It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 31
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:13 PM
It does answer some, but I believe being held for 4 days without charge is pushing the limits. And yes, there was a pay phone at the end of the hall. We watched it constantly hoping that they'd let us use it.

And although a protest may be seen as violent to the officers, when the 'offenders' are in custody, they still have rights.

I can say for certain that I didn't commit any crime. And although they may have thought I did, I certainly believe that I deserved a lawyer. I wasn't assigned a PD until my last day in Philadelphia.

And to let you guys know, I wasn't convicted. After 4 court visits my case went before a judge who ruled that there was insufficient evidence.

As an FYI, this wasn't my first experience with the police, but it was certainly the one that stands out, and helped form my opinions of police in general, and the establishment.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:17 PM
Did you post Raso?

Looks like you did on MyATS, but nothing is showing here...


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

This is exactly why I like and respect you so much, semperfortis. You back up your words with facts. Not everyone can or will do that. I know a lot of good people within Law Enforcement, and I have seen and been on the receiving end of some of the worst, yet I still never say I hate Cops, or that all are corrupt.

Police Officer's, believe it or not, are human beings. ~gasp~

Oh My goodness. A Cop is human? Wow. What a concept.

Yes, in fact Police Officer's are actually human. They make arrests for things that make them want to vomit and or beat the ever living crap out of the perp. But they don't, or not that I have seen firsthand. A Police Officer is first and foremost a human being, and second a Police Officer. It is his or her job, to uphold the law, whether you agree with that, or not, is irrelevant to him or her.

Yes, the Officer has the right to utilize his or her discretion. That's called using good judgement, when it's called for. If a perpetrator is an idiot, for lack of better wording due to Moderator's editing it, the Police Officer may or may not be the nicest person, but they still have a job to perform.

I am not a Police Officer, I am a Security Officer. No, there's no flashlight, and I do not guard a little shack either. I enforce Policy, and utilize Policy, Procedure, and Protocol to do just that. No, I am not "sticking up" for Law Enforcement Officer's because I am Security Officer. I would have done that before I became a Security Officer.

I see a lot of rather stupid behaviors by people I would rather not be around. I still have a job to perform though. So do Law Enforcement Officer's.

semperfortis, you're an amazing man. I'm happy to have met you through ATS.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Yeah, I think PTS is glitchy about the first post on a page. IT should be viewable now

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:49 PM
I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience my friend...

I am also sorry that you have allowed it to form your view of an entire segment of the population. Something like 750K I believe at last count.

I am not even going to try and "represent" the entire police community, that would be fruitless and pointless. I can only tell you of my experiences and my knowledge and hope that maybe you will at least view me somewhat more favorably. Perhaps even someone you could have a cold one with...

It has always been my "style" if you would, to not judge anyone simply based on exterior factors, be it race, religion or profession. I feel this narrows my ability to interact in any kind of fruitful manner with those I encounter. So I try my best at all times to be more fair in my mind. At times I am successful, at others I am not. I guess it is my burden that I at times expect others to be this way as well...

That's not truly fair either, as we all struggle on with our lives encumbered by our social and personal experiences, either holding us back or pushing us on.


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Gee SKL!!!!

I'm really not all that, but I thank you for your kind words....

Also, I have never been one to differentiate between Security and Law Enforcement.. I know plenty of cops that do, but they don't know how very dangerous it is to be a security officer in todays world...

I salute you for what you do my friend...


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

If we're drinkin', I'm buyin'

I'm sure you know that I don't judge all police by the events of that week. However, for a time it did color my view massively.

I will say this, when the police force is turned into the muscle of a political party or movement I have a serious problem with that. Seeing what was done by otherwise probably good people made me sick. And I know that the orders came down from on high to commit these crimes against civilians. Like I said, it was a new Republican mayor who wanted to make a good impression on the RNC, and he was backed fully by Tom Ridge.

I just hate the old saying 'I was just following orders'.

BTW, here's a link to the 2004 RNC from Wiki, and with an excerpt.

The convention faced unprecedented protests in New York City throughout the week, including a massive march on the Sunday preceding the convention and repeated infiltration of the convention by protesters. 1806 people were officially arrested during the week, the vast majority on minor charges. Mass arrests and illegal detentions (for which the City of New York was fined) led Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) to comment that "The performance of police was decidedly a mixed one. While hundreds of thousands of people were able to make their voices heard, the right to protest was severely undermined by the mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators and bystanders, the pervasive surveillance of lawful demonstrators, and the illegal fingerprinting and prolonged detention of [more than] 1500 people charged with mostly minor offenses. This compromised their Constitutional right to protest." In most cases, charges were dropped after protesters were released. The New York Times reported on August 24, 2005, that after requests were made by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the Justice Department decided to investigate whether or not the civil rights of those arrested had been violated. Those investigations are ongoing.

Although 2004 was the most public, these same things happened during the 2000 RNC, I just cant find any info on it from the MSM.

I'll look into some alternative sources (hopefully they won't be dismissed because it wasn't printed or broadcast by Rupert Murdoch.)

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:15 PM
Well I would appreciate it if you could find a source that was NOT full of Civil Liberty Union comments....

Her statement about "Illegal" fingerprints says it all at least as far as her knowledge goes...

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that fingerprints, like photographs, remove nothing from the individual, so they are not protected under the constitution and fingerprints may be taken from anyone in police custody, not just police arrest.

The problem police officers face is a true dilemma... Most of us do not have marketable skills useful anywhere except the force. Lose that and we become for all intents and purposes, homeless...

So what is a young officer to do? Refuse the order and get fired? How is he to feed and clothe his family? The new one that most have thinking they have a wonderfully secure career...

Again, I am just speculating here, but I'm pretty sure I'm on the money with what they think at times like you describe.

Also it is easy for a young officer to become intimidated by experienced officers. I am sure most of my officers would arrest if I told them too with no thought as to why they were doing it. Some may say it is because they respect me as a leader, and of course I like that answer, but the truth is probably because my experience overwhelms them. They are thinking, "Who am I to tell him he is wrong, he must be right". I hope I am able to instill in my officers more independence and the will to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. That is my goal anyway.

I have always stood my ground, but coming from the dirt poor history I had, I have somewhat more independence than most people. I know I can make it. Some don't.


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:08 AM
Would that all police officers thought and acted like you do, Semper...

My own experiances with the police have not all been roses and sunshine, and I've always been a bit suspicious of authority figures. I've tried to not let the experiances color my opinion of the others out there who far outnumber them... Good outnumbering the bad I mean.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:53 AM
And here's how I see it.

When the guys in charge decide finally to remove all rights, and commit illegal acts like those seen in Philadelphia, New York, it will be the good cops who do horrible things. Not because they're bad people, but because they have families to look after, and a job to keep secure.

Thats when the regular citizens will have only a few options. Either cooperate with the unjust illegal system that is put in place, or defend their rights and oppose this system.

Opposing the system will almost certainly put good people on the wrong side of the iron bars.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:59 AM

Opposing the system will almost certainly put good people on the wrong side of the iron bars.

It always has Raso....

Wish I had an answer for you my friend....


posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:36 AM

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:45 AM

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:15 AM
I don't hate cops, cops hate me. I dress in the hip-hop manner and get harassed all the time because I live in a pretty tough neighborhood. I don't blame them but they should know after they have searched me countless of times and found nothing. I have never been into a problem that I started.

However I have been arrested by the same officer who comes by my neighborhood because I beat up 2 guys who were trying to rob me. They got let off, but I got assault. Tell me, how does that work out? I was going to get robbed and defended myself. Don't get me wrong I hit one of the guys hard, I even think I broke his nose, but why did I get arrested?

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:28 PM
I am a small, 5 foot tall 100 pound 20-something year old female with no criminal history, never even so much as a ticket, who had my house broken into and my belongings and person illegally searched by the police. I also sustained numerous cuts and bruises, as well as a partially dislocated shoulder, when I was violently thrown to the ground face-forward and handcuffed on my kitchen floor by a very large and heavy male officer who knelt on my back, while around nine other officers looked on and yelled at me, and I cried and begged for help. I was dragged out in handcuffs in full view of my neighbors and now have to pay over a thousand dollars both in medical bills and to replace my front door.

Within two hours of their breaking in, the police discovered that the entire thing was a "mistake" and the 911 call they received on me was falsified. Did the cops in question apologize for their brutality and transgressions? No, instead, they said they were "just doing their job" and one of them ingenuously quipped "Are we cool?" after dropping me off at the hospital. Later, when I went to the precinct to get a copy of the report so I could sort out why on earth I was victimized in this atrocious manner, they denied the event in question ever even happened and that their officers were ever even in my house. In lieu of a police report, I have only my own words to vouch for the events that happened to me that day, and I will never ever forget how roughly and violently I was treated, and then forced to shell out my hard-earned money to pay for the damages, and all because of a "mistake." I am humiliated and confused.

It's not just that there are corrupt and belligerent officers on the force who feel free to victimize innocent citizens in their own homes at the drop of a hat, it is the code of silence that dictates that even after such an event occurs, that their fellow officers exacerbate the crime by not providing the reports which legally they are required to make after such an action, in order to protect their "brethren." I have no doubt that word of that fateful "mistake" had gotten around the precinct before I arrived, and that when I came for the report I was purposely and knowingly lied to and told they had no information for me. I have no doubt that they knew exactly what I was talking about, as it had all occurred only days before and I had two of the officers' names. They accused me of "making it up." Well my broken door, medical bills, and stunned neighbors say otherwise.

I used to respect cops, and I feared them as well, since anyone with a gun is inherently scary. Now I only feel the latter, and some hatred as well. You show me a cop who will bring these particular cops to justice and maybe I will change my mind, but so far all I get are lies and the run-around. Now, please excuse me while I get back to work to pay off my door and medical bills. Not everyone can sit in a squad car and eat donuts all day and get paid for it.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

i was brutalized by three cops with ZERO provocation other than asking calmly to see the warrant.
one tried to break my finger. i had no feeling in my hands for six months because they put the handcuffs on so tight i got severe nerve damage.
did i say NO PROVOCATION? i didn't even lift an eyebrow before three of them jumped me, and had me face down to cuff me(but my right arm was under my body, with my hand sticking out the left side, and evil SOB was prying my finger upwards).
is it not 'the law' that cops MUST show the warrant? because, i never did see it. i just saw the lawn close up.

and, frankly, i probably could have taken at least one of them, and perhaps all, if i chose that route(i have some skills). as it was, i merely tripped the one who was breaking my finger so he would let go, and so i could put that hand behind my back to allow the one kneeing my spine to cuff me.

on one other occasion, i was told i could not be walking on a street if i didn't live there, and on another, i was told that i couldn't walk down a public street to leave the (war in afghanistan) protest route. neither of those 'police orders' are legal.

in other news, cops have the best drugs at their parties. that's a FACT for me, and hearsay to anyone listening.

in my three close up and personal exchanges with cops, they ALL overstepped their legal rights and abused their power. (i am very honest and have high standards of morality and i have had nearly zero legal friction in my lifetime(i'm old))

"i don't hate cops, i just feel better when they're not around." -jake blues

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:15 AM
This is a topic I feel two ways about, and very strongly. Bear with me, please. It sucks that we can't all implicitly trust each other. We all have lives that don't always overlap well.

I am a blunt person. I don't beat around the bush. I try to state my bottom line, then support my conclusion. I do not intend my statements or comments to be specifically offensive. I do, however, endeavor to avoid ambiguity. I communicate in an abrupt manner, but mean no hostile aggression. It is my goal to contribute my opinions, observations, and experiences for the purpose of encouraging a productive and constructive understanding based on my own point of view. I do not profess to know every facet of law enforcement. I am a well behaved law-abiding citizen. I was born here, I belong here, and I have a right to contribute my perspective. I admit, in advance of anyone pointing out, that I may be misunderstanding or misinterpreting input I've absorbed. I do not reject anyone who is able to cogently and coherently debate opinions. I reject any potential flamers. I will endeavor to ignore inane or innocuous fluff and/or propaganda. Blind reactionary outbursts are definitely uninvited.

It seems Semperfortis was having a particularly bad day and sought some form of relief or had the desire to vent "some steam". Man to man, I'd buy you a beer. I'd cheer you up if I had any idea how to do so. I don't find it hard to believe that many people do admire and respect you for who you are and what you do. I respect you for who YOU are, aside from what you do. I wish *YOU* well and good fortune.

For law enforcement professionals who would like clarification of why at least one citizen (quite probably many) hold your profession and your voluntary and willful participation in your profession in very low esteem, I submit my point of view. Try to see the constructive potential, while avoiding misinterpretation of the intent of my words.

As a police officer, you swore an oath to serve and protect. I believe that police officers in a professional capacity do not serve the public very well or with objectivity. Do not consider this statement to apply to any officer as an individual or on a personal level. None of my statements or opinions are directed personally toward any of you on a human level. My observations and opinions only apply to your profession, in general (the system you are part of, not each of you as individuals), except where I plainly and specifically indicate. I cannot explain, with any confidence, why some people hate you on a personal level. In that, I cry "FOUL!"

Every police department receives some amount of monetary support from the federal government. Thus every police officer receives some amount of pay from every citizen, no matter what jurisdiction the officer represents and regardless of where each and every or any citizen resides. If you are a police officer in Honolulu and I reside in Detroit, some percentage of your pay comes out of my pocket. I take umbrage whenever a law enforcement professional discounts my input by arguing that I am not a taxpayer within their jurisdiction.

Every police officer anywhere should serve anybody and everybody. I don't recognize any argument from any police officer that claims that I have no valid opinion to offer. My taxes entitle me to representation, which includes representing myself with my voice which is my right under the first amendment of our Constitution. My right to speak about anything I choose is mine, even if I express an opposing opinion or make a statement regarding police officers (paid or volunteer), police academy training procedures, or the color of police uniforms. (I think you should all wear carnation uniforms and drive chartreuse vehicles. Hide behind your "pink wall of silence". It's only a matter of color.) I pay, so I should choose. Not you. You work for me.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by handinthebush] - Wordwrap in my editor was incorrect prior to me pasting text.


[edit on 7/23/2008 by handinthebush]

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:00 AM

Police officers state that any citizen at any time could be in possession of something dangerous to the officer, so we are all treated with caution (extreme and overzealous caution, if you count the statistics regarding number of citizen encounters non-dangerous vs citizen encounters dangerous).

I suggest that too many of you are overly paranoid of citizens bearing harmful intent (for the wrong reason) toward you. Why might that be? Could it be that many of us do not feel adequately served by the protocols you are bound to by those who administrate your practices and conduct? Do you believe that the majority of us would take extreme action to end your life for doing what you do? Are most of us truly bent on violence toward you? I honestly think that would be an incorrect assessment.

Those of us who have experienced a feeling of discomfort when you are present are quite likely correct to feel uncomfortable and/or mistrustful of you. You are supposed to serve us. By virtue of "serve and protect" your bosses work for us. We are the big bosses. When so many of us express an opinion that changes in policy and procedure need to be implemented, we are right and you have no right or privilege to express a professional opinion while you are on-duty. While in uniform, you are civil servants and thereby you should suspend any citizen-like conduct. You serve us. You eat with money taken from us. As a citizen not in a professional police capacity, you can express yourself, as is your constitutional right, when you are off duty. On duty, you belong to us. Off duty, you are one of us. On-The-Clock, you are public property.

We state that every one of you is known to have dangerous paraphernalia in your possession and that even disarmed, you are trained in a manner that makes your very body dangerous to us. Percentage wise, it appears to me by casual estimate, that it is more likely that you are dangerous to us than we might be to you. Why should we not be cautious of each and every one of you? I refer to reasonable precaution from our perspective (not saying it would be proper for us to blatantly hate you). If you can be afraid of what I probably don't have, why should I not be afraid of what I know you *DO* have? After all, I helped buy it for you. I don't like the idea that you *COULD* beat me with my flashlight or shoot me with my pistol. I don't like the fact that you can kidnap me, restrain me in my handcuffs, transport me using my gas in my vehicle to my place of confinement that I bought. I find that distasteful and it insults my sense of what should not be allowed to be perpetrated upon any of us.

None of you were drafted into service. You wanted to nurse off the public teat. Most of you are selected because you meet a well defined criteria, which includes the belief of the hiring administration that you are uneducated and probably unemployable elsewhere due to personality flaws, although you may truly not be aware of this. They feel that it makes you more susceptible to blindly and unquestioningly following orders that may be unconstitutional or against the PUBLIC interest. They don't want you to exercise independent thought at even an average level or capacity. Some of you are aware of these determining factors in advance and deliberately take advantage of it, while some of you are not aware. I do not accuse every police officer of complicity, in that regard. I do accuse at least some of you.


posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:08 AM

You feel mistreated or misunderstood by citizens and that troubles you, I say boo hoo and go flip some burgers. I know many professional law enforcement officers. There are several generations of law enforcement officers in my very family. Every single one that I personally know is corrupt and they don't conceal it. I can't stand holiday conversation due to the subject matter, so I have turned my back on my family because they nauseate me and their view of "civilians" is very warped. I have never encountered a civilized and respectable law enforcement officer anywhere at any time in my life. I know you are out there, but my luck has apparently been in the toilet. I've graduated from 3 colleges and had multiple residence changes. I've lived in many locations during my life following my profession. I count 38 states under my belt. Big cities, small towns, college towns, urban areas, and suburban neighborhoods. No positive experience by me toward any officer. Had it not been for my familiarity with my constitutional rights, carrying a printed copy of those rights on my person, and installing my own video surveillance equipment on my porch, in my vehicle, and in my home, I would have been unable to resist the intimidation directed at me by law enforcement. By asserting that I will later be able to prove misconduct, I have influenced a few law enforcement officers to abandon continued attempts to misguide and/or misinform me about what my rights are and aren't, as well as what power and authority they do and do not wield. Counter-threatened with documented exposure, they have ceased those activities and sought further entertainment elsewhere. I continue to find this odd, but not to be unexpected. I have confidence that I can rely on future conduct by other officers to be similar if not identical to what I have already seen. I acknowledge that some day I may encounter one or more of you that do not fit the negative profile.

Regarding the definition of murder: I read from Semperfortis a reference to the definition which included (not quoting) a requirement the the deceased must be an innocent person (without innocence of the victim, the criteria for murder is not fulfilled). Police officers are not judge or jury. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Unless a citizen killed by a police officer was escaping a conviction or serving an active sentence for the instant offense applicable to that incident, (not a sentence for any other crime or whose time has been served), the deceased IS innocent, and thus the victim would by definition be a murder victim and the deliverer of death would therefore be a murderer. Every officer who has taken the life of anybody not currently sentenced and actively serving that sentence... well those officers are in fact murderers. If that person had been pointing an elephant gun at you, they are innocent unless a judge in a court of law has polled a jury whose decision made that person guilty
BEFORE your encounter and did continue after the conviction was determined. It is not for you to decide who is guilty. An innocent person cannot be detained, searched, or hindered. Every time you arrest a "suspect" and you are not in possession of a warrant, you are guilty of kidnapping. You cannot decide that somebody is NOT innocent. Period. That is a decision for a jury to make. You aren't a jury. You have to presume anyone and everyone is innocent. Read the 4th amendment.

Most of the previous paragraph seems silly to me and appears to put law enforcement officers in untenable situations, on some occasions. But, taken literally, that is what the amendment appears to state. So, some interpretation could sensibly be justified for reasons of safety. Some citizens feel that OUR safety concerns deserve consideration, too. If police won't interpret on our behalf, then they should not interpret for their own either. Quid Pro Quo.


posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:14 AM

I clearly say right now that I do not fault your for your caution and wariness. I do fault you all for faulting us for having the same tendency in return, and more than justifiably so . You have the weapons, the training, the practice, the follow-up performance evaluations, and body armor. Think about it. 100% of you have the tangible items that have negative potential. What percentage of citizens have any of those things? Much less than 100%, I'm sure. Try for a moment to suspend your disbelief of documented cases of misconduct, extortion, and officially instigated elevated levels of stress directed at us. Then put yourself in my shoes and imagine me standing in yours. We should all be cautious, not just "the brotherhood".

You all know that a driver license is not identification. You know that a social security card is not identification. The only valid forms of identification that I am certain really qualify are passports, birth certificates, and green cards. Yet you all ask us for something you are reasonably confident that we cannot produce (a very few of us carry any of those items), so you pretty much COULD assert that you have authority to arrest anyone you decide to P-E-R-S-E-C-U-T-E. However, any and every time you assert yourself, you are lying and violating constitutional rights given to us. Citizens are not required to produce identification to you. Check with the ACLU.

Additionally, the burden of proof always rests on the accuser. If you ask a citizen to identify (his/her)self, you must accept verbal identification unless you have irrefutable proof that the person IS NOT who they claim to be. Except when under arrest, you cannot demand identification. That has been ruled on and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. If we don't have to produce ID for you, and you thus cannot prove who we are or aren't and thereby cannot serve a warrant (if you have one, even), logic alone based on written and upheld LAW states that you are inert and powerless. You have no authority to compel anyone to do anything. You can't serve a warrant on anyone unless YOU already have proof of who you are arresting, and you cannot compel anyone to provide that proof for you. That is also supported by the 4th amendment.

No warrant shall be issued except by a judge. Probable cause is a subjective term. It is not specifically defined by law. Probable cause will not get you a warrant. Sworn affidavits and depositions provided by reliable and credible criminal complainants (civilian or law enforcement officials) can get a warrant issued. The affiant or provider of the deposition is criminally and civilly liable if it is found later that an error in that information is discovered, regardless of whether the error was accidental or intentional. Not many people have the fortitude to put their freedom and their wallet on the line, which is why it is a requisite for issuance of a warrant. It is intended to prevent frivolous "witch-hunts" and retaliatory tattle-tales who may fabricate allegations against somebody who angered them without any true injustice actually having been perpetrated against the accuser.


top topics

<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in