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.
Originally posted by JWH44
reply to post by kosmicjack
As I said, there are bad apples, just like any other job in the world. But we do not tolerate it. If nothing else, all I want to get across is that, when you see someone in uniform with a badge, don't immediately assume that we are the Gestapo. Don't judge us all from the actions of the few that tarnish the badge.
Ramirez Peyro, a former Mexican police officer, while working as an informant for ICE, participated in the first murder, which was carried out as part of his assignment to infiltrate a cell of the ruthless Vicente Carrillo Fuentes narco-trafficking organization. After informing his ICE handlers of his role in that initial murder, Ramirez Peyro was authorized by ICE and the Department of Justice, including the office of then-U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, to continue on his informant assignment — resulting in at least 11 more murders (many of them reported to ICE in advance by Ramirez Peyro) and the near assassination of a DEA agent and his family.
... the Department of Homeland Security initiated deportation proceedings against Ramirez Peyro in 2005. His case has been tied up in the courts ever since — with an immigration judge twice ruling in favor of granting him deferral from deportation under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Justice Department-controlled Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) twice ruling against Ramirez Peyro — to date
Originally posted by JWH44
This is my first post although I have watched these forums for a couple years. I will be very open with you all and tell you that I work in a management position with a Federal Law Enforcement Agency. I am very open minded and also feel that there are many dangers facing our country that you all clearly see as well and discuss. I admire the spirit that you all display in your concern for our country's well-being.
That being said, I take great offense with the above-quoted post. Your sweeping generalization of all law enforcement officers as being jack-booted thugs is the kind of rhetoric that only shows how narrow-minded you are. You generalize us all to be power-hungry monsters, yet you disregard the dangers we face and the sacrifices we make to protect those that we serve. Am I saying that there aren't bad apples? Off course not; that would be ignorant on my behalf.
Your words only make our jobs harder.
You encourage confrontation with law enforcement with your remarks, then cry foul when you see the results. You can never imagine the headaches we endure to protect those that need it, yet you have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking everything we do.
You can spend hours replaying a video that supposedly captures someone's rights being violated without having to make a split-second life or death decision or knowing the context of the encounter.
Are there videos which do show excessive use of force? Absolutely. And of course, those are the ones that are spread around the internet like wildfire.
You may never see the video of the officer that is shot and killed just because of the uniform he wears; never hear the audio of that video as he pleads for his life and cries our with his dying breath. You never see the video of his supervisor having to tell his wife and children that their husband and father will never be coming home.
Yet we are all monsters...
Your words disgrace those officers who have given their lives to protect those that could not protect themselves.
I had to get that off my chest. I'm sure my first post, coupled with my stated profession will make me anything but popular here. I see that your post was given several stars, so obviously there are many here that feel the way you do.
To all of you I can only ask this; like any other group, avoid stereotypes and generalizations and think about the farther reaching effects of you comments.
While I cannot speak on behalf of the entire Federal Government, I can safely say that we are not here to harm you.
I have taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and I can tell you that we take that very seriously.
Thank you for your time.
Originally posted by JWH44
Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Face it, to want to be a Cop in this country, in this century, you pretty much have to be a power-hungry thug who just wants to be with the best equiped street gang. They no longer care if we respect them, only that we fear them.
Traitors. Every one of them.
Before I reply to your post, let me start by introducing myself.
This is my first post although I have watched these forums for a couple years. I will be very open with you all and tell you that I work in a management position with a Federal Law Enforcement Agency. I am very open minded and also feel that there are many dangers facing our country that you all clearly see as well and discuss. I admire the spirit that you all display in your concern for our country's well-being.
That being said, I take great offense with the above-quoted post. Your sweeping generalization of all law enforcement officers as being jack-booted thugs is the kind of rhetoric that only shows how narrow-minded you are. You generalize us all to be power-hungry monsters, yet you disregard the dangers we face and the sacrifices we make to protect those that we serve. Am I saying that there aren't bad apples? Off course not; that would be ignorant on my behalf.
Your words only make our jobs harder. You encourage confrontation with law enforcement with your remarks, then cry foul when you see the results. You can never imagine the headaches we endure to protect those that need it, yet you have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking everything we do. You can spend hours replaying a video that supposedly captures someone's rights being violated without having to make a split-second life or death decision or knowing the context of the encounter. Are there videos which do show excessive use of force? Absolutely. And of course, those are the ones that are spread around the internet like wildfire. You may never see the video of the officer that is shot and killed just because of the uniform he wears; never hear the audio of that video as he pleads for his life and cries our with his dying breath. You never see the video of his supervisor having to tell his wife and children that their husband and father will never be coming home. Yet we are all monsters...
Your words disgrace those officers who have given their lives to protect those that could not protect themselves.
I had to get that off my chest. I'm sure my first post, coupled with my stated profession will make me anything but popular here. I see that your post was given several stars, so obviously there are many here that feel the way you do. To all of you I can only ask this; like any other group, avoid stereotypes and generalizations and think about the farther reaching effects of you comments. While I cannot speak on behalf of the entire Federal Government, I can safely say that we are not here to harm you. I have taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and I can tell you that we take that very seriously.
Thank you for your time.
. Our job is to uphold the law, not break it. As I have said, I have actively investigated and seen former colleagues of mine pay the price for those sorts of acts. Believe me when I tell you; my Agency is very busy fighting corruption, violations of civil rights and abuse of power.
Originally posted by JWH44
You generalize us all to be power-hungry monsters, yet you disregard the dangers we face and the sacrifices we make to protect those that we serve.
I'd love to get arrested then fight it in court, I'd bet my money that I'd win if I had a good lawyer. I'd be breaking the law, technically but I'd want to stand up and fight for my first amendment right, a right which the officers swore to up hold amongst other rights. This is one of the reasons I honestly feel I couldn't ever become an officer because of the increasing unconstitutional acts they must perform. I guess when they took there oath they did not take it serious or had too much wax in there ears to hear.
.....When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that violates your conscience......
fija.org...
Originally posted by JWH44
I have taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and I can tell you that we take that very seriously.
Believe me when I tell you, my agency has no tolerance for violations of civil rights.
If nothing else, all I want to get across is that, when you see someone in uniform with a badge, don't immediately assume that we are the Gestapo.
Originally posted by stevegmu
How is it the National Guard was not deployed to the 9/12 DC Tea Party rally? There were far more protestors there than at the G20. Perhaps the difference, is that many of the G20 protestors want conflict, went there to cause destruction and anarchy, whereas the 9/12 protestors were peaceable. If the federal government were going to suppress the 1st Amendment, surely the Administration would have done so for the 9/12 rally. Seems to me the g20 'protestors' got exactly what they wanted.
Originally posted by SpacePunk
Originally posted by JWH44
Your words disgrace those officers who have given their lives to protect those that could not protect themselves.
Federal law enforcement is quite different than local law enforcement. When people talk about 'police' they refer to the local agencies, county, and city. Federal and state law enforcement have a larger view.
If you wish to refer to 'disgrace' of officers that have gone by, I would say that the actions of officers that violate the Constitution of the United States disgrace all those officers more than anybody that exercises his/her free speech could. To put it honestly, the police need to clean up their own ranks of bad officers, or those bad officers will give the citizens impetus to clean up their ranks for them.
Originally posted by stevegmu
How is it the National Guard was not deployed to the 9/12 DC Tea Party rally? There were far more protestors there than at the G20. Perhaps the difference, is that many of the G20 protestors want conflict, went there to cause destruction and anarchy, whereas the 9/12 protestors were peaceable. If the federal government were going to suppress the 1st Amendment, surely the Administration would have done so for the 9/12 rally. Seems to me the g20 'protestors' got exactly what they wanted.