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: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


I understand Dr. Love. I can answer your direct questions but you can not answer my mine. I think you right and that we all can see who's logic is flawed.

If I am picking you up after work, do I not NEED to be there in order to do it?

Is a bank who installs security cameras asking to be robbed? If the answer to that is no, then why would this kid be "looking for trouble" by having a camera installed in his car? It couldn't simply being a case of protecting yourself just like a bank, store, or any place that uses cameras?




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
did you send this to any news outlet?
are you pressing charges against they police dept?
get yourself a lawyer... or take the law into your own hands.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
" When he realized he was getting nowhere". SEE! Thats the point!! The cop has NO RIGHT to GET ANYWHERE!! What about that is so hard to comprehend? Just because some flatfoot cop doesn't LIKE the answers he gets, does NOT mean that he has a right to do what he did!! The cops HAVE NO RIGHTS other than those WE ALLOW them to exercise by giving up OUR RIGHTS!!

Now do you see? See how important this point is? You seem to think that if some cop does not get what he wants from a citizen that this means that he can then violate the law and the Constitutional Rights of a citizen in order to ' get somewhere". The cop was not ' getting anywhere ' for one reason and one reason only: He was not satisfied with the fact that the kid did not give up his rights and answers questions. The filthy scum cop was angry because the kid actually had the nerve to take a stand and demonstrate his rights, at least to a degree. The transcript would have been a lot different had it been me in that car, guaranteed.

We do NOT have to legally speak to ANY cop at ANY time whatsoever; NO LAW says that we do. However, it often is best to simply tell them that you are not breaking any laws and you will not make any statements without an attorney. Let them rant and rave and threaten and bully and lie all they want; if they have even an ounce of sense, they will smell a rat and know that they are about to not only lose a case but get a complaint on their file and a lawsuit as well for civil rights violations and perhaps even state or local criminal violations.

Cops HATE to be questioned by the FBI, to whom it is a felony to lie to...cops lie so much and so often that when they HAVE to tell the truth they get upset and they don't like it one bit. They will avoid it if possible by leaving the people alone who exude confidence and seem to be dead serious about their rights and using them . If a cop shows a bad attitude to you, turn it right around on them; take notes as to their names and badge numbers, the time of day..the less you say and the more you write, the more nervous the filthy cops will be and they will think twice about messing with you.

Cops by nature do what bullies always do: They look for weak and submissive types to torture and abuse..they get a kick out of it..I know it is sick, but its a fact of life. Cops tend to be the types that enjoy hurting others, twisting handcuffs and using weapons and mace to inflict pain..but they are not stupid enough to try that crap on a person that will no doubt make life difficult for them and make then answer for their crimes against us. Cops are the worst criminals out there; just Google ' police misconduct' or ' ' police kill ' and see the incredible number of horror stories out there, all true.

There are attorneys that make entire careers from police abuse of citizens; that is how common and widespread it is. Sickening, isn't it? Makes a decent and civil person disgusted and appalled to know that the cops who are supposed to be protecting us are in fact out there depriving citizens of their rights on a routine basis, as part of their training..an accepted way of ' doing business' for them.The ONLY way we can survive and win with these brutes and scum in uniforms is to make sure we have adequate proof of our actions and a determination to remain confident and quiet and observant while demanding that ALL of our Constitutional Rights are being observed fully and completely.

I urge everyone, without exception, to carry at least a video camera with audio or a cell phone camera or some audio recording, all perfectly legal in every state,( the lawless pigs false arrests notwithstanding ) and make sure it is rolling if you see a porker behind you..show your driving, your speed, using turn signals..if the camera cannot show these things, you can relate them vocally as it happens, like " I am going 45 mph and a police car is behind me. It is 3:35 pm on Sept. 15th, and I am not intoxicated, amd not swerving, and I am obeying all traffic laws. Uh oh, the police car is pulling me over. I am now signaling with my right turn signal and pulling over at a safe spot. I will leave my hands on the wheel and wait for the officer."

Hopefully the camera would be pointed across the drivers seat and into the drivers window to see and hear the cop at the car door. Have the zoom all the way back. If the cop asks ANY questions, you are NOT obliged to answer them. Just give him the correct papers and shut up. Let the camera record what happens as you do the right thing: " Cop: Is that video camera on that seat turned on Sir?" YOU: " I never make any statements without the advice of my attorney, officer". If you refuse to answer any questions, then several good things result: One, you cannot say the WRONG THING and incriminate yourself. TWO: You place the cop in a very uncomfortable position: He has to break the law and place himself in a position to be sued in order to stop you from recording him, and without your replies to use against you, the cop is at a great disadvantage.

Remember, the cops use your words to lie to you and will twist what you say. If they cannot do this, all they can do is things that they KNOW will be reviewed with an eye towards a lawsuit by you. If you are savvy enough to never play their game, you force their hand; either they violate your rights, or they let you go. MOST of the time they will let you go. Most cops do not want the scrutiny that close observation to their ' work ' brings, because they break the law and lie so much.

The cops know that they have a serious person on their hands when you stay quiet, calm and cool, and refuse to answer any questions, merely because it is your right to do so, and upon the advice of counsel. No attorney will advise a client to talk to cops..NEVER!! They always, always want to be the ones to do the talking; that is because the attorneys play the same game the cops do and much better; the attorneys actually KNOW the law and expect it to be followed. Cops know the law and expect it to bend for them to suit their whims. Only a lawyer can navigate the lies and get things done in the system.

Make it easy for your lawyer; if the cops have to testify that all you did was give your ID and shut up, they will have a hard time trying to convince anyone that you said or did something that gave the cops cause to further bother you. You can WIN if you stand firm call their bluff.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocGonzo
The cop has a right to check up on the situation to some degree.


Normally I would agree with this statement, however this cop is out of his jurisdiction.

Normally I would agree that the kid could be considered a "suspicious vehicle" however it is obvious the cop is just using it as an excuse since at first he gave 3 other reasons at first, reason which were a complete and total fabrication of the facts.

You can see the instrument panel. The kid was not speeding, he did use his turn signal. He did everything right. So why would he be out of line for asking the cop to explain himself?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I ask any of you once again:

Ok, I'll take the bait.


Originally posted by Dr Love
"It can always be argued that the kid has a RIGHT to be there, but does he really NEED to be there.

Is that up for you or I to decide? Is that up for the officer to decide? I'm assuming that you'll say yes to that question, however, law enforcement doesn't have the right to decide, either. He (as well with other law enforcement) need probable cause... not just a hot head.


Originally posted by Dr Love
He's got a camera rolling for cryin' out loud.

He stated his case in the video. It was there for "security purposes", of which he rightfully did, considering the "previous engagement" with law enforcement that he described in the video.


Originally posted by Dr Love
He was actively LOOKING for something to happen.

I believe he was actively traveling to his destination, of which in the US, we're all free to do.


Originally posted by Dr Love
If he was there with the intent to sell drugs, before he actually makes any transaction, does he have a RIGHT to be there???

Public property... I'm guessing yes. Did this officer have a right to question it? Sure... Did the officer have probable cause to pursue the driver? Nope. Did the officer have a hot head? Yep. Did the officer abuse his law enforcement powers? Yep.


Originally posted by Dr Love
The cop said people have been stealing cars and whatnot out of that parking lot."


Big deal. If the parking lot was such an issue, why wasn't it closed to public access beforehand?



Originally posted by Dr Love
You know what, one day when our police officers are working in conjunction with our military, sweeping the streets and peoples' homes, this pervasive attitude of hating cops is all going to come back and bite us in the rear. Does this officer have a history of this sort of behavior?

So it would be better that the general populous doesn't protect themselves from overzealous, power abusing police officers?

I take it you're all for Martial Law in the US?

[edit on 9/10/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen
I understand Dr. Love. I can answer your direct questions but you can not answer my mine. I think you right and that we all can see who's logic is flawed.


Not at all, it's just that you reach a point to where you know you're not going to change someone else's opinion, and vice-versa. I could keeping repeating myself and so could you, but nothing's gonna change. I've reached my limit, and I've done it cordially. There's nothing else I can say.

Peace


[edit on 10-9-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Oh I watched the whole thing. It's just a difference of opinion.

Ah... yeah.
A difference of opinion when the cop threatens to fake up charges to lay against someone who has done nothing wrong?

That's abuse of power.
Under NO circumstances should a cop threaten.
Under NO circumstances should a cop fake up charges.
Under NO circumstances should this cop be allowed to keep his job.

I hope he is made an example of.

(Man, this sure makes me feel better about the cops I've dealt with up here in Canuckida. Even the worst ones I've encountered weren't anywhere near as stupid/abusive as this tool. And I do have a tendency to bring up points of law with them)



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Infoholic
 



Why bother? I took the bait as well but Dr Love feels that he does not have to respond to a direct question or even give the same courtesy that he was given.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I am asking that you (Dr Love) explain your position. Obviously it is not something that you can do or else you wouldn't be taking your ball and going home.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
I take it you're all for Martial Law in the US?


I'll let my history of posting here speak for itself.

Peace



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen
Normally I would agree with this statement, however this cop is out of his jurisdiction.


Ah yeah,you are right.I forgot the part about him being out of his jurisdiction.Even so,even if you excuse that and say the cop was trying to do his job,to me the worst part of the whole episode is the way he threatened to make up charges.Having been in a similar situation there is a feeling of dread that comes over you like "Who's gonna believe MY word against a cop's?".



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
you know, i would love to protest this... but then I would have to get a permit...



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocGonzo
Having been in a similar situation there is a feeling of dread that comes over you like "Who's gonna believe MY word against a cop's?".


The person in the video was placed into that exact situation before, of which he described...

That's why he had the camera running.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


I completely understand that feeling. The fact is if it is a case where it is YOUR word against the word of a police offer, you will lose. The cops know this as well which is part of why you have cases like this where an officer abuses his power. Take Note: NOT ALL OFFICERS are bad, however there are plenty of documented cases that would indicate that there are more than enough who are.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I did explain my position and you replied with:


So what if he is driving around with a camera on! That does not mean he is trying to cause trouble. Is the bank trying to get robbed by installing security cameras? That logic is ridiculous on the most basic of levels.

....Lets say he was selling drugs (which he wasn't) would he still have a right to be there? In the US of A the answer is yes. Until he actually commits the crime it is his right to be there.


How can I argue with that. There's no middle ground, or room for interpretation in your logic. The fact that he's driving around with a camera running isn't even odd to you in the least. You actually compare it to a banking institution installing cameras for surveillance. HOW CAN I ARGUE WITH THAT LOGIC, or IMO lack there of?????? What's the point?

Peace



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocGonzo
"Who's gonna believe MY word against a cop's?".


I believe that's the whole point of having the cameras installed. I'm loving this.

I't's ok for big brother to film us, but whhen we try to film back, they hate it.

"Who watches the watchers?"



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
The person in the video was placed into that exact situation before, of which he described...

That's why he had the camera running.


And so I ask, is it not odd for this guy to have the same thing happen to him again when most of the population has never had it happen to them once. At what point does personal responsibility factor into the equation?

Peace



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

I just mentioned that because we all went through the same maturity process and I was just as guilty as the guy in the video when I was his age as far as thinking I knew everything.

I'm not saying the cop was right, maybe he was having a really bad night and then this schmo comes along to top the whole thing off, I don't know, but I can understand it to a degree.

Peace


right, because stating our rights to the police is being immature?

So would you say that doing anything other than what you are explicitly told by a police officer is immature, and due to a know-it-all attitude?




And so I ask, is it not odd for this guy to have the same thing happen to him again when most of the population has never had it happen to them once. At what point does personal responsibility factor into the equation?


ah, i see the grand assumptions never stop around here.. How many people did you survey before you came to your finding that 'most of the population has never had it happen to them once?'

[edit on 10-9-2007 by scientist]




The fact that he's driving around with a camera running isn't even odd to you in the least.


apparently anything "odd" is now illegal and cause for arrest? I would say that calling yourself Dr. Love is odd. Now please assume the position.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by scientist]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Dr Love: The cop said people have been stealing cars and whatnot out of that parking lot.

Real life is not black and white.


maybe i missed something but this point seems moot considering i didn't see any other cars in the parking lot to steal. the only explanation of this kid parking there would be either to wait for someone or sit there and listen to his music. neither one seems very insidious - especially without any evidence of a drug deal or the like going down. this instance seems pretty black and white to me. that cop is going to have a VERY hard time talking his way out of that one. the kid remained calm at all times and at the very least did not warrant the cop screaming at him. not sure how any of this could be debateable when there's hard evidence right there that we've all seen.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
How can I argue with that. There's no middle ground, or room for interpretation in your logic. The fact that he's driving around with a camera running isn't even odd to you in the least. You actually compare it to a banking institution installing cameras for surveillance. HOW CAN I ARGUE WITH THAT LOGIC, or IMO lack there of?????? What's the point?


Obviously, you've never been racially profiled from the cops. Or youthfully profiled I should say. I admire this kid for standing up to the pig and installing cameras. BTW, my brother's a cop.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
And so I ask, is it not odd for this guy to have the same thing happen to him again when most of the population has never had it happen to them once. At what point does personal responsibility factor into the equation?


How do you know this kid doesn't have a dead head sticker on his car or something.

BTW, people, that's the easiest way to get harrassed by the cops. Take the dead stickers off your cars and they won't be able to profile you.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join