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.

 

State Trooper Throwing Owner Off His Own Property

page: 9
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 

You don't have to be on YOUR property to have rights of passage. If there is no complaint, no No Trespassing signs, or reason to believe he was invading another's domain, WTF was the cop doing there.
Was he just in the neighborhood?
Not enough info. This is an amusement.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 


Exactly, the last time Americans had any freedom was when the last of our founding fathers died. From then on it was a downward spiral to where we are. We have no recourse due to the system that has been set up. They either get you with taxes, civil or criminal offenses or they just outright make you disappear. If you try to right the situation your in they use "lawful" ways to shut you up and shut you down.

The whole court system is ridiculous, our founding fathers said if there are more laws then one man can learn in a lifetime then there is no freedom in that society. We have to many redundant laws and not enough laws that actually protect citizens and our country.

Maybe it's best to just start over hit the reset button and start back from our founding documents, maybe make some adjustments to them to prevent whats corrupted our society over the past 185 years.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkingSleipner
 


In actuality the Brits were losing money on the defense of the colonies. They were looking to recoup their losses. The tax levies were pretty gentle.
A majority of the founding fathers were in debt and looking to escape those obligations.
It was all about who was going to pay.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I would say it's the reform of training new police officers that's responsable for this behavior.

they dont have common sense anymore and some of them should not be cops.

Uphold the law my *ss !

they work by the book...so go ahead, tease old granma and kids too.If you do something wrong you can always go see you dept psychologist.

"It's alright your a nice cop". Idont blame him he's been trained to be a good dog.

edit coz im being polite

[edit on 30-6-2010 by SSimon]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
RESIST!!! Do NOT comply!! Hats-off, to the OP, GREAT FIND!
Yes, I respect that man, and his friend! It takes a LOT of guts, to "stand-up", to the pigs. We HAVE been conditioned, "to obey". But- for some reason (natural selection??), it just DIDN'T TAKE, for some of us!!

The names, addresses, and names of spouses/children, and ALL personal info of ALL public employees, should be public information. ESPECIALLY PIGS!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by largo
reply to post by LadySkadi
 

You don't have to be on YOUR property to have rights of passage. If there is no complaint, no No Trespassing signs, or reason to believe he was invading another's domain, WTF was the cop doing there.
Was he just in the neighborhood?
Not enough info. This is an amusement.


Perhaps you missed the info regarding the court case?

It's a few pages back. Why not read that. It will explain what you need to know.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by largo
 


I never said they were making a profit, i said they were using a system to the degradation of the colonists. And yes they were in debt, doesn't that situation seem a bit familiar to today's time?

Thank you for validating my posts



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I have stumbled upon a nice post that fits well with this threads starting issues and is as follows:

"Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

The Federalist No. 78
The Judiciary Department
Independent Journal
Saturday, June 14, 1788
~[Alexander Hamilton]~

edit to add:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. — Daniel Webster

I feel it not a weakness to quote good men. They have gone this way before me and hath good knowledge and experience beyond my own in this stead. May we listen to the wisdom of the ages before us with balance to our own and feel not that we are more then those who have gone before us. Look to your history to show the path you should choose.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by LurkingSleipner]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 


Thats why you buy a stun gun for yourself, so when these idiot cops mess with you you zap them with 950,000 volts and make them dance.

Not all states will let you own stun guns but its legal in my state. Its also legal to own and drive a TANK. But I don't have one of those, but I do own a stun gun. And have used it to protect myself in the past.

Also the guy should have told the cop he was the owner..




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Steal7h
 


yea, lemme tell you, NZ is such a war machine



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Sad story. Man worked his whole life, the world changed, now he's losing everything.

I find it interesting that this man is getting fined to the point of bankruptcy for polluting the land he worked on, for dumping a relatively small amount of toxic stuff onto the ground. But BP pollutes an entire OCEAN and they are in no danger of losing their business due to fines. In fact, the only thing they are doing is "paying for cleanup". No fines for BP, yet, and even when they do get fined, it's a fraction of what they are worth and make each year.

Messed up world we live in.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by harrytuttle]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
As stated and PROVEN back on page 3 of this thread, Mr. Lambert WAS given a court order to stay off the property...Do any of you bother to read through the threads before jumping on the bandwagon? What do you think, police officers carry a filing cabinet in their back pocket for all those court orders THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SERVED to people to stay away from someone or something...LISTEN to the video again,,,cop states he knows Lambert has seen the court order....get real people, stop warping this thing out beyond the realm of rational thought and previous posts proving such matters....READ, READ, READ folks...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rockhndr
 


Lol. I agree and starred.

The situation sucks, for the guy, but the anger on this thread is misdirected. The cop is not the problem. Perhaps a closer look at the actual circumstances and how they played out in the system would elicit better discussion? Perhaps that's too much to expect from many posters? Don't know anymore.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


LOL....agree it's a sad situation and Thank-you
2nd line....I need a drink....



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rockhndr
 

reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Indeed it is to bad, I'm just curious why you see fit to focus on the elderly gentleman who has worked hard all his life for his family to support them and offer food and shelter. Worked hard for what he has earned and up until recently, due to legislation out of his control, he has been found as a criminal.

All because some politician and their bureaucrat friends want to legislate themselves some more funds to use for their personal uses or for their pet projects.

Either way if we don't question the initial circumstance and focus instead on the victim then we are no better then the politicians who cause this problem. Anytime a law is created and someone is made to be a criminal form that law exclusively then it is an unethical and amoral law.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkingSleipner
 


I am focused on the entire situation.

The guy's stance, the courts stance.

I could care less about the cop.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuhail

Since we have no proof it was the offenders property and we have no real explaination of what prompted the Trooper to actually stop there (other than his statement about walking down the Interstate), there are really no conclusions to be had from this. I dig the old man's moxie too and the cop was pretty programmed to expect instant fear from anyone he came across, but, hell, they're trained to take a control of any given situation...which he tried to....much to our entertainment.

But, that's all this video is. Entertainment.

My $.02

Cuhail


Americans are conditioned to mindlessly draw certain conclusions when presented with an interaction between a police officer and a citizen. You automatically assumed that the elderly gentleman has done something wrong. You refer to him as "the offender" just becasue he is the target of the trooper's attention. But there is nothing in this video from which you can fairly conclude he did anything illegal.

This trooper should politely given the elderly man detailed information about the "order" which the officer claims he was there to enforce. But the trooper couldn't bother himself to take a couple minutes to do that. He just expects the man to take his word that such an "order" exists.

The officer says no more than that his supervisor told him there was such an "order". That doesn't authorize the trooper to arrest the man.

Bassed on what happened here, it is likely there isn't an order. If there was one it would be logged in the law enforcement computer system and the trooper could pull it up on his cruiser's computer screen or he would have a copy of it in hand.

Finally, the officer had no authority whatsoever to require the person with the video camera to stop recording.


[edit on 6/30/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Very good point, but my understanding is he BROKE THE LAW by dumping oil, gas, etc. into a drainage ditch, and also did not file the proper paperwork for running his business even after being told he needed to do so...he basically ignored, or rather tried to circumnavigate the system through his own methods that did not follow laws of his state...if you break the law, or miss filing deadlines, you betcha they're going to be looking at you....how is any of that the officers fault for enforcing a court order placed upon the law-breaker? and now, he tries to come forward to the public for sympathy appeal for something HE should have done to keep his business in check and compliant.....just my opinion, and we all know what people think of those...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a local cop followed my boss and me for 12 miles to his house before he threw on his blue light. tried telling us that he wanted to give us a ticket for speeding in a school zone 13 miles away and search the vehicle highway patrol responded as backup and when he heard why the cop was after us told local cop to get back in his car after apologizing and maybe we wouldn't file harassment charges against him. you see he was miles outside his jurisdiction cop asked him why he didn't stop us in town and why he followed us for 8 miles on interstate 70 to next town over to stop us. he cussed got in his car and left.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Try criminal trespass…Possibly even stalking or violating a injunction, and again he also refused to follow the officers orders, which sticks even if the initial arrest was only for trespassing.


I was arrested for trespassing when I was 17, for sleeping in a cabin by the river..which wasnt mine..lol..anyway..

They TOLD me why they were arresting me, trespass..they didnt TELL me to just leave!!!!!



If you didn't have permission to be there, arresting you was the right thing to do. You were guilty of breaking and entering into someone else's private property. If you were asleep on a park bench they would probably tell you to move on before arresting you.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by black cat]



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join