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.

 

So You Hate Cops

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I'm just guessing but,

I would imagine that those "Pigs" are NOT going to threaten women, beat them or commit any other acts of violence against women and blame it on anger...

Unlike some others...

Just guessing of course...

Semper




posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'm just guessing but,

I would imagine that those "Pigs" are NOT going to threaten women, beat them or commit any other acts of violence against women and blame it on anger...

Unlike some others...

Just guessing of course...

Semper



Of course not.

As they kick your teeth in after kicking your door in, take your guns, and drag you to a concentration camp (er, detainment center
), national security will be the stated reason.

This will go for anyone, regardless of race or sex.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Seriously, I think you are getting us confused. I never fought tooth and nail against prejudice based on race, as a matter of fact, I feel people can be as prejudiced as they want, as long as they don't try to legislate it, or force it on me.

That is very sensible, since nothing can be done to change people's attitudes anyway.



The police are the enforcers of an unjust, racist, and corrupt system that is now responsible for incarcerating more people than the former Soviet Union.

You have got to be kidding. Comparing our prison system to the former USSR? Ever hear of the Gulag Archipelago?



We have mililtarized the police force to the extent that average cops like semper here call us civillians.

That's cop-talk, fer Chrissakes. You or I would say "He got out of the car", a cop would say "The subject exited the vehicle". Big deal. It's because they have to write a million reports and stand in front of judges, and concise speech is recognizable and saves time and confusion.



We place cameras on streets to monitor citizens movements.

Ever been to London? Ask a Brit about cameras.


Right now I am listening to a police helicoptor fly over my pad.Sorry, I do not support that, nor anyone who does either, and I sure as hell don't support or even like that systems foot soldiers.

First of all, are you sure it's not a Channel 4 Eye In The Sky?

Second, is it that you don't support helicopters for police in general? What possible objection could you have to a life-saving, law-enforcing tool such as that?



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
As they kick your teeth in after kicking your door in, take your guns, and drag you to a concentration camp (er, detainment center
), national security will be the stated reason.

This will go for anyone, regardless of race or sex.

Oh, the drama!



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Here's something for ya, semp.

Police Family Violence Fact Sheet


Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general.


Well. These highly trained, specialized "non-civilians" are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to beat their wives than mere "civilians," according to these studies.



Unique Vulnerability

Domestic violence is always a terrible crime, but victims of a police officer are particularly vulnerable because the officer who is abusing them:

* has a gun,
* knows the location of battered women's shelters, and
* knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim.

Victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.


So, not only are pigs more likely to beat their women, but, due to their status, they are more likely to get away with smacking them around than a peon, er, "civilian."


Failure of Departmental Policies

These suspicions are well founded, as most departments across the country typically handle cases of police family violence informally, often without an official report, investigation, or even check of the victim's safety... Moreover, a 1994 nationwide survey of 123 police departments documented that almost half (45%) had no specific policy for dealing with officer-involved domestic violence. In that same study:

* The most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling.
* Only 19% of the departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence...


SOOOO. The average pig who beats up his wife and gets caught gets counseling. Meanwhile, the average "civilian" who gets caught beating his wife is arrested, probably talked down on by the arresting officers for not being a real man, and punished by whatever punishment domestic violence calls for. I'm sure a 2nd offence gets a quite stiffer punishment than maybe getting fired.



Violent Police Officers Receive "Exceedingly Light Discipline"

The reality is that even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution, raising concern that those who are tasked with enforcing the law cannot effectively police themselves.For example:

* In 1998-1999, 23 domestic violence complaints were filed against Boston police employees, but none resulted in criminal prosecution.
* The San Diego City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of the domestic violence cases that are referred, but only 42% of the cases involving a police officer as the perpetrator are prosecuted.
* Between 1990 and 1997, the Los Angles Police Department investigated 227 cases of alleged domestic violence by officers, of which 91 were sustained. Of these 91 allegations that were sustained by the department, only 4 resulted in a criminal conviction. That means that the LAPD itself determined in 91 cases that an officer had committed domestic violence, but only 4 were convicted on a criminal charge. Moreover, of these 4 officers who were convicted on a criminal charge of domestic violence, one was suspended for only 15 days and another had his conviction expunged.


That pretty much speaks for itself. But, it gets better:


Performance Evaluations Not Affected; Violent Officers Often Promoted

The study of the Los Angeles Police Department further examined the 91 cases in which an allegation of domestic violence was sustained against an officer.

* Over three-fourths of the time, this sustained allegation was not mentioned in the officer's performance evaluation.
* Twenty-six of these officers (29%) were promoted, including six who were promoted within two years of the incident.

The report concluded that "employees with sustained allegations were neither barred from moving to desired positions nor transferred out of assignments that were inconsistent with the sustained allegation"


So, of the 91 LAPD pigs who beat their wives in this case, over 75% of them did NOT have this put on their evaluations. Hell, nearly a third of them were PROMOTED! Quite nice treatment for wife beaters, but of course, this is only for pig wife beaters, not "civilian" wife beaters.

This part is just TOO much:shk: :


The LAPD Investigation

In 1997, the Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of the LAPD after a legal consultant named Bob Mullally leaked shocking LAPD personnel files to the press. These files documented scores of violent domestic crimes committed by LAPD officers. Mullally was so shocked by the LAPD's mishandling of this police family violence that he decided to violate the civil protective order in the case he was working on and turn the files over to the media, in the hopes of creating change in the LAPD.

* Rather than reviewing the problem or recommending improvements, the LAPD sued Mullally for leaking the information.
* In 2002, after multiple appeals, Mullally was sentenced to 45 days in federal prison. None of the police officers he exposed were ever prosecuted for their crimes, and many continue to serve as gun-carrying LAPD officers.
Even the prosecutor in the case stated on record that this sentence was "extreme" for a violation of a civil protective order.
* Mullally is the first person in United States history to ever serve a jail term for this type of violation. He served his time in 2003, 6 years after he exposed the files.


BEYOND shocking.

So, we see how great the pigs have it. Not ONE of the pigs who beat up their wifes had a THING done to them for punishment. No suspension, no prosecution, no prison time, NOTHING. A lot of them are still working for the LAPD, beating up suspects (and their wifes still), no doubt. And Mullally did a month and a half at Club Fed for exposing the wife beating pigs. Wow...:shk:

So, in a way, semp, you're right that the pigs won't be threatening women with violence. They'll just crack their heads without any threats, and their buddies in blue will cover for them.





[edit on 11-3-2007 by truthseeka]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You have got to be kidding. Comparing our prison system to the former USSR? Ever hear of the Gulag Archipelago?

In terms of numbers, sorry dear, we have already matched them. I am not speaking of our treatment of prisoners though...which isn't much better.




That's cop-talk, fer Chrissakes. You or I would say "He got out of the car", a cop would say "The subject exited the vehicle". Big deal. It's because they have to write a million reports and stand in front of judges, and concise speech is recognizable and saves time and confusion.

Wrong, civilian is a military term...at least it used to be. I never mentioned anything about suspects, subjects or anything else, nor did Semper.


Ever been to London? Ask a Brit about cameras.

Why would I do that when I lived in London for a couple of years? I say this because I know. How many major metropolitan cities have you lived in?



First of all, are you sure it's not a Channel 4 Eye In The Sky?
Second, is it that you don't support helicopters for police in general? What possible objection could you have to a life-saving, law-enforcing tool such as that?


Yes, I am sure, as a matter of fact the only time you know news is on the scene is when you hear multiple choppers.

As for a life saving tool, if you have helicoptors flying below 300 ft above your house shining lights in your windows, then we can talk about my problems with the "life saving, law enforcing tool", that in essence does nothing more than help to militarize our cities.


[edit on 11-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
So, in a way, semp, you're right that the pigs won't be threatening women with violence. They'll just crack their heads without any threats, and their buddies in blue will cover for them.


Great post, I am surprised that he continues with your bitchslap comment esepecially considering that he has to know the figures concerning cops and spousal abuse.

Imagine what those figures would be if they didn't have their little blue code of silence?


Well. These highly trained, specialized "non-civilians" are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to beat their wives than mere "civilians," according to these studies.


I wish I cared enough to dredge up the stats concerning the unusually high number of cops that suffer from illnesses such as alcoholism, depression, and suicide.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Wrong, civilian is a military term...at least it used to be. I never mentioned anything about suspects, subjects or anything else, nor did Semper.


I guess it still IS a military term, as police will eventually be merged with the military.



Yes, I am sure, as a matter of fact the only time you know news is on the scene is when you hear multiple choppers.

As for a life saving tool, if you have helicoptors flying below 300 ft above your house shining lights in your windows, then we can talk about my problems with the "life saving, law enforcing tool", that in essence does nothing more than help to militarize our cities.


[edit on 11-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]


I've also had my place flooded with light at night from police choppers. Note that this only happened when I lived in a different part of town than I do now. In that area (mostly Hispanic), copper choppers lurked the skies constantly like vultures. Hell, I've even seen the infamous black helicopters (and they DO run more silently than regular choppers).

On a good note, the people I met in that area were more friendly than the ones where I live now...



[edit on 11-3-2007 by truthseeka]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Not to interrupt here, Semper, but nothing to say about what I wrote? I know I'm not just going on about racism and bitch slapping, but I think I've got a valid point here.
Also I would like to know more about this here:

Originally posted by subject x
And where the
do you get off implying that I, or anyone else here, is not contributing to the community?? Because I'm not a cop, I'm just a leech, sucking off society and not adding to the betterment of life? Get over yourself, Semper! This is another prime example of the "I'm better then you 'cause I'm a cop" mentality, and, as stated earlier, this is crap.

Unless, of course, I'm just to close to the truth for comfort.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Regarding the British camera thing: I am a Brit, and I can report that the average Londoner is caught on camera around 300 times a day, if memory serves.

Now, speaking on the issue of bad cops: I have witnessed first hand cops planting evidence and trying to frame people for SERIOUS crimes. I have also had an officer subtly threaten to pull a gun on a friend of mine who was drunk. And if you know the UK police, you know they don't pull a shooter unless they are almost certain to use it.

So yes, I am damn wary when dealing with cops for anything more than thirty seconds. Why? Because I don't want to discover that the one I am talking to is one of the bad cops.

Having said that though, cops have been helpful in several brief encounters I have had with them. In particular here, I find the British Transport Police very helpful and easy to deal with.

I would support what an earlier poster said about being courteous, as that does seem to be beneficial for both the cop and the other person in the situation if you can see through the uniform.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by jsobecky
You have got to be kidding. Comparing our prison system to the former USSR? Ever hear of the Gulag Archipelago?

In terms of numbers, sorry dear, we have already matched them. I am not speaking of our treatment of prisoners though...which isn't much better.

Really, until you post some stats and sources, this part of the discussion can go nowhere, imo.



That's cop-talk, fer Chrissakes. You or I would say "He got out of the car", a cop would say "The subject exited the vehicle". Big deal. It's because they have to write a million reports and stand in front of judges, and concise speech is recognizable and saves time and confusion.


Wrong, civilian is a military term...at least it used to be. I never mentioned anything about suspects, subjects or anything else, nor did Semper.

Civilian is merely a word not reserved exclusively for use by the military. As far as subject, etc., I was using it as an example of cop-talk. I don't understand your comment.





Ever been to London? Ask a Brit about cameras.


Why would I do that when I lived in London for a couple of years? I say this because I know. How many major metropolitan cities have you lived in?

Well, if you lived in London, you will know the situation regarding surveillance cameras over there. And then you would realize that your comment about cameras in the US was unfounded.

What does it matter where I've lived? Around the world, is all I'll say.





First of all, are you sure it's not a Channel 4 Eye In The Sky?
Second, is it that you don't support helicopters for police in general? What possible objection could you have to a life-saving, law-enforcing tool such as that?



Yes, I am sure, as a matter of fact the only time you know news is on the scene is when you hear multiple choppers.

As for a life saving tool, if you have helicoptors flying below 300 ft above your house shining lights in your windows, then we can talk about my problems with the "life saving, law enforcing tool", that in essence does nothing more than help to militarize our cities.

Well then, maybe you should move to a better neighborhood. And I'm not going to sit here and supply you with examples of the good that choppers do, because I think you already know what they are.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
Not to interrupt here, Semper, but nothing to say about what I wrote? I know I'm not just going on about racism and bitch slapping, but I think I've got a valid point here.
Also I would like to know more about this here:

Originally posted by subject x
And where the
do you get off implying that I, or anyone else here, is not contributing to the community?? Because I'm not a cop, I'm just a leech, sucking off society and not adding to the betterment of life? Get over yourself, Semper! This is another prime example of the "I'm better then you 'cause I'm a cop" mentality, and, as stated earlier, this is crap.

Unless, of course, I'm just to close to the truth for comfort.


X, this is because it's true.

You're a "civilian," a parasite who does NOTHING to help the community. Compare this to a "highly trained, specialized, elite" cop. You just have to accept that.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by truthseeka
So, in a way, semp, you're right that the pigs won't be threatening women with violence. They'll just crack their heads without any threats, and their buddies in blue will cover for them.


Great post, I am surprised that he continues with your bitchslap comment esepecially considering that he has to know the figures concerning cops and spousal abuse.

Maybe because he hasn't threatened to bitchslap a member of ATS?


Imagine what those figures would be if they didn't have their little blue code of silence?

Imagine what the crime stats would be if people didn't have their "I didn't see anything" code of silence.



I wish I cared enough to dredge up the stats concerning the unusually high number of cops that suffer from illnesses such as alcoholism, depression, and suicide.

That should tell you something right there.

Maybe it's from having to deal with the Rodney King's of the world, day after day.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
You're a "civilian," a parasite who does NOTHING to help the community.


If you don't know the meaning of a word, just look it up.
Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say, shall we?



Civilian

1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b: outsider


Note that an "outsider" to any group can be called a civilian. It's not an insult, unless of course, you take it that way.

If you have any questions about this, I'm a U2U away.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
X and truthseeka, I am at a loss, where did Semper imply that cops are greater than others? where did he imply that because you are not a cop that you are scum or worthless?
I can see many of your points and agree with many of the stats, they dont look good, and this makes it hard on the honest officer.. obviously we dont live in a perfect society and also it wasnt criminals that were made for law enforcement, it was law enforcement made to deal with criminals.. personally I would like to see less criminals in and out of law enforcement.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
What are YOU doing for your country, your community, your fellow man?

And again ask yourself....

WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR FELLOW MAN


I don't feel like digging through the pages, but in an exchange with Rasobasi, semp explains that cops can use experience to judge people as potential criminals, but citizens can NOT use experience to judge cops. This implies that a cop's judgement/experience is more valuable than a citizen's.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Really, until you post some stats and sources, this part of the discussion can go nowhere, imo.

Quit pretending like you will change your mind even when provided with stats. We all know that the US prison population is at a record high. You want stats, ask truth or someone else who cares enough.



Civilian is merely a word not reserved exclusively for use by the military. As far as subject, etc., I was using it as an example of cop-talk. I don't understand your comment.

That's fine.





Well, if you lived in London, you will know the situation regarding surveillance cameras over there. And then you would realize that your comment about cameras in the US was unfounded.
What does it matter where I've lived? Around the world, is all I'll say.


It matters because if you knew London, or any other major metropolitan area for that matter, then you would know that they are not that much different in terms of public surveillance. Sure, we might not have reached that level yet, but we are well on our way. If you lived in a major US city, you would know this as well.



Well then, maybe you should move to a better neighborhood. And I'm not going to sit here and supply you with examples of the good that choppers do, because I think you already know what they are.


No, maybe the pigs should not fly military hardware over civilian areas! A wacky concept, I know. Besides, it has nothing to do with moving to a "better neighborhood", the pigs fly over beverly hills and hollywood now. Soon there won't be any neighborhoods to move to get away from it, except out in the sticks. I am sure that's when people like you will care.

And, I don't care what good the choppers do, they have no place flying over residential homes, and their negative impact far outweighs any positive that they have been responsible for.

Hell, why stop at choppers? I am sure there is plenty of good that tanks can do on our streets, right? Let's roll em on in!


[edit on 11-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you don't know the meaning of a word, just look it up.
Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say, shall we?



Civilian

1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b: outsider


Note that an "outsider" to any group can be called a civilian. It's not an insult, unless of course, you take it that way.


And?

The dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as hatred of Jews. This IGNORES the the Semitic people who VASTLY outnumber the Jews: Arabs.

And, it's not that civilian is insulting. It's that it shows the militarization of the American police, heralding the coming of the American police state.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, it's not that civilian is insulting. It's that it shows the militarization of the American police, heralding the coming of the American police state.


No it doesn't. It shows that YOU view the word as a military term only and were not aware of its diverse meaning.

I agree a police state is coming, but just because you misunderstood the word's meaning doesn't mean anything about the upcoming police state. That's going to happen whether we're considered "civilians" or not.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree a police state is coming, but just because you misunderstood the word's meaning doesn't mean anything about the upcoming police state. That's going to happen whether we're considered "civilians" or not.


So...

The REPEATED references of "civilian, civilian, civilian, civilian," made not only by coppers who swagger around like gods, but by most coppers, is not a means of conditioning the people for the American police state, not to mention a sign of its coming?

Then again, this term isn't the most obvious sign of the police state. The Patriot Acts are FAR more ominous signs of the impending, Orwellian American police state.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join