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.

 

Police caught on tape threatening to destroy and invent evidence

page: 15
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
But, the FACTS do show an out-of-control police officer who was willing to BREAK THE LAW and create FALSE CHARGES because he didn't like the kid's attitude.


Let me ask you something, ever lost your cool with someone and said something you didn't really mean like "I wanna kill so and so" or "I could strangle that SOB"? IMO that's exactly what happened here. It's possible the cop was thinking to himself "I'm just asking you a simple question for cryin' out loud!" and "now I have to go through all this unnecessary crap with some kid who hasn't even been alive for as long as I've been doing THIS job!". Wait, before you answer that, I know you're gonna say "well, it's not a crime to be a kid and know your rights!". The argument can go on and on and on..........

Good cops can sometimes make really bad choices, it's part of being human. Besides, it's not like the cop's not in trouble, he might pay with his career.

Peace




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Uh, Defcon, can't you read? Quote from your own post: " Under governing New York law, an individual has a constitutional right to refuse to respond to questions posed by a police officer, may remain silent, and may even walk away without fearing an arrest or detention by the officer.65 "Flight alone . . . or in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right ‘to be let alone' and refuse to respond to police inquiry."66
Finally, "in light of the recognized ‘unsettling' aspect of a police-initiated inquiry of citizens," some New York courts have held that nervous reaction to nonthreatening questioning is not sufficient to authorize a greater intrusion.67

Do you comprehend that? It says that you may ignore ALL talk!! Yes, you must IDENTIFY yourself to them, either by verbally telling them your name or giving them ID, but THEN you are NOT required to say anything else. Do you understand that?

Cops have NO RIGHTS to expect any answers OTHER then identity. You do NOT have to answer any questions whatsoever, after providing identity.

What is so hard to comprehend about the law on this? The law says that we are right and you are wrong, the very law you quoted here, so just admit it and be honest.

NO LAW that ANYONE can find states that we must answer ANY questions a cop asks. NONE. WE DO have to identify ourselves under most circumstances but after that, clam up and observe your rights!! NO LAW can be used against you for refusing to answer cops questions or chat with them.

So once again, the laws are not up to ' interpretation ' once a federal court has decided the matter, and no law exists in any state that supercedes the rights given by the Constitution. None.

Defcon likes to quote laws but obviously does not understand the meaning behind what he reads..the law says that we NEVER have to answer ANY questions a cop asks, other than to identify ones self. Thats it.

Read the laws, they are all the same thruout the nation, none can be different than the Federal rules, so they are all the same. NO LAW says we must talk and answer questions. All lawyers say keep quiet. You should take the advice the lawyers and the law says are right, and not the bad advice given here by people who do not understand the law or the intent of such.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Let me ask you something, ever lost your cool with someone and said something you didn't really mean like "I wanna kill so and so" or "I could strangle that SOB"? IMO that's exactly what happened here. It's possible the cop was thinking to himself "I'm just asking you a simple question for cryin' out loud!" and "now I have to go through all this unnecessary crap with some kid who hasn't even been alive for as long as I've been doing THIS job!". Wait, before you answer that, I know you're gonna say "well, it's not a crime to be a kid and know your rights!". The argument can go on and on and on..........

Good cops can sometimes make really bad choices, it's part of being human. Besides, it's not like the cop's not in trouble, he might pay with his career.

Peace


I think I understand it now. While you say that I am excusing the kid for his lack of common sense, you're excusing the cop (see bolded text above).


Hmmmm, given these choices, I wonder which one I would rather excuse.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Let me say this also, if it's strict interpretation of the law you guys want, don't forget it could work against us as well as work for us. Sometimes you have to pick your poison. Maybe cops won't let you off with a warning next time and they'll just follow the letter of the law.

Bad cops are proven to be bad over a period of time, that's how you weed them out. Sometimes a single bad decision can cost a good cop his career, tell me, who is that really hurting in the end?

Peace



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Have you considered sharing your tape with local media? Or a TV station in the nearest larger metro area? These things can get a lot of play, and the court of public opinion renders justice very swiftly and effectively. Many times a local story like this goes national when there is dramatic footage like you have. This cop is a dangerous person--dangerous to the public he is supposed to serve and protect.

Sorry you lived through this. Very sad to say the rights we are supposed to have mean next to nothing in situations like these. Best to just clam up, say yessir nossir and hope you don't get the tar beat out of you.

peace out.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
While you say that I am excusing the kid for his lack of common sense, you're excusing the cop (see bolded text above).


I'm excusing the cop because he's been doing his job for twenty years give or take. I'm more likely to excuse the actions of the officer than I am the kid who was, again IMO, actively looking for this to happen, and then straight to YouTube.

Peace



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Let me say this also, if it's strict interpretation of the law you guys want, don't forget it could work against us as well as work for us. Sometimes you have to pick your poison. Maybe cops won't let you off with a warning next time and they'll just follow the letter of the law.

Bad cops are proven to be bad over a period of time, that's how you weed them out. Sometimes a single bad decision can cost a good cop his career, tell me, who is that really hurting in the end?

Peace


Are you still talking about the same situation? So, I'll get a speeding ticket next time instead of a warning? I'm having a hard time trying to follow your thought process.

However, if you're talking about THIS situation, if the cop was "following the letter of the law", he would have let the kid go after checking his ID because the kid had not committed a crime.

And, how do we know that this was a good cop? Again, specualtion. We don't know one way or another. But, would a good cop, threaten to make up charges against someone because he didn't like their attitude? Man, that must have been some bad day.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Are you still talking about the same situation? So, I'll get a speeding ticket next time instead of a warning? I'm having a hard time trying to follow your thought process.


Actually, that was directed at all those quoting the law word for word. Believe it or not, cops do not follow the letter of the law sometimes, and a lot of those times are for our benefit. If you want strict interpretation of all laws, then you'll be sure to get it. Like I said, pick your poison.

On this topic, it's obvious you've condemned the cop already (like he didn't do that himself), so I don't really know what else to say.

Peace


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Hey all,

Cops are the same here in the UK.

I was driving a friend home one night and had a .light out so the police pulled me over to let me know. I said that I knew it was out and that I was taking my friend home and that it was too late at night to go anywhere to get a new bulb, but I was going to get it fixed in the morning. The officer was polite and we had a bit of a joke and he sent me on my way with a wave and a wish of a safe trip.

I dropped my friend at home and was only half a mile away from his house when another police car pulled me over for the same thing. Well it was late and I was thinking to my self didn't they talk to there station and find out that I had already been stopped only 30 minuets before for the same thing, so I asked the officer if this was the case and was informed that it was nothing to do with me if they had or not and to give them my driving license, I said that I didn't have it on me ( I did, but producing your license to an officer in the UK can be taken as an admission of guilt).

As I was waiting for them to run there checks to see if I am who I say I am I pointed out to them that there car also had a light out as soon as I say this I’m told that if I’m not careful I’ll be arrested for using foul language (at no point during the entire time did I use any bad language) and another car pulls up with 2 more officer’s in so here is me on my own with 4 cops and I’m starting to get worried!! Anyway out of the two officers who pulled me over to start with one of them says to her partner that I have not done anything wrong and I had said I was going to get it fixed and that they had better things to do than bother me (I think she was told on the radio that I had been stopped before) so after 45 minuets they sent me on my way with a form saying to take my documents and proof that I had the car fixed to the station within 7 days or get a £1000 fine that’s about $2000.

So I had a taste of both sides of the coin that night and it made me think of this song I hope you will all give it a listen because I think it sums up most cops to a tee.



Rogue 9.

[edit on 11/9/2007 by rogue 9]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

So in refusing to answer basic questions you possibly just made yourself a target under probable cause. So you can either go the hardliner way that eyewitness is recommending, which will get you hulled in for formal questioning about 99% of the time, or you can just answer the basic questions and hopefully end your interaction without going downtown.


See, Defcon just stated another lie!!He calls giving your identity " basic questions ' and he is busted right there!! Giving your identity is the ONLY required act that we must do. NOT questions (S); questioN. Single. One only. NOT several questions about other issues, Defcon. NO. Just ONE question. Who you are. Thats all. So your statement is disingenuous. And please tell us the LAW that allows for someone to be ' hulled ' in ( hauled in?) if they follow the law and only give their name? Hmm? Answer that please Defcon. Tell us under what law a cop can ' haul you in ' for ' formal questioning ' if you refuse to talk?

What charge do the cops use, Defcon, when they arrest you and take you ' downtown '? ANSWER THAT since you stated it as a real possibility.Under what authority does a cop transport someone to jail or the station just because he is not giving up his rights? Caught again. You are too easy to disprove. When they haul us all downtown for some reason do they beat us with blackjacks because we refuse to talk? Or just jail us for ' being uncooperative"..Huh?

Give us the statute that allows for cops to ' haul people in ' for any reason except an arrest by probable cause. You don't know the law one bit or reality. Cops cannot kidnap people and drive them around because they are angry about attitudes. You are so WRONG!! Amazing you would suggest that as a likely result of demanding that your rights be observed!! There is NONE and you should know that. Lets say that you are right and the cops ' haul you in ' because you did not talk to them.

Then you have the right to remain silent, right? Then what good would ' hauling you in ' do? Tell us. If a person refuses to talk on the road, why would they talk at some cop station? Would the cops have the legal right to demand that you talk when they ' haul you in ', and say you cannot remain silent? You have been caught, Defcon, just quit now before you lose all credibility.

You do NOT ' become a target ' by follwing my advice!! Thats nuts!! The law you quote says this" If a person refuses to give the cop their name in certain states, that is PART of the cops case if he decides to try and arrest the person. Read the quote YOU gave here, it says that it can be considered as a part of the issue, and NOT the entire issue.

You evidently do not read what you are posting very well, it proves US right!! The cops in the case decided by the Supreme Court could not have arrested the man merely for refusing to idenify himself, there were OTHER factors in the case, which I have read, by the way, that led the cop to be suspicious, not just his identity.

NO ONE has to identify themselves to a cop unless the cop has ' articulable' reasons for believing that the person has or is committing a crime. Thats it. Cops CANNOT just line people up on the street for fun and ask for ID..no way. Nazi Germany had that, and we will too soon if the criminals in charge have their way..but for now we do NOT even have to identify ourselves unless the officer has reasons to believe that scrutiny is needed, and the cop must be able to tell WHY that scrutiny is needed; it is NOT automatic that cops get special rights to bother us.

So the laws you quoted show you are wrong and I am right, thanks for the work. NO LAW states that we must speak to ANY cop for ANY reason. Under some circumstances, and always advisable, is to offer identity and then SHUT UP. Defcon believes that you should just give in and do what the cops say and answer their questions...and he really believes that there is some legal mandate for us to do so, but there is NOT, and he has not presented it here and he never will because it does NOT EXIST!!

So, to summarize: In some states, you must give your identity to a cop that asks ffor it. After that, you are under NO LEGAL duty to answer ANY questions at all, and you are NEVER advised to do so by every attorney on the planet. Who should you listen to, all the attorneys and the written law, or Defcon? Take your choice.

Just remember that NO ONE has shown a law here that demands we talk to cops, and the only law close is that a refusal to identify may be ' taken into consideration ' as a part of an investigation, but is NOT an offense in and of itself. Got that? You can, and should, refuse to discuss ANYTHING with ANY cop; always your attorney.

People like Defcon want you to hang yourselves and ignore the attorneys and blab to the cops and answer their questions; why would someone looking out for your best interests advise something totally against the advice of all lawyers and what is written in the law? Hmm..makes one wonder whose side he is on!!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
On this topic, it's obvious you've condemned the cop already (like he didn't do that himself), so I don't really know what else to say.

Peace


Yeah, a moot point, don't ya think?


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Freenrgy2]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
On this topic, it's obvious you've condemned the cop already (like he didn't do that himself), so I don't really know what else to say.


judging by all your replies and comments, you could have fooled me


im still trying to figure out your point.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
judging by all your replies and comments, you could have fooled me


im still trying to figure out your point.


Well, just trying to weigh both sides is all.


Honestly, the reactions towards police (in general) in this thread are almost as scary as the officer in questions actions. That being said, quick draw, from the hip reactions, without knowing all the extenuating circumstances are going to do more harm than good IMO. I'd like to know more about the officer's past.

On a side note, have any of you Alex Jones listeners heard if he's touched on this video yet?

Peace



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 

WOW! You have Nazi SS cops there too. You need to sue this cop and the
department for attempted or threatened bodily harm, gross violation of your rights, you had to of felt your very life was in danger as this jerk A-Hole started making threats. I would sue for some cash a cool million would be nice, and get this Nazi jerks badge at the very least, and have a 500 mile distance lifetime restraining order put against him, he has to move 500 miles away from where ever you may be, make sure he has to submit a 1000 word article to the newspapers in the 20 largest cities in the region saying exactly what he did, how bad he was, and that he will never apply for a job as a garbage collector let along a police officer, jailer etc outside the borders of China. Get him off the streets, he is a danger to the whole of society.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by scientist
judging by all your replies and comments, you could have fooled me


im still trying to figure out your point.


Well, just trying to weigh both sides is all.


Honestly, the reactions towards police (in general) in this thread are almost as scary as the officer in questions actions. That being said, quick draw, from the hip reactions, without knowing all the extenuating circumstances are going to do more harm than good IMO. I'd like to know more about the officer's past.

On a side note, have any of you Alex Jones listeners heard if he's touched on this video yet?

Peace


Well, you have a thread about police abuse/corruption on a conspiracy website. My guess is that this, in itself, will attract critics of the police to this thread (especially ones with stories similar to this) like flies to honey.

In each case, I wasn't there, no nothing of the person's background, etc.. Who is to say that there wasn't some profiling going on as well. Some reactions may very well have been justified. Frankly, I don't know and can't speak to any of that.

My point in my posts, and I hope the point the OP was trying to make, is the out of control behavior and willingness of a police officer to make up charges and/or destroy evidence because he didn't like someone's attitude or because they stood up for their rights.

I hope and pray that the majority of our police forces nationwide have not adopted this lack of respect for their own authority and, more importantly, the law which they swear to uphold.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Well, just trying to weigh both sides is all.



hmmm.. read: I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it.



Honestly, the reactions towards police (in general) in this thread are almost as scary as the officer in questions actions. That being said, quick draw, from the hip reactions, without knowing all the extenuating circumstances are going to do more harm than good IMO. I'd like to know more about the officer's past.


really? how much more do you need to know about this officers' past, now that you hear him threatening to create charges? How many times would he have to have done that in the past, to be considered "bad" by you? Did you also feel the need to "weight both sides" on the Rodney King beating? What about the episode where the man was shot multiple times for reaching for his wallet?

It's quite obvious you do not have a point, or a message. You are just raising arguments for the sake of it. Well, here's to the ignore button!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
It's quite obvious you do not have a point, or a message. You are just raising arguments for the sake of it. Well, here's to the ignore button!


Trust me, it would be an honor!


Ignore=Ignorance

Peace



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by tsloan
I think that the fact this officer still has a job is just a drop to what is really wrong with this country. First and foremost any officer who uses his civil power like this should be fired period! Second the reason this officer is going to have a job is because of "police unions"..The unions are the ones we need to get rid of. With out the power of protection from these unions these officers will be less willing to abuse thier power. Police unions come to the aid of officers like this way to often, the unions use cases that police officers have been wronged to make clear cases for their relevance for all. IMO the unions need to be dis-banded. Police officers need to have job security in thier mind when they pull crap like this.


While I agree that there should be consequences for this officer's actions, I believe that most departments have some sort of internal investigation for these types of things. Unpaid leave or suspension is typical while the investigation is underway. Once the investigation is complete then, based on those results, several things might happen. If laws were broken, this officer could very well be charged. They could also be reprimanded, demoted, and/or fired.


Now come on Freenrgy...? I know your smarter than that.
Thats is like..no that is just like the government investigating it's self. Look if the officer has no wiggle room yes I.A. is going to give options as to what corrective course the dept. should take. But...I would think from just random news articals like this that the officer "might" get a suspension. Not many times do you hear that they were told to clean their locker out and get the hell out and not to ever work in law enforcement again. And this is what I would like to see. Officers need to fear job loss it's a corrective manner. Fear of job loss will only make one do just enough to not get fired. and in law enforcemnt that just enough could keep thousands of people from suffering from wrongful imprisonment.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan
Now come on Freenrgy...? I know your smarter than that.
Thats is like..no that is just like the government investigating it's self. Look if the officer has no wiggle room yes I.A. is going to give options as to what corrective course the dept. should take. But...I would think from just random news articals like this that the officer "might" get a suspension. Not many times do you hear that they were told to clean their locker out and get the hell out and not to ever work in law enforcement again. And this is what I would like to see. Officers need to fear job loss it's a corrective manner. Fear of job loss will only make one do just enough to not get fired. and in law enforcemnt that just enough could keep thousands of people from suffering from wrongful imprisonment.


Yes, but I think there is still some type of due process. Don't get me wrong, I think the officer should be more than reprimanded. Remember, the officer didn't break any laws either. He could have if he would have followed through with his threats to invent charges or destroy evidence.

What has his back against the wall (as well as his department i'm sure) is the video made pubic. The public's perception of him and the police department as a whole is under close scrutiny right now. Therefore, whatever happens to him will be done with that in mind. What would the public's perception be if this guy walks after what he did or attempted to do?

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Freenrgy2]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Remember, the officer didn't break any laws either. He could have if he would have followed through with his threats to invent charges or destroy evidence.


threats are against the law. threats should be doubly against the law for those entrusted with protecting the law.

mass mind control at work, ....again. how puerile.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join