It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Your rights ... have been suspended."

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:45 PM
Well Cedric, I've got a little bad news for ya! According to the GOVERNING DOCUMENT that supercedes ALL laws, including those within your little fiefdom, called the CONSTITUTION, I am innocent until proven guilty and NEVER surrender ANY rights ANYWHERE in these United States. So, I caution you, your stasi or anyone within your jurisdiction to abrogate my rights and I will show you a HELL that you have NEVER witnessed - EVER!!! So take your backwoods ass and peddle on outta here before a bunch of good old boys who believe in the Constitution decide that maybe YOUR rights aren't worth protecting or respecting anymore - kapiche!? OH, and I would say that that pretty much applies to any and all politicians - SO TAKE NOTE!!!

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:06 PM
Star & Flag for this thread--while I know there are good cops out there, the fact is, of all the times I've had experiences with law enforcement, a good experince is the exception rather than the rule. Borders and Customs, highway patrol, city police, no matter what, these guys are constantly on a power trip. I honestly think that most cops were the guys in high school that got picked on, and now they're exacting revenge on all of us for their own social awkwardness. I can't respect the police, and for a vast majority of those police, they're in no way trying to ensure social welfare, only trying to ensure that their egos are fed enough so they'll stop crying into their pillows at night about their extreme insecurities...

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:22 PM
This is a reply to Megiddodiddos video on first page about girl being beat by cop.
If you'll notice on frame 1:02 the cop comes over to the camera (stationed to capture the events of the room and for the protection of both parties) and he "freezes" (or pauses) the video tape. You can actually see for about 2-3 seconds that the picture of his arm is actually paused......during this time he is beating the woman to a pulp. He then comes back over and re-stations himself in fron of the camera, as he did when he paused it, ......noe she is lying on the floor with blood all around her. The second cop, over the top of her starts to laugh. This is very illegal and should be looked into further, if it hasn't. This is very condemning footage, simply because the time she was beat up......the cop turned off the video footage placed to protect the girl. When did this happen? Probably years ago and no one did anything.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Phenomium]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:49 PM
We already have the question in America of when exactly a person's Miranda rights go effect. Our Miranda rights dictate specifically that we have the right to remain silent and that anything we say can be used against us in court, but how far does that right extend?

Upon being Mirandized? That means that anything said before that point, whether in a friendly conversation or during the arrest, is admissible in court.

Or as soon as someone begins speaking to a police officer? That would lead to a lot of arrests and a lot of work for public defenders on cases where someone who was speeding decided to clam up. Not to mention that will still haven't got a set precedent on whether an officer needs to announce himself as such when working out of a uniform.

The point is, that when it comes to the authority of the police force, we still have no idea where we as citizens stand. Or even in the judicial system as a whole, in some cases: I just heard about some poor sap who got caught up in an embezzlement sting and was held without a trial for nine years on six eighteen month sentences for obstruction of justice. Every time a new court date would come up, he'd show, and the judge would summarily sentence him to another year and a half. In Brooklyn.

Perfectly ordinary people snap everyday and do horrible things, so I think that if a cop had the right to seize a weapon, temporarily, during a traffic stop or whatever, it might stop some cops from being shot. It's a reasonable fear. But to this extent, it's just a blatant abuse of that power.

As for the probably-founded abuse allegations, the fact that life is full of assholes is sometimes just made worse by the fact that they tend to congregate. They should all be brought up on appropriate charges and the mayor booted for complicity.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:07 PM
reply to post by harblargh

I think I know where I stand when it comes to cops.

They have guns. Sometimes they are in a bad mood. They can call for reinforcement real fast.

You may not always agree with what a cop or two with guns have to say, but there is a time to just not say anything to a cop except what the cop asks you.

Simply because you are not Rodney King. There will not always be someone around with a camera to record the massive beating you might get cause you pushed your luck.

It's just not smart to pizz against the wind or to try to outdraw the Lone Ranger. Smart is as smart does.

At least that is where I stand on the issue. If I have a dispute with a cop, I do it in court. Not out on the street.

Now, if you are confronted by a gangbanger on the street....welll...that's a different story. Where the hell is a cop when you need one?

Either this wallpaper has to go, or I have to go.....Oscar Wilde's Last Words.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by fred call]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:31 PM
Who cares about luck?

I think we should all ______ _____ and _______.

You know, sniper rifles and ______ because they ________.

Not like _____ will ever _______.

Just _______.

Fill in the blanks as you like.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by harblargh

Now, if you are confronted by a gangbanger on the street....welll...that's a different story. Where the hell is a cop when you need one?

....Probably torturing someone or handing out tickets.

That's about all they are good for nowadays.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by kozmo

Inform the masses kozmo.

If legislation is passed that counters the Constitution, that legislation is color of law. It has only the appearance of law. Therefore unlawful or illegal.

For those out there, the last bastion of your freedoms are protected in one place and one place alone, in the jury of your peers. Why do you think that the government is attempting to remove that right?

Jury Nullification-

John Adams said of jury nullification, "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, said "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

The right to a trial of a jury of your peers. Remember that! They have the RIGHT to know the law, if a judge EVER states in a case that jury nullification is not to be discussed, YOU HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY! The judge, in this instance, would be LYING!

4th-The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th-No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th-In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The bold part of the 6th I am currently writing a thread on. The Church of Justice and the Priests of the BAR.

Notice that it DOES NOT say represented by, it states plainly Assistance of Council. This is because YOU are supposed to KNOW the law. Remember that, if you do not know the law, who is going to protect you?

7th-In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8th-Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Now, this one here has been shat upon by SO many courts. Let us say you are charged with a crime. Being poor, the court orders a outrageous bail that the prince of Brunei could not cover, is this LAWFUL? Also, you are afforded a speedy trial, does that mean they will get you a trial say 18 months from the date of arrest? While you sit in the hooscow for 1/50 of your life? Is that JUSTICE?

This amendment here, IMO, means that the court cannot impose a bail that YOU CANNOT meet. Let us say you are worth only 10k. This should be the maximum bail set. Otherwise, the "justice" system can lock you up for a crime you are only accused of, WITHOUT convicting you of a crime.

HELL, look at Lindsey Lohan, she gets a conviction of possession of coc aine (to me a non-crime, where there is no victim) yet later gets a sentence of nothing but breaks her agreed upon probation and then gets a sentence of 90 days where she spends what, two weeks?

BUT, someone accused of a crime, gets to spend 1.5 years behind bars waiting on a damn TRIAL.

Anyway, learn the common law folks. Learn your Constitution.

Learn your damn rights!

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Oh, come on now. All moral haughtiness aside. If a cop is torturing a gang banger who the week before raped your girlfriend or that really torture?

Naw, I call it Karma.

And why do we need professionals in our society to heap karma on really bad people? Because you aren't professional enough to do the job yourself.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by fred call]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by Exuberant1

Oh, come on now. All moral haughtiness aside. If a cop is torturing a gang banger who the week before raped your girlfriend or that really torture?

Naw, I call it Karma.

And why do we need professionals in our society to heap karma on really bad people? Because you aren't professional enough to do the job yourself.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by fred call]

I call it 100% illegal and a violation of human rights.

Every human has a right to a trail by a jury of their peers.

This totalitarian street *in*justice crap needs to go to China where this crap is acceptable?

But hey thats cool man, when karma comes back on the tyrants it will be just as legit as the street *in*justice they mete out daily.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by muzzleflash]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Like I said, it takes a professional to dole out Karma properly.

"Oh, yeah, give it to me, Earl. Give it to me like you gave it to those terrorists."
- Joy Darville in White Lie Christmas

"I hope you get nut cancer."
- Joy Darville in Joy's Wedding

"Look, not everybody is trying to change the world, Earl. Some of us are just trying to get our fair taste of a waterbed business after our parents kick the bucket."
- Joy Darville in White Lie Christmas

"Ain't no use running, fool! I know where your mama parks your house!"
- Earl Hickey in Pilot

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by Exuberant1

If a cop is torturing a gang banger who the week before raped your girlfriend or that really torture?

Naw, I call it Karma.

You don't make any sense pal.

Torture is torture. Torturers should be punished for their crime against humanity (that is what torture is; a crime against us all).

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

I agree.

Now, if I was on a jury and the defendant was a husband, boyfriend or whatever and the defendant proved that the rapist or whatever committed an act of aggression to his wife, girlfriend or whatever, I would use my Constitutionally correct right of jury nullification to find the defendant not guilty.

BUT, to allow a second party was to enforce the right of an aggrieved victim, I would HAVE to find them guilty of criminal offense myself.

Here is the thing, if anyone ever hurts one of my Family, Friends or Community in such a vile way, and I know this for a FACT, I feel NO guilt letting them be judged by their maker.

Just me though.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:17 AM
My guess is that if a guy gets raped by a bunch of gangbagers, that guy would love to get revenge. Even through torture of said gang bangers.

That, or the guy really secretly enjoyed being raped.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by fred call

What is the point you intended to make with that last post?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by fred call

just because you want something, does not make it morally right for you to get it. the rapist in the senario wanted sex, and he took it. now you want revenge, and you take it.

i struggled with this exact situation personally. twice.

courts exist for a reason, as do jurys, as does the law.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:17 AM
Yea, and the blood on the floor was fake. She put it there, with her hands cuffed behind her back when the cop wasn't looking. Oh, and the EMTs? They just thought it would be fun to take her for a ride in the "amblance" instead of just examining her and declaring her uninjured. Now it all makes sense.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
sorry but I have to say this

that pic of Angela above appears fake to me.
Anyone with a knowledge of make-up for
stage or theater can make that very same
appearance. What the difference between
the real thing and make-up is the swelling.
Her eyes are NOT swelled shut. Her nose
is NOT swelled. She is biting her lip to give an
awkward appearance around her mouth
but their is no swelling. There are no lacerations
which needs stitches. This is a half decent
con job of abuse.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Megiddodiddo
WOW - welcome back Electric Universe!!

I remember a certain post you made awhile back... and you mentioned that it would be your last... great to see you again

When was that?... I don't remember that happening. I think you got me confused with someone else.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:14 AM
The tragic reality of this situation is that when the Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover, and City Attorney Ed Jones say that it is correct that your "suspension of rights" begins when a police officer pulls you over in your vehicle, they are not speaking out of ignorance of The Constitution for the United States of America, even if they are speaking with great disregard for it.

Presumably, Robert Baillio had a license plate on this truck that was adorned with all those bumper stickers. It is also fairly presumed that Mr. Baillio had a drivers license "permitting" him to drive. If these assumptions are correct, then the "suspension of rights" did not actually begin when that police officer pulled Mr. Baillio over, but began when Mr. Baillio waived his rights in order to "properly" register his vehicle with the Louisiana DMV, and applied for a license to drive. This waiver of rights was a contractual agreement that Mr. Baillio made with the State of Louisiana through the DMV. All people have the right to contract, and Mr. Baillio used his right to contract in order to obtain registration for his vehicle and a license to drive.

It is also true that all people have the inalienable right to travel, and no permit is required in order to drive. Thus, the application for registration of a vehicle, and license to drive is a voluntary contract made with each state through their DMV. Indeed, the very act of applying for a license to drive serves as prima facie evidence that one has waived their fundamental right to travel, and is now operating under the rules and regulations of the state, and is subject to any legislation that would seemingly contradict either the federal Constitution or State Constitution.

It should also be noted that in the current State Constitution of Louisiana there is a particularly disturbing distinction made regarding the right to property:

4. Right to Property

Section 4.(A) Every person has the right to acquire, own, control, use, enjoy, protect, and dispose of private property. This right is subject to reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the police power.

There does not seem to be any definition of what "reasonable" means within this version of that constitution, so such a term can be broadly interpreted by the state courts.

Since all people have the right to travel, then it follows that no person need a license to do so. Neither Glover, nor Jones explained precisely why they felt it was correct that a "suspension of rights" was correct in this regard, but my best guess would be they believe it is correct because of the licensing and registration scheme set forth by the DMV. The voluntary nature of application for this registration and license makes it a part of contract law, and a person has a right to make a contract where they waive their rights. This is what makes it "legal", even if it is wrong, and it is, to be sure, wrong.

It is reasonable and understandable why DMV's were created. However, today all DMV insist that driving is privilege and not a right. This is not true. People certainly do have the right to drive, and if applying for a license and registration means one must necessarily agree to waive their inalienable rights to go along with this licensing and registration scheme, then it should be clear what is unreasonable. Look at how unreasonable it has all become.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:17 AM
I usually weigh in to back up cops on these things...

For what they did to both of these ladies, they should do more than just loose their badges. Nuf said about that. Freakin animals.

I'm TOTALLY against drunk driving BUT, after all this was she "really" dwi?

I wouldnt do well in an environment with idiots like this. There'd be alot of these cops.....well. Anything I say can and will be used against me.

Man this pisses me off! All the good cops are gonna catch hell from everyone on legit circumstances because of garbage like this.

The lady that was stripped should sue on rape charges.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in