"Kop Busters" in Odessa, TX

page: 2
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
the judge, and the district attorney are just as guilty, and should be forceably removed by the the U.S. justice department. this is exactly the reason the 4th amendment was put into the constitution. these people need to be made an example of. the presumption of guilt by unverified evidence, followed by a swat team with loaded and drawn automatic weapons busting down the doors of a residence, shows that the district attorney and the judge have become lawless and therefore disqualifies them for their jobs.




posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It'd be great to see HBO make a feature based on Cooper. Maybe in a few more years there'll be great story to tell.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
i think the united states dept. of justice should set up a fund for just this type of activity. why do people expect regular civilians to obey the law, when the very people that are charged to enforce it, are breaking the law.
i have read about more cases like this in the last few years, and local government entities get a slap on the wrist. prosecutors and judges that are so cavalier and unlawful with their decisions, should simply be put in prison. the good and decent prosecutors and judges, that work tirelessly to uphold strick guildlines with respect to law enforcement, are the ones that are being made to look like gestapo goons, and should openly want to rid their respected and admired profession of these vermin.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
well, lol...

Barry Cooper's website, nevergetbusted.com, has had it's account suspended.

so Barry Cooper's website has been taken down.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
well, lol...

Barry Cooper's website, nevergetbusted.com, has had it's account suspended.

so Barry Cooper's website has been taken down.


No,
the forum pages are still up, the main site pages are being hit hard.
FORUM LINK



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Massgirl


I hope they are not going to spend most of the time trying to get back at Kop Buster and focus on the LEO's that started this investigation. If there is corruption, punish the officers that broke the law!

There are times when the ends don't justify the means.



they won't do much to the cops, i don't think. Or the other LEO's (DA, Judges).

Out here we have the "Good ol boy" network going on.

BTW, in that video, Jay Hendricks is the news anchor. I can't stand him.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I thought you guys might love to take a gander at this. Here's the raw footage from the raid:



Look at their faces when the see the poster!


-Ign0RanT



[edit on 7-12-2008 by Ign0rant]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I'm not deeply familiar with Cooper and Kop Busters, but I hope it really is about the privacy violation and circumvention of due process, and not just about drugs. On the surface, this one at least appears to be righteous though, so good on them.

If these cops still have jobs next year, the people of Odessa will need to take a good long look at themselves and decide if they're really comfortable living under the United States Constitution. If they want to cops who act like federales, all they gotta do is call me and I'll hire on to help them move that town across the border at a very reasonable price.

An abberation or two is to be expected in any endeavor, including law enforcement (maybe three or four if the government is running that endeavor) but if the government habitually sends armed men into the homes of innocent citizens (and some would say it does), then it's only a matter of time until citizens start to decide that the right of self defense applies to that situation. That is a very realistic worst case scenario which would probably destroy this country. Hopefully law enforcement agencies understand that and accept it as a reason why the constitution must override all law enforcement concerns (unless of course they think that preventing narcotics crime is more important than preventing a revolution).

As for the judge and the DA, I would certainly agree with jimmyx that they must be investigated, however I wouldn't say that they must be sacked before hearing all of the facts. IF everything shown to those people could honestly be appraised as true by a reasonable person, then so be it, they should stay.
Now when I say "could honestly be appraised as true by a reasonable person" I mean that they had never caught these cops in a lie before, and they were presented with an informant who had not given bad info before, etc.
If our judicial system can't act based on the uncontradicted testimony of people who have not discredited themselves in the past, it would be damaging to criminal defenses and it would virtually destroy the civil courts.


I also hope that copbusters has the legal resources to actually follow up. It's nice to have a show online and raise awareness, but what is really needed at this stage of the game is a team of darn good lawyers and darn good investigators who will turn every record and every witness upside down to find out EXACTLY how the police committed this crime, how wide spread it is, how many people are in jail because of past offenses, and where the police learned to do it (because I'm guessing this is a widespread technique, not something Odessa police cooked up on the fly).


Last bit of food for thought: As I've said before, I believe that the willfull and malicious subversion of a citizens constitutional rights is necessarily a subversion of the American system of constitution and government, and therefore should be included in the legal definition of treason. I find it extremely odd that tyranny is not a capital offense in America of all places.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I've got to doff my cap to the guy for this.

However, how does this stand regarding 'entrapment' in Texas? Surely this is 'entrapment' of sorts?


No, I don't think it is entrapment in the literal sense. I think it is a case of the police agency being over zealous and criminal in their invasion of privacy and property.
en.wikipedia.org...


Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal guilt.


I believe the reason that this 'Sting' was set up was because the police agency had no reason to be there unless they were acting illegally in pursuit of drug cases.

I agree though, I doubt anything will happen here. I wish it would. I would hope that all the police involved would lose their jobs, and then also be sued for violating civil rights.
Who polices the police?
DocMoreau



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocMoreau

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I've got to doff my cap to the guy for this.

However, how does this stand regarding 'entrapment' in Texas? Surely this is 'entrapment' of sorts?


No, I don't think it is entrapment in the literal sense. I think it is a case of the police agency being over zealous and criminal in their invasion of privacy and property.
en.wikipedia.org...


Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal guilt.


I believe the reason that this 'Sting' was set up was because the police agency had no reason to be there unless they were acting illegally in pursuit of drug cases.

I agree though, I doubt anything will happen here. I wish it would. I would hope that all the police involved would lose their jobs, and then also be sued for violating civil rights.
Who polices the police?
DocMoreau



Problem is the folks doing the raid are just the man power.

The sit down in a briefing room their superior comes in and tells them where their going and what their looking for and that's it.

The question is who is giving the orders to them to do this.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Before you all start screaming about this, wait until you hear the whole story.
IF the cops used illegal means to secure a search warrant, then by all means they should be nailed for it.
The problem for the guy running kopbusters and this whole thing though seems to have a vested interest in "catching the police doing something illegal".
All he would have to do is leak a little story to the right people and he could provoke this.
Having said that though, I repeat, if they did engage in Illegal means to get the warrant, they need to get the Hammer.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Barry Cooper is my new hero, right up there with Alex Jones.

Those who bring us the truth I will be eternally grateful for.

Seems like he used to bust growers themselves and he was sorry for it, saying he ruined lives, this is his way of putting in his 5 dollars to help improve humanity, and that's a million times better than anyone who puts in his or her two cents.

But money is money and it adds up, if its just two cents there and there.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by oldcop911
Before you all start screaming about this, wait until you hear the whole story.
IF the cops used illegal means to secure a search warrant, then by all means they should be nailed for it.
The problem for the guy running kopbusters and this whole thing though seems to have a vested interest in "catching the police doing something illegal".
All he would have to do is leak a little story to the right people and he could provoke this.
Having said that though, I repeat, if they did engage in Illegal means to get the warrant, they need to get the Hammer.


No even just hear say is not considered evidence enough to issue a warrant if it was people would be getting busted all the time for, "I think he's doing this or that" Hence the reason for sting operations and getting the proof they need to be busted otherwise there would be no reason for conducting a sting operation.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
It is my understanding that a search warrant can be issued if there is credible evidence (yes, it includes what you are told) that a felony is being commited. This could be from a person who has given the Police tips that were found to be true in the past, or that would be in position to have reasonably known the information. If the Police were tipped by someone that has given them good info in the past, then this would probably in the Judge's mind justify the warrant.
I'm not bashing the guy, just saying that y'all should wait and get all of the facts before immediately assuming that the Cops are doing illegal crap.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
There is no legitimate way that I can come up with for the cops to get a warrant for a place that not only isn't really a growing operation, but in fact is a sting, without Kop Busters actually being guilty of a crime.

An informant who reports being told something rather than personally observing something cannot give admissable testimony- it is hearsay as Darthorious said. He would have to observe something on his own.

The only way I can see it being legit is if Kop Busters actually DID commit a drug crime and then cleaned up the evidence in a hurry to sucker the cops. That seems unlikely, as the cops would have immediately realized what had happened and nailed Cooper on the crime that was used as "bait", in order to protect themselves.

So that's all I've got- either Kop Busters committed a crime or the Cops did- and so far it looks like the cops did.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by oldcop911
It is my understanding that a search warrant can be issued if there is credible evidence (yes, it includes what you are told) that a felony is being commited. This could be from a person who has given the Police tips that were found to be true in the past, or that would be in position to have reasonably known the information. If the Police were tipped by someone that has given them good info in the past, then this would probably in the Judge's mind justify the warrant.
I'm not bashing the guy, just saying that y'all should wait and get all of the facts before immediately assuming that the Cops are doing illegal crap.


I know your not attacking the guy or anything I'm just trying to say that in order for a warrant you need probable cause and probable cause can be from hear say if supported by other evidence, or at least that's what I was taught but then again that was way back in yester year unless that has been changed.

The supported by other evidence is what I'm wondering about.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Mea Culpa, I just said something that is not entirely true. Hearsay can be used for a search warrant IF it is supported in certain ways. It must be noted however that the qualifications for a warrant based on hearsay are such that it would be very difficult to obtain a hearsay warrant against an innocent person unless either the informant, the officers handling the informant, or the district attorney engaged in the calculated fabrication of false testimony.

www.6thcoa.courts.state.tx.us...


In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that an affidavit for a search warrant may be based upon hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant. However, if based upon hearsay, the issuing magistrate must (1) be informed of the underlying circumstances from which it can be determined that the affiant received his information in a "reliable" way, and the magistrate must also (2) be informed of specific factual allegations from which the affiant concluded the source was "credible" or his information "reliable." The above two requirements are commonly known as the "two-pronged test" of Aguilar. (1)



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
So can a hearsay witness testimony be enough to warrant a fly by with a FLR camera, which would then be enough probable cause to to issue a search warrant on the property?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I must really, really be missing something here.

The police suspected that a grow operation was taking place, they obtained a warrant, and then raided the house. As soon as they discovered that it was just christmas trees, they started exiting the building (or at least were going to until they saw the stupid poster by mr. "kopbuster", which they rightfully laughed at.)


What law exactly did the officers break? They did everything by the book.

This thread is silly, and this whole "kopbusters" thing is stupid and they obviously have no clue what they are doing. Stop making stuff up. The police here broke no laws and didn't do anything wrong, if you are going to accuse them of doing so then at the very LEAST, say what they did wrong?







[edit on 7-12-2008 by SuperTruper]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by SuperTruper]





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join