.e. "not fully massaged slanted stories"), data, evidence.

What part was it that had you misty eyed ? Was it that highly responsible, mature illustration ?


So, you are saying that Edith Flagg's story, about killing an LEO during WWII, so she could SURVIVE, is not true?

Are contemporary LEO's not acting like Ordnungspolizei? I'd argue that they are, as would many others.

In fact, do you even know what Ordnungspolizei were during that period and how they operated?
edit on 17-11-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Reporter said "They axed him if they could come in"

"Mr. Livingston built this deck with his own bare hands, for them all to have a good time on."

The reporting in this is horrible, and so obviously doing their damndest to paint him as a completely innocent, unrelated person to the event. I am not saying he deserved to die, or that this wasn't a huge mistake but we are definitely not getting the full story here.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: stevieray

So british police are lily white cowards cause they dont shoot first and ask questions later?


I would say cops that have to resort to violence are the cowards.

lol, I think you'll have to refresh me with a quote. Never said that.

I did say the "safe cops" cop hail from just a few little socialist euro countries (and perhaps Canada / Australia), laughing because that would be called racist if a conservative said it.

The actual point is the vast majority of the world's cops are much nastier than America's. Very few countries have the civilian oversight and public scrutiny that ours have. There are bad cops, just not the sci-fi movie that's running in a lot of you guys' heads.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: stevieray
Long on hyperbole, myth, 100 % agitprop, and other creative writing. Short on fact, example (I.e. "not fully massaged slanted stories"), data, evidence.

What part was it that had you misty eyed ? Was it that highly responsible, mature illustration ?


So, you are saying that Edith Flagg's story, about killing an LEO during WWII, so she could SURVIVE, is not true?

Are contemporary LEO's not acting like Ordnungspolizei? I'd argue that they are, as would many others.

In fact, do you even know what Ordnungspolizei were during that period and how they operated?

No, I don't know what the wienerschnitzel brigade was, lol. I can only guess some variant of SS, SAVAK, Tonton Macoute, and so on.

No, I don't think America's police are at all like a terroristic, uncontrollable mob in wartime revolutionary Germany.

Sorry, that's just silly.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

I've posted the officer's name on here before and more details, dont want to do it again just to shut you up.

I rather not you keep casting doubt on me. It appears you are just posting to blindly defend the police here.

None of us know what happened here, especially you. The apparent fact is the police kicked down a door without warrant and killed an apparent innocent man.

I do know the police will lie to cover their asses and protect each other from just legal actions.

edit on 17-11-2015 by jrod because: typogremmies



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I often wonder what would happen if an innocent person, mistaking police for invaders or considering the police a threat could possibly make a case for self-defense against a malevolent officer.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
No, I don't know what the wienerschnitzel brigade was, lol. I can only guess some variant of SS, SAVAK, Tonton Macoute, and so on.

No, I don't think America's police are at all like a terroristic, uncontrollable mob in wartime revolutionary Germany.

Sorry, that's just silly.


You are aware that you are incorrect? The Ordnungspolizei were civilian police forces that were absorbed by the SS and bound to follow their edicts. Its people like YOU whom allow history to be repeated through ignorance.


originally posted by: stevieray
The actual point is the vast majority of the world's cops are much nastier than America's. Very few countries have the civilian oversight and public scrutiny that ours have. There are bad cops, just not the sci-fi movie that's running in a lot of you guys' heads.


Honestly, can we please stop fooling ourselves, Contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that contribute to and participate in local politics (i.e. campaign donations for Police Chief and Sheriff elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. That's the sad reality of where we are today, in regards to contemporary Law Enforcement Culture. Civilians should view the police no differently than police typically view the general public, with suspicion.

Law Enforcement Agencies, AS CURRENTLY OPERATED (see above items 1-6), can't function when large numbers of people with good consciences serving in them. So, even if good people with consciences tried to enact grass-root change from within, they would simply be denied entry to the agency or get quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means.

Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces to tighten the grip on those whom are most likely to dissent against the status quo. Make no mistake about it, LEO's in the United States are becoming the new Ordnungspolizei (Orpo) and there will NEVER be enough "good apples" to stop this shift. Law Enforcement Agencies and the types of officers they typically employ, like having the option to "overreact" and if too many internal "do-gooders" start eroding that ability, I suspect that most officers wouldn't want to be in Law Enforcement anymore. They do "Protect & Serve", but its the STATE that they "Protect & Serve", not its citizens.

Here is an except from Bowers v. DeVito. In 1982, the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the Constitution."

"no duty" = "free to ignore" because if there is no financial consequence to inaction, then certainly some "bad apples" will use that as a legal basis for "choosing", when to "render services" or not to.

From the perspective of LEO's, the above noted ruling means that they may "pick and choose" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury" because the ruling does not obligate them to act. It is that perspective, which LEO's are allowed to legally take, that should matter to the average citizen. The context from Bowers v. DeVito is very clear, the police CHOSE to not assist, despite Marguerite Anne Bowers repeatedly requesting their help and the courts then determined that the police are not liable for making the "choice" to not help her.

CLEARLY understanding what "services" the police are "likely" and "willing" to provide, due to constitutional ruling, is certainly an important issue, that I imagine most average citizens would like to understand. Sorry you don't like that public opinion is turning against Law Enforcement these days, due to the types of officers that Law Enforcement Agencies are CHOOSING employ, whom seem to enjoy having the legal option to "overreact".

I am educating people to "think first" about the motivations of LEO's, BEFORE interacting with them, helping them or contacting them. Which is a prudent course of action for ANYONE whom is not on LEO payrolls. YOU on the other hand, are telling civilians, "not to worry about it" because the media's portrayal of police is simply an exaggeration. People are free to choose which narrative they believe and it seems to me the majority of those under 40, that are not in or affiliated with law enforcement, are in my camp, not yours. Deal with the reality, police made their bed and now must lay in it.

Here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet still VOTED TO DE-FUND ITS POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:

Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave Duffy

Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand anywhere else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public.

I can also post news articles and old threads from ATS, ALL DAY LONG, where an LEO killed whomever they wanted, getting off Scott free, with a few getting reprimanded and even fewer seeing jail time. Whether be Kids, dogs, elderly, mental disabled, it didn't matter. LEO's have a licensee to kill and the "good cops", judges and DA's ALL just stand by and let it happen, day-in and day-out, all across the country.

Note, NONE of these officers "protecting & serving", have left their positions or the profession, out of "guilt" for their crimes, after taking a life by mistake. People that have a "conscience" would not be able to carry on with such a job, unless it was during an ACTUAL WAR, while serving on a military deployment. But hey, LEO's gotta get that overtime pay and a pension after all, may as well do it while ignoring the Constitution, without criminal consequences.
edit on 17-11-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
This is almost the same situation that happened to me. Police came to the house looking for someone else, when I asked to see a warrant I was told I watch too much TV and basically insulted from then on. Not to mention the cop made me uncomfortable the entire time with his hand near his gun the entire time while dealing with completely innocent people. He was so bad that his partner actually apologized multiple times.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Not defending these officers actions. LEO's experience stress that most of us don't experience in our lives, was an automotive machinist, that set of chevy 350 heads in no way threatened my life. Walk a mile in another's moccasins and all of that, but mental health exams need to be performed.


well....

this isn't about feelings of stress ....which officers ARE or should be trained for ..

it's about the Civil Rights, period and upholding those Rights as the highest Law in the land...and making those crimes against our God given rights so harsh, this action would NEVER come up in a court of law...why? Because if we are slack and turn a blind eye...that door could be yours, mine and our children and Grand-children, NO ONE would be safe and the Republic becomes nothing and Democracy becomes Dictatorial....and then they will finally shout.."Welcome to the New World Order!"

70 years ago, Brown shirts turned Grey, then turned pitch Black...we must never forget.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18

I think you are making excuses here. Police brutality is a very real and serious problem in the US.

Stuff like this happens almost everyday and fewer and fewer citizens trust the police.

It even happened to my parents. They were tazed at their home because of an over zealous cop with the Brevard County sheriff's office. They did not get media attention, they were embarrassed and hired a lawyer who did not have their best interests in mind and ruined their chance of a lawsuit(letter of apology in order to have the bogus charges of assaulting a LEO dropped).

After seeing many aggressive police officers freak out when someone films an arrest, I have a difficult time trusting anything the police tell us.



With all due respect, this is just another example of "this one time, at band camp, I saw a police officer do...". It may very well be true and your parents had the worst police force on earth, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of police complaints are pure bull. It's just another way of feeling big about yourself. "Oh look man, I'm so cool, I told that cop to get a warrant, heheh look at me Mr Tough Guy". And when the cop puts you in your place - legally even - your ego gets bruised so bad that you make up some story to make the cop look bad and you look like the victim instead of the instigator.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   


Never call a cop, never talk to a cop, never help a cop, never resist a cop.


I truly hope that one day when you need help a cop takes an extra hour to come help you out and you wind up screwed. This is a sick statement.

Don't forget that cops are still humans. Everyone should help each other.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

This is my theory too. The guy/"victim" instigated it with a big mouth and the cop had reasonable suspicion that the guy they were hunting for was actually hiding inside.

The entire victim act is sickening. Personally I think cops exercise too much restraint.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

You forget one very crucial element...the VAST majority of people that make up contributing portions of society actually LIKE the laws of the land, for the most part (everyone disagrees with some), and LIKES law enforcement, and respects them, and are grateful for them.

Like it or not, the anti-cop bunch is an extreme minority with really big mouths.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker
I don't know what to say!! I use to be a cop and a few years ago I engaged in many debate on this very site, often defending my chosen profession.
There have always been bad cops out there, but nothing like we see today.
Back in my day, the gun was the last thing we ever thought of reaching for. When the TASER came along, it was the next to the last thing. We depended on our brain and our words. We only resulted to violence when we were assaulted first.
I feel that what we are seeing today is the result of a morally bankrupt society. All the old timers are retiring and the young ones coming in were raised by TV and video games while both parents worked to make ends meet.
That's just one thought, I don't have a definitive answer.
This is something that I would not have said a few years ago, but now I say....always be prepared to defend yourself against the police. But, when doing so or are contemplating this, use the wisdom that they seem to have lost.

Sgt. Cursed



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Collekt
a reply to: stevieray

Not really, I'm just commenting on what I've seen personally. I don't claim to speak for every community or anything, but I know it to be the case in at least a few of them. I just feel like the process of becoming a local cop is a lot simpler than most professions that require a 4 year degree at minimum, and these are the people who are tasked with carrying a gun and enforcing the law. It's no mystery that there are a lot of cops out there who are on a power trip, even if they don't do anything drastic like shooting an innocent.


Very easy to become a cop, compared to some trades or degrees, but the ongoing training (annual recertifications, updates on legal issues, etc) adds up to much more over several years, and the constant scrutiny by big mouthed babies with iPhones and the internet reigns them in more than almost any other profession. Go take your camera phone into a law firm and say you're going to watch their business practices. Or a dentist. Or a grocery store. You'll get told to take a hike. But the cops? You barge into crime scenes and cops faces like you're Anderson Cooper.

The people are the problem. NOT the cops.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray
My dad is a retired NASA engineer/manager. This was tge first time either were arrested and they were about 60 and 55 years old when this happened. The official police report wa re-written about 10 times.

Of course you do not believe me, you are a police apologist.

My parents no longer trust nor respect the police after that incident.


your story is meaningless. It has no facts supporting it, no details, and only one side. It goes to prove the "cop apologist" point - those with the biggest mouth (you) spewing the loudest story, even if its only one side, get all the attention.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
You forget one very crucial element...the VAST majority of people that make up contributing portions of society actually LIKE the laws of the land, for the most part (everyone disagrees with some), and LIKES law enforcement, and respects them, and are grateful for them.

Like it or not, the anti-cop bunch is an extreme minority with really big mouths.


You have NO idea what you are taking about, the 40 and under crowd is not some "small minority". But, even, IF, the under 40 crowd does not believe that LEO's are dangerous lethal enforcers (which they do), they ABSOLUTELY believe LEO's are "revenue collectors", as I noted with my story about the de-funded police force in a middle class town made up of 92% whites.



originally posted by: stolencar18
It's just another way of feeling big about yourself. "Oh look man, I'm so cool, I told that cop to get a warrant, heheh look at me Mr Tough Guy". And when the cop puts you in your place - legally even - your ego gets bruised so bad that you make up some story to make the cop look bad and you look like the victim instead of the instigator.

I truly hope that one day when you need help a cop takes an extra hour to come help you out and you wind up screwed. This is a sick statement.


If these LEO's that kill civilians, really cared and were not sociopaths, they'd quit the job as soon as they killed someone on accident, even if legally cleared. Note, very few if ANY of these officers "protecting & serving" have left their positions or the profession out of "guilt" for their crimes/mistakes. The fact that they just suck it up and keep on driving, assures me that they are NOT sane. Its nothing like being in the military where you can be jailed and prosecuted for not following a legal order to "kill the enemy".

LEO's CAN QUIT ANYTIME THEY WANT TO and when they don't resign after doing something unconscionable, it strongly suggests that they are potentially dangerous to the public. So when these LEO's keep working in the same role, after killing a civilian, I can't help but assume that the individual is a sociopath, out for the "power of the position" and not for "protecting & serving" civilians.

I won't mince my words, police need even tighter rules of engagement than they have now, EVEN if it results in their death, firing or resignation. They are not Judge Dredd, acting as Enforcer of the law, judge, jury and executioner. They should ALWAYS have to choose between surviving a conflict or losing their job. They are certainly "justified" to do their best to live another day, but that doesn't mean they should keep their job either. Killing somebody, should equal instant lay-off or firing, justified shooting or not. If such were the case, "incidents" of fatal shootings would drop off a cliff. LEO's have far too much responsibility within American society to have ANY leeway or compromise. In fact, policing should be a temporary position, with no long term employees "on the beat". Veteran LEO should be moved into admin positions that have no authority to arrest, in effect, having LEO term-limits. Police and law enforcement agencies need a checks and balances system, I can't say exactly what that is, but pensions, no-fault shootings, and liability payouts covered by local governments has made these guys little "teflon don's".

As for the "Oath's" that LEO's typically take, lets use the LAPD oath for example, which seems to be MOSTLY concerned with swearing to not overthrow the government:

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

Here is another sample Oath, that focuses on "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State":

I SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE ­ OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER

So exactly how, do these above noted sample Oaths, keep officers from "picking and choosing" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury" due to having no LEGAL obligation to act? Other than of course, having the LEGAL obligation to keep "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State" and also swearing to not overthrow the government.
edit on 17-11-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Your posts are fascinating and I am happy to see so much knowledge, but I hesitate to ask because I don't want you to think I am cherry picking or dissecting, I am only posting this particular question now instead of after reading the rest of the page so I don't forget by then:

In Bowers v. DeVito, isn't the question whether or not the State or Psychiatric facility is criminally negligent (for lack of understanding a better phrase) in letting DeVito out of the facility which in turn resulted in a loss of Bowers civil rights? You made it sound like the police were standing by and watching and didn't help instead of what I read from the court decision. Granted I haven't read about the actual case yet just what was written in the description of decision. While the decision does in fact read that the scenario you painted is indeed "legal" for them not to act in that situation, it doesn't seem to be what is actually being discussed in that case.

This is so obviously not my area of expertise, and I am not trying to make any claims about your use of this case I am just curious if I am missing something?




top topics



 
85
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join