Haven't I seen this thread elsewhere already? I'm searching and not finding anything but I thought I saw it on the main page for a short while.

I hope you need a cop one day and they tell you that they have gotten all the profit they need, so they wont be coming.

Originally posted by Dronetek
I hope you need a cop one day and they tell you that they have gotten all the profit they need, so they wont be coming.

The world is not black and white and cops are not all bad at all. The problem is the police state and the military industrial complex are a metastisizing phenomena that feeds upon its fruits only to grow larger and larger. Maybe you won't feel it until they come to take your guns away.

I question the truth content of this story. Having worked in Law enforcement, I see several misrepresentations in this:

The ACLU revealed that the police refused those arrested access to attorneys.

You only have a constitutional right to an attorney whille being questioned. If you are not being questioned, there's no right to an attorney. Prisoners are not normally given access to attorneys until they have been formally arraigned. So the above statement could be equally be applied to every person arrested in the United States.

Police did not let detainees use phones unless they posted their own bonds,

Most states provide for access to phones only after a certain number of hours of being held. If you have the cash in your pocket to post your own bond (what, a $100 for a misdemeanor) then you don't need a phone call . . . because you'd be released on bond at that point. In Texas, it has been the rule that you only need access to phones if you've been incarcerated more than 4 hours. Texas allows that to be delayed if the police determine that you are intoxicated or otherwise belligerant.

Likewise, if the police have so many arrestees they cannot process them all (like protestors for instance), the clock usually starts running only after the prisoners are formally booked, which can take hours . . .

and even failed to provide shoes, in one case marching a protester into court in bare feet and leg shackles.

Was the courtroome paved in broken glass? Why is this a problem? Shoes are a place where many prisoners hide weapons. If this was standard practice for the arraigning court, I don't see the problem. After all, you do have a constitional right to . . . . shoes?

Police are said to have tricked protesters into pleading guilty, by giving them the impression they had to plead guilty in order to post bond or make a phone call.

You'll need EVIDENCE to make me believe this one. Generally, members of an organization who are arrested will often claim they "were tricked" when it comes out later that they pled guilty.

The fact is, you're not required to SIGN anything when you are charged. The only time a piece of paper would matter, would be when the charges are read in front of a magistrate. So, somewhere in Denver, there is a magistrate who purportedly saw prisoners lied to, during their reading of their charges. Prove that one, and then I'll believe it.

Did you ever watch The Sopranos? "Gee Tony, I didn't really plead guilty---they tricked me into it!!!!"


If you read the original articles, their "proof" that detainees were tricked into pleading guilty seems to be that they were charged using pre-printed forms . . . Anybody here ever get a traffic ticket that WASN'T a pre-printed, circle-one, type form?

Maybe the statements from the article are not mostly technically false, but they are definitely out of context, and written to manipulate readers unfamiliar with the judicial process.

all the best.
.

haha, Protester 101 is to know what happens when you get arrested. If they actually fell for the police trick I would strongly urge them to find a new profession. Protesting may be a little too much for them.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Having worked in Law enforcement,

I think you will not make many friends starting your post with this.

As I read your post all I could think of was that it looked rather like what one of the arresting officers would say to save his own skin.

I think the fact that the prison was erected in the first place is a disgrace, let alone making excuses for it.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft





Did you ever watch The Sopranos? "Gee Tony, I didn't really plead guilty---they tricked me into it!!!!"




.

That's a pretty good analogy in reference to coppers, they ARE just like a mafia group led by the master criminals...

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Having worked in Law enforcement,

I think you will not make many friends starting your post with this.

Why is that? do you believe that all law enforcement are criminals? I like to get to know someone as an individual before assuming or accusing them of something.

I bet if these people didn't protest they would have had a better chance of not getting arrested in the first place and besides, in this day and age can you honestly believe that the average citizen doesn't know their rights when being arrested?

Police officers have one of the most thankless jobs that I can think of. Are there bad ones? of course there are but I believe lumping them all in the "bad" section is a dangerous way of thinking.

Originally posted by Anjin

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Having worked in Law enforcement,

I think you will not make many friends starting your post with this.

Why is that? do you believe that all law enforcement are criminals? I like to get to know someone as an individual before assuming or accusing them of something.

I bet if these people didn't protest they would have had a better chance of not getting arrested in the first place and besides, in this day and age can you honestly believe that the average citizen doesn't know their rights when being arrested?

Police officers have one of the most thankless jobs that I can think of. Are there bad ones? of course there are but I believe lumping them all in the "bad" section is a dangerous way of thinking.

Uhh, yeah. The majority of people are totally unaware of their rights. How many people willingly consent to searches? How many of those think they have to?

edit: nevermind, you said when being arrested

[edit on 29-8-2008 by angrysniper]

Originally posted by Anjin
Why is that? do you believe that all law enforcement are criminals? I like to get to know someone as an individual before assuming or accusing them of something.

Never at any point in time did I say all law enforcement are criminals. My grandfather was a Detective who left the force because he was disgusted at the corruption and the sheer lack of caring. I simply made the point that starting a post with that sentence in a thread which is clearly anti-law enforcement was not going to make him any friends. How you misconstrued that is a mystery.

I bet if these people didn't protest they would have had a better chance of not getting arrested in the first place

So you are saying that instead of voicing our objections we just sit back and lump it? That and your post is simply pointing out the obvious, its not exactly a revelation. That kind of talk makes me hope you are not in a position of power.

Originally posted by Dronetek
I hope you need a cop one day and they tell you that they have gotten all the profit they need, so they wont be coming.

Sounds like a threat to me. I am not denying cops dont do great things everyday; and YOU cant deny law-enforcement is a for-profit business which is more at the whim of the dollar than the law or public good.

The police act as maintainers of the status quo. In keeping the rich rich and safe.

Originally posted by Anjin
I bet if these people didn't protest they would have had a better chance of not getting arrested in the first place and besides, in this day and age can you honestly believe that the average citizen doesn't know their rights when being arrested?

That is quite an un-American statement.
And most people dont know their true rights, and also judgment gets clouded when you are all alone in jail. The police have years of training and tricks to "persuade/intimidate" you to give up something which will implicate you.

Hilarious. Instead of responding to the actual CONTENT I posted, you worry about whether someone who quit being a LEO a decade ago can be allowed into the debate.

The source article is standard ACLU boilerplate, but it's the kind of smear you'd expect against the republicans, not against liberals themselves. Anyone care to address why the ACLU is taking on the democrat party?

.