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.

 

Cops Using Small Doses of Martial Law

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

That was old law mate. According to the anti-terrorism acts in US and UK, there is no need for a warrant to search citizens and no need for a triburnal to prosecute or jail. In the US the law is so bad, that you can be shot, without asking questions.


That only applies to suspected terrorists not the average citizen, but nice try.

Now can you show me proof where the police can just stop you and immediately search you?

I would also like to see proof that a cop can shoot someone without asking questions? Thank you




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by krt1967

So these chickenbutts all got fired.


I would like to see a link to the original story that surely appeared in your local paper. Thank you


Hi Shots,
I will try and find something. It all happened a while back, not sure of exact date. But will be glad to look. It was alot of fun.
For everyone out there that has ever been the target of such bs...I am sorry and wish you all the luck of being able to prove your case against corupt cops with bad attitudes.
With America in the shape its in, we need all the good cops we can get!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

That only applies to suspected terrorists not the average citizen, but nice try.


What you don't understand is that the "average citizen" IS the "terrorist" This law can be applied to anyone for terrorism operations, including searching, fingerprinting and arresting. And it has been used already on several occasions. I quote a toronto police officer who says it aptly:

"They're all possible suspects, and it's all a matter of a process of elimination"


Now can you show me proof where the police can just stop you and immediately search you?


The proof is in the patriot act. Again there have already been cases of it being used and also check points where have been searched or hassled.

www.propagandamatrix.com...


I would also like to see proof that a cop can shoot someone without asking questions? Thank you


There was a topic on this on ATS recently. Search for it.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I would also like to see proof that a cop can shoot someone without asking questions? Thank you


i dont know if this still goes on,
but UK police were told "shoot to kill" if they suspect a terrorist is trying to blow a target up.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Indigo_Child,

First of all, it's a pleasure to have this discussion with you. Now that the formalities are out of the way...

Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
I am not answering the "question" because you are an ignormorus.

Hummmm.... When you're argument is weak, then you resort to an Ad Hominem attack to try and bolster your argument.



Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
Despite all of the facts, which you will dismiss as "police mistakes," you will continue with your delusions of the police man being your best friend.

You have provided a link to a couple of online newspaper articles, but you have not provided any facts per se. The National Enquirer doesn't count as a factual source.



Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
Even though there is an actual person here in this discussion who has insider information in the police department, who is telling you otherwise.
Am I chopped liver??? How do you know that I don't have inside information in "the" police department?



Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
The actual topic author is telling you otherwise. I am telling you otherwise.

I cannot deny that you have expressed your opinion.



Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
I am not going to waste my time with a newbie who just doesn't have a clue and does not listen to others.

All hail the gospel of Indigo_Child!!!


Most cops are simply trying to earn an honest dollar for an honest days work. And most officers operate by the rules. However, you have painted them all with the same paint brush. There is no conspiracy at "the" police department.

.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I highly doubt one person would be arrested two times no less for simply walking a dog.



A boy named Sammy Weaver was shot to death while walking his dog, on his private property, by federal agents with M-16 riffles and NO WARRENTS.

They then sent sniper Lon Horiuchi to climb a tree and shoot his mother in the face while she was standing in her own kitchen and armed with nothing but her baby.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
What you don't understand is that the "average citizen" IS the "terrorist."

Oh please!!! < slaps forehead >


I don't even need to comment on that statement. It can stand up on its own two legs!!! LOL



Posted by Indigo_Child
Snip...
This law can be applied to anyone for terrorism operations, including searching, fingerprinting and arresting.

If a special agent can articulate that the suspect is legitimately connected with a terroristic threat, then yes, the law can be applied to him.
.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yxboom
There is no conspiracy at "the" police department.

.


You have more faith in them than I do. I have worked with them on many occasions and while I would not call them organized crime I can state that some, not all, of the ones I worked with sold and done drugs, stole evidence, traded sex for tickets, not arresting for drugs, took bribes,etc. The list goes on and on. We had a KNOWN child molester on the department for almost 20 years and people that tried to report him were intimidated. Even the "Good" ones helped cover his back.

They JOKED among each other about it.

I will be the first to say ALL are not crooked and even the ones that are usually find ways to justify it, at least to themselves, but your claim of every cop is quick to turn in a bad one is not true.

At least not in Arkansas and I seriously doubt its that way any where else.

You can deny it all you want I have SEEN it myself and have several family members in the force RIGHT NOW.

You have made it a point to riducule everyone else as not knowing what they are talking about so I ask you

What makes you an expert on LE not only at your hometown but across the entire country as well? One that knows the inside workings of EVERY police department in the USA?



[edit on 16-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by shots
I highly doubt one person would be arrested two times no less for simply walking a dog.

A boy named Sammy Weaver was shot to death while walking his dog, on his private property, by federal agents with M-16 riffles and NO WARRENTS.

They then sent sniper Lon Horiuchi to climb a tree and shoot his mother in the face while she was standing in her own kitchen and armed with nothing but her baby.


That was an egregious case and the government admitted culpability and paid-out thousands of dollars in a settlement with the Weaver family. Is one (1) egregious case indicitive of widespread corruption throughout the United States government??? No, of course not.

That entire incident is a result of:
1. policy failure
2. supervisory neglegence or incompetence.
  • If a jury convicts one citizen of being a criminal, then can you legitimately suggest that all citizens are criminals??? No, of course not.

  • If the government has one bad case, then can you legitimately suggest that all Federal officers are bad??? No, of course not.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
OK, first off, it was in response to dog walking question that had been asked so many times.

Second, cases just as bad (or worse) have happened enough to make your statement that it was egregious false.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Posted by Amuk
Snip..
You have more faith in the police than I do. I have worked with them on many occasions and, while I would not call them organized crime, I can state that some, not all, of the ones I worked with sold and done drugs, stole evidence, traded sex for tickets, not arresting for drugs, took bribes,etc.

Are you saying that you have worked with officers who engaged in criminal activities??? If you witnessed the criminal activities, how come you didn't notify either Internal Affairs or the FBI???


Posted by Amuk
Snip...
We had a KNOWN child molester on the department for almost 20 years and people that tried to report him were intimidated.

The only way to convict a pedafile is with evidence, to include:
1. An admission of guilt.
2. A victim who will testify.
3. A witness who will testify.
4. Physical evidence, such as a DNA match.

Did any of the above listed forms of evidence exist??? Or are you simply speculating that the officer is a pedafile???


Posted by Amuk
Snip..
Your claim that every cop is quick to turn in a bad one is not true.

An honest cop will turn in another cop who is committing felonies.


Posted by Amuk
Snip..
You can deny it all you want I have SEEN it myself.

Exactly what have you seen???


Posted by Amuk
Snip..
I have several family members in the force RIGHT NOW.

Did it dawn on you that all of the sworn officers in the United States have mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles and cousins??? And there are a lot of citizens who have connections with "the" police department. Having a family member in the force RIGHT NOW doesn't mean diddley squat.


Posted by Amuk
Snip..
You have made it a point to riducule everyone else as not knowing what they are talking about...

LOL


That wasn't my intention.
I'm simply trying to shed a little bit of light on this entire matter and am trying to get people to think, but boy it's hard!!!



Posted by Amuk
Snip..
So I ask you: What makes you an expert on LE.

I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.



Posted by Amuk
Snip..
What makes you an expert, not only at your hometown, but across the entire country as well? How do you know the inside workings of EVERY police department in the USA?

Now Now Now, you're starting to get sarcastic.

.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
This thread is going the wrong way thank god i wasnt quoted to death

if we dont play nice with each other someone will lock the thread guys..



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yxboom
Are you saying that you have worked with officers who engaged in criminal activities??? If you witnessed the criminal activities, how come you didn't notify either Internal Affairs or the FBI???


I plead the fifth on this one. I know a lot worse than I posted but will not post it.



Did any of the above listed forms of evidence exist??? Or are you simply speculating that the officer is a pedafile???


He is in prision for it know so I guess there was evidence HUH?...LOL It took his brother loosing the Sheriffs election for the evidence to reach a court of law. Some of it reaching back 20 years.



An honest cop will turn in another cop who is committing felonies.


Honest cop? Where the ones joking about stealing evidence and trading drugs for sex honest? Isn't that the point we are trying to make.



Exactly what have you seen???


I have posted about all of it I am willing too, but I have seen more.



And there are a lot of citizens who have connections with "the" police department. Having a family member in the force RIGHT NOW doesn't mean diddley squat.


So listening to them everyday joking about abusing their power "doesn't mean diddley squat"?

Its SEVERAL members by the way not one.


Posted by Amuk
Snip..
So I ask you: What makes you an expert on LE.

I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.


So the rest of us have have to back up everything we say but you are to be taken at face value? Maybe you are one of the corrupt cops we are talking about?


[edit on 16-1-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Posted by Amuk
Snip...


Did any of the above listed forms of evidence exist??? Or are you simply speculating that the officer is a pedafile???

He is in prision for it know so I guess there was evidence HUH?...LOL It took his brother loosing the Sheriffs election for the evidence to reach a court of law. Some of it reaching back 20 years.

Well good, I'm glad that he was arrested and adjudicated guilty.


Unfortunately, departmental politics do exist. Have you seen the fiasco in Georgia where a newly elected African American sheriff fired 14 European American deputies and said that he was going to replace them with African American officers??? This is about the strangest case I've seen in a long time. Here are some articles on it:

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

The only stranger case that I've seen is when one Georgia sheriff assinated the guy who beat him at the elections.



Posted by Amuk
Snip...


An honest cop will turn in another cop who is committing felonies.

Honest cop? Where the ones joking about stealing evidence and trading drugs for sex honest? Isn't that the point we are trying to make.
Some people have painted most cops as being dishonest, but that's simply not true. Are there pockets of corruption? Sure there are. All you have to do is look at the City of New Orleans where the Feds went in there and took the place over, due to the widespread corruption. Conversely and IMHO, most agencies are relatively clean of corruption.


Posted by Amuk
Snip...
So listening to them everyday joking about abusing their power "doesn't mean diddley squat"?

It sounds like you have some insight into some knuckleads who are bragging. If they are corrupt, as you indicate, then their day will come. I've seen corrupt cops get caught. It's just a matter of time. In this age of videotapes and the electronic media, corrupt cops have fewer places to hide and it is becoming ever easier to root them out.


Posted by Amuk
Snip...
So the rest of us have have to back up everything we say but you are to be taken at face value? Maybe you are one of the corrupt cops we are talking about?

LOL -- No, I'm not corrupt.

.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
A boy named Sammy Weaver was shot to death while walking his dog, on his private property, by federal agents with M-16 riffles and NO WARRENTS.

They then sent sniper Lon Horiuchi to climb a tree and shoot his mother in the face while she was standing in her own kitchen and armed with nothing but her baby.


The FBI had Weaver under survelliance for months and he was known to carry a weapon or didn't you know that? Do you believe everything the Ruby Ridge site says? If so you have been brain washed.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There was a topic on this on ATS recently. Search for it.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]


Why should I search for it? I am not doing your homework, you made the statement not me, now I would like to see you back up what you said.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
i dont know if this still goes on,
but UK police were told "shoot to kill" if they suspect a terrorist is trying to blow a target up.


Key word being terrorist that is not the same as the average citizen.
Under those conditions I could see where it might be necessary. Not that I would condone it mind you...... It would have to depend on the situation I am sure.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by cavscout
A boy named Sammy Weaver was shot to death while walking his dog, on his private property, by federal agents with M-16 riffles and NO WARRENTS.

They then sent sniper Lon Horiuchi to climb a tree and shoot his mother in the face while she was standing in her own kitchen and armed with nothing but her baby.


The FBI had Weaver under survelliance for months and he was known to carry a weapon or didn't you know that? Do you believe everything the Ruby Ridge site says? If so you have been brain washed.


Yes, he did carry a weapon and it was LEGAL for him to do so. Sammy Weaver was also armed, and that ALSO was legal. The only people on that property who were doing anything illegal that day were the ATF agents (not FBI, as you contend. They came later to try and cover up what had been done.)

So what are you saying? If a man is know to go about LEGALY armed, then it is OK for the ATF to perform an illegal patrol onto his property, shoot his dog, shoot his son for defending his property against the armed intruders (not wearing identifying badges or jackets) and then accidentally shoot one of their own in all the excitement of getting to off little kids and dogs? Oh yeah, and just because, their FBI buddies then shoot an innocent woman in the face because they mistake the BABBY she was holding for a weapon?



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Yes, he did carry a weapon and it was LEGAL for him to do so. Sammy Weaver was also armed, and that ALSO was legal. The only people on that property who were doing anything illegal that day were the ATF agents (not FBI, as you contend. They came later to try and cover up what had been done.)

So what are you saying? If a man is know to go about LEGALY armed, then it is OK for the ATF to perform an illegal patrol onto his property, shoot his dog, shoot his son for defending his property against the armed intruders (not wearing identifying badges or jackets) and then accidentally shoot one of their own in all the excitement of getting to off little kids and dogs? Oh yeah, and just because, their FBI buddies then shoot an innocent woman in the face because they mistake the BABBY she was holding for a weapon?

Okay, so it happened. The Federal government accepted responsibility and admitted that their actions were egregious. Now it's over and done with. So what's your point in re-hashing old news?

The government admitted wrongdoing and they paid dearly for it. It happened many years ago. But you're not done with it yet, are you??? What's your solution??? What more would you like to see done about this??? Let's hear it.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yxboom
Okay, so it happened. The Federal government accepted responsibility and admitted that their actions were egregious.

It was not egregious, it is quite normal for the jack-booted federal agents to do dispiclable things in the name of law enforcment.


Now it's over and done with. So what's your point in re-hashing old news?

The government admitted wrongdoing and they paid dearly for it. It happened many years ago. But you're not done with it yet, are you??? What's your solution??? What more would you like to see done about this??? Let's hear it.


Paid dearly? Which government agents were tried and executed? How many dirty corrupt pigs were given life sentences? What, they had to give Randy a few million FRNs to compensate for the loss of several loved ones, without seeing the killers stand trial? Anyone who "admitted wrongdoing" in the deaths of those people admitted to being accessories in their murder.
What, the government's confession doesn't count because they weren’t Mirandized first?



The day that at least one of them (we can start with Lon Horiuchi) stands trail for murder in an Idaho courtroom is the day any of them will "pay dearly"

And what about the countless other atrocities committed by dirty, lying, backstabbing, corrupt jack-booted thugs? Egregious? Not by a long shot.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join