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.

 

Dealing with cops, understanding your rights,.... by a cop.

page: 26
170
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
i have said in my previous posts, police are needed, provided their intentions are just, and good.as long as they do not directly, nor indirectly cause harm upon another. and yes, years ago i thought anarchy to be "AWSOME". but it's one of the most stupid ideas to strive toward in the world of today. given mans many divisions of beliefs, there would simply be too much conflict between the people. fear of being convicted is good when felt by those whom hold wrong intentions in their heart. and sad, and wrong as it sounds. the wicked would win in a mortal battle. for the good are not willing to take part in the same desperate actions as that of the wicked.

Proverbs 11:6: The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


You seem to be assuming that people as individuals will suddenly develop the ability to make more enlightened altruistic decisions for the common good, rather than needs based decision making for immediate gain or perceived future security. I am doubtful that will ever happen.

Also, if free market regulation determines that all individuals are responsible to secure themselves, then how do you ensure a low level nobody gets the same legitimate protection as a corporate tycoon? Where is the inherent fairness?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by commdogg
 





Simple economics doesn't address force or ethics.


No that is what you hire security for to protect you against force


The assumption these firms would be ethical is juvenile.


If they were not they would go out of business because customers would stop using their services


These firms would have the ability to extort money.


You mean like the police and courts do?


This probably wouldn't be a small corruption either but an endemic business practice industry wide. The only one left to stop them would be another firm, that likely engages in the same underhanded tactics.


So you assume we are all just criminals without the police around to keep us in line? And that society would not function without them? The police already extort us every day under the guise of protecting us however they do not protect us. And there is no one to stop them because the majority of the culture is under the illusion we need them. However that is changing


So whomever has the most money gets to buy the gun toters that everyone else must then live with? They then get to dictate martial policy to these people? Do I need to even go into detail about why that's scary or is it plain enough on its face?


Millions of people solve their differences every day without police or courts it's called society. Those who have money can buy more security however if they are trying to use them as a criminal gang to impose their will on others then they are harming other and society will stop them. You might want to read a little something written by one of our founding fathers Thomas Paine called Society is a Blessing but Government is Evil mises.org...


Free markets don't regulate private armies. Governments do. Oh wait. Private armies would have to regulate themselves. Oh wait, they don't do that typically.


Free markets regulate everything, in a true fee market if a company doesn't provide a good service or product they go out of business. Governments regulate armies to stifle competition and ensure markets and force customers to participate like the police do for instance. Police get their authority by force and have a monopoly on that force, they are therefore able to steal and extort and even murder people against their will who have not caused any harm to anyone for things like growing certain plants or not wearing a seat belt and a host of other absurd things. For god sake you guys are arresting people for friggen plants do you know how absurd that is? if you take my stuff against my will that is theft period. You may want to read and article By Major General Smedley Butler the most decorated Marine of his time, entitled War is a Racket www.ratical.org... He will explain what armies do and why.


In a pure dog eat dog economy "entrepreneurs" would be target practice for the larger firms.
What you are proposing is pure economic class rule, where those with resources are in charge. It sounds to me like feudal society.


No you have never known a free market economy so you are equating it to what we have today where the larger firms control every thing because they are politically connected. What you describe above is what we have now! What he is proposing is a level playing field where government cannot drive out the competition of their politically connected cronies, where to big to fail cannot happen. So called Government regulation is never to help the consumer it is to protect markets for the politically connected pure and simple!


No one would be forced to hand over money to the corporate system? I suppose whoever takes over the infrastructure industries will just do it for free then.


yeah it is called real competition! They would have to provide a good service for a fee or go out of business as real competition would spring up over night with government out of the way.


to mention the private security guy that wants a bonus at gun point.


No that is extortion and theft. Again what you describe is what we already have and you don't even realize that you are one of the thugs extorting people at gun point if they do not comply.


Welcome to circular logic. War is bad when nations do it, but its an acceptable evil when a corporation does it? Huh?


This makes no sense whatsoever. War is evil period except in real self defense when attacked. Corporations use governments to fix the markets in their favor that is what we have today with the the monopoly on the currency and banking by the Federal Reserve and all its agent banks, the Military industrial complex and big oil that needs perpetual war, the Drug monopoly that wants to regulate herbs and natural supplements, food with monsanto and GM foods, etc. etc. etc.! That is how they got so big and in control using government to fix the game in thier favor. In a real free market that does not happen. History has proven free markets are self regulating because customers vote with their feet or wallets and go elsewhere if a company does not provide a good product or service. Why is this so hard to understand? This country was originally built on those principles. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IS THE PROBLEM AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN!

You guys really need to take a step back and try to look at this from a different perspective. The free market will eventually weed you out too as the services you do by force become harsher. The free market always wins in the end, just like it is in the process of taking down our monetary and economic system right now. People are becoming more fed up with the police state regulating every aspect of their lives fining and taxing them to death.

You guys claim you are reaching out to people but it appears you are really saying look do as your told and everything will be fine with the police. Some of you even say you don't agree with certain things but since they are against the law you enforce them anyway. This has got to stop. Police are enablers of tyranny and don't realize it. It is a cultural thing that has slowly crept into society.

Take a step back and ask yourself every time you enforce a statute if the person whose life you are now disrupting and taking their money and time against their will from and possibly arresting etc.; who were they harming? Everyone agrees that if I come to your house and take your stuff against your will that is theft. How is it any different when police or courts do it? Just because some majority group of people agree it is ok for police to do it doesn't change a thing it just makes them a larger gang who can force their will on the individual, it is still theft. If you do not have the right to steal i.e. take my stuff against my will as an individual where in the world do all those individuals get the right to do it collectively and hire a private army i.e. police force to do it? By force is the only answer and it is wrong period!

Are you guys capable of seeing this from a different perspective? If you want respect you need to earn it. It does not come with the badge. Maybe if cops by the thousands started joining organizations like LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Then people might actually believe most cops are decent people with a few bad apples like I used to. I don't anymore as they more and more crack down and extort honest people for victimless crimes that are not harming anyone and have an "us or them" attitude.

I am 52 years old and when arrogant snot nose punk cop in his twenties pulls me over at 11 o'clock at night because I didn't signal turning out of my subdivision with not a car in sight anywhere for miles and gives me attitude after I have been working may ass off all day and am going to get something I need on the job the next day I just want to get out of the car and have shall we say a motivational seminar with the punk and teach him some manners. Unfortunately this is all too common and a far cry from when I was younger and everyone knew the nieghborhood cops.

I would really like to still believe most are decent guys doing a tough job but I don't anymore. I just see mostly arrogant punks who think they are above the average Joe with no respect and no conscience anymore. Maybe if more of you started realizing that and doing something to change it you would get the respect you think you deserve. Unless that happens you are heading for a serious backlash eventually some day.

edit on 18-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by commdogg
reply to post by Azp420
 


You seem to be assuming that people as individuals will suddenly develop the ability to make more enlightened altruistic decisions for the common good, rather than needs based decision making for immediate gain or perceived future security. I am doubtful that will ever happen.

Also, if free market regulation determines that all individuals are responsible to secure themselves, then how do you ensure a low level nobody gets the same legitimate protection as a corporate tycoon? Where is the inherent fairness?


i fully agree with this statement. how can one call himself just, when he does not care for those who are in need. how can one call himself just, when he denies protection to those in need of it. i use to feel this was quite an unjust country. though we can not allow the injustices of the few outweigh the intentions of the good. structure is in great lack in the minds of far too many individuals. anarchy would only cause chaos, and chaos is an injustice in itself. changes need to be made (given), and there is far too much greed within the system (fact). though if you think these injustices would cease by the lack of order. you are sadly mistaken. it would only mean one thing. the truly wicked would be free to do as they wish. atleast in this current time, they must do their wrong doings behind smoke and mirrors. smoke can be cleared, and mirrors can be broken.

John 10:10: The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
also, security companies would have one goal, and one alone (profit), the same reason you and i have such a distaste for those in current possession of power.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by commdogg
 



You seem to be assuming that people as individuals will suddenly develop the ability to make more enlightened altruistic decisions for the common good, rather than needs based decision making for immediate gain or perceived future security. I am doubtful that will ever happen.


If the majority of people are happy to pay taxes to help the greater good why would they not be even more happy to voluntarily pay the same amount of money to help the greater good?


Also, if free market regulation determines that all individuals are responsible to secure themselves, then how do you ensure a low level nobody gets the same legitimate protection as a corporate tycoon? Where is the inherent fairness?


In the same way they do today, those with more money will help pay for it through charity. The difference being it will be voluntary and not forced with violence.

If someone can't afford security where is the fairness of them being able to threaten others with violence to coerce them into paying for their security?

reply to post by LegalTender
 



how can one call himself just, when he does not care for those who are in need. how can one call himself just, when he denies protection to those in need of it.


I care for those in need and help the less fortunate above and beyond what is mandatory through taxation. I'd just prefer the taxation portion to be voluntary and to have the freedom of deciding how MY money is spent.


the truly wicked would be free to do as they wish.


Laws aren't stopping the truly wicked from harming others. Private security would be more effective at prevention than police though.


also, security companies would have one goal, and one alone (profit), the same reason you and i have such a distaste for those in current possession of power.


I have absolutely nothing against profit seeking. I, myself am personally motivated by profits and wish to maximize them as much as I can.

I have a severe distaste for those who wish to violently enforce a certain way of life upon others.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by commdogg
 



You seem to be assuming that people as individuals will suddenly develop the ability to make more enlightened altruistic decisions for the common good, rather than needs based decision making for immediate gain or perceived future security. I am doubtful that will ever happen.


If the majority of people are happy to pay taxes to help the greater good why would they not be even more happy to voluntarily pay the same amount of money to help the greater good?


Also, if free market regulation determines that all individuals are responsible to secure themselves, then how do you ensure a low level nobody gets the same legitimate protection as a corporate tycoon? Where is the inherent fairness?


In the same way they do today, those with more money will help pay for it through charity. The difference being it will be voluntary and not forced with violence.

If someone can't afford security where is the fairness of them being able to threaten others with violence to coerce them into paying for their security?



i agree that no one should have the right to claim that which is not theirs. and i see the point which you are making, and agree with it. though, i have met people incapable of protecting themselves. without the aid of others, would wither and die. and you are right, it should not be out of threat or intimidation. though would yours and others lack of kindness not drive those very people into lives of crime, derived out of sheer desperation? would that not create more cause for security? i know in my heart, there is a proper and just way to address these matters. though i could not alone, nor could any one man, properly, and fairly, be the judge, nor the creator of such policies. you make good points. all do at many times in their lives. but those good points are in no way guarantees. only point of views.

Proverbs 11:11: Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by LegalTender
 



though would yours and others lack of kindness not drive those very people into lives of crime, derived out of sheer desperation?


I imagine it would be very easy to turn to crime as a last resort. However, I honestly believe the human race is not that cold hearted. The masses think taxation is a good thing, a primary reason being they think it is right for those who can to help the less fortunate. People even give to charity on-top of what is taken from them in taxes. Therefore I believe charities aimed at helping the needy obtain necessities such as food, shelter and security would be just as successful as today's non-voluntary system.


would that not create more cause for security?


Exactly. If people wanted to spend money with the objective of decreasing crime, increased spending in security would begin to yield diminishing returns. It would get to a point where crime would be better prevented by increased welfare spending rather than security spending.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeashrink
When you are stopped by an officer you have to assume that he had a valid reason, otherwise a halfway decent attorney will get the case thrown out of court and the officer looks like an idiot and his reputation in the courtroom starts to dwindle. He cannot afford this because it is a career ender.


Im sorry but this statement is just pure "If we stop you, you have done something wrong and we have the rights" talk again, coming from a police officer.

If you get stopped by a police car the first thing you do is never to open any doors, stay in your car, only roll down window so you can talk to the police officer and hand him/her your license and registration papers, also put the lock on all doors so the officer won´t get any funny ideas that he smelled something weird from your car, when you were talking to the officer, thereby giving him in his/her´s world a reasonable doubt to search your vehicle.

Exercise your rights, be polite but also be straight with that you know your rights.

Best regards

Loke .:.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by StlSteve
You left out the most important aspect - don't lie. Cops have seen and heard it all, when you say 'I don't know how it got there' or 'it's not mine' or 'these aren't my pants', you're just insulting their intelligence.


So uh... What if it really isn't yours, or you really don't know how it got there? I have been in other people's cars, and I could only guess what was hidden under/in all the stuff they had in there. I kinda get a bit paranoid when I think about being pulled over, and someone finding something under MY seat. I have recently been going through a ordeal with a case of identity theft. Someone used my name to get out of a ticket, and I am heading towards court date #3 to try and get it cleared. It really pisses me off to no end that I have kept my nose clean my entire life, only to have my good name be smeared by some [radio edit]. I shudder to think about being in someone's car and being busted for their crap.

Chrono



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LegalTender
also, security companies would have one goal, and one alone (profit), the same reason you and i have such a distaste for those in current possession of power.


ALL police forces are NOTHING more than private, corporate security forces. What do you NOT understand about that? Each city is "incorporated", the police are the security forces to enforce the codes the city/corporation creates to raise revenue for themselves, it's simple extortion and the people say okay because they think the mafia style protection racket is going to keep them safe. WHAT A JOKE!!!

Come on man, what ever happened to being a responsible HUMAN BEING!!!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by seeashrink
 


I've heard that the Bart cop thought he was pulling his tazer, but the guy was cuffed and there were plenty of cops so I'm not sure if that would have been really necessary, though understandable. However, do you think you could confuse your gun for a tazer?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Everybody is a cop critic.
Yet, NO ONE has the answers.

I joined to help people, because my grandfather did, as my father did.
Neither of them ever had to pull their service revolver and point it at a person.

Society, has become a tad more insane, and people no longer respect law enforcement. They think like some of the people here on this thread, but actually act it out. Making the job much more of a risk than ever.

Respect Law Enforcement? Seems like a joke now a days.

My grandfather was shot at. In world war 2. As a soldier. Never as a cop.
My father was never shot at. Never even drew his service revolver outside of a gun range.

I was shot at by a kid I knew, built a re pore with, while picking him up from a store where a loss prevention officer had arrested him for shop lifting. Nice kid, once. Stupid decisions. We are trained to be a lot more "ready" than I was here. I let my guard down, to be a human being for a kid I tried to HELP on several occasions. He couldn't go to jail, this was his last "strike" if you will.

Times have changed. People aren't fuzzy and nice anymore. Every single person has the potential to draw arms and blast you into oblivion. I've situated more that 600 service pistol draws, on duty, due to forced circumstances in my short career. Discharged on a few occasions. My father was as thankful as my wife and children, when I moved into another career. I still get to catch the bad guys, but...behind a camera. haha..feed that to your paranoia, conspiracy theorists! ha.

It's no governmental trance or ignorance. People that don't respect laws and why they exist, don't respect ANY order to society, and become dangerous to EVERY single person within it. Including the people I KNOW and love. I feel better knowing someone is doing something to protect them.

Yeah, "red tape" and governmental cover ups are rampant. Always have been, always will be. ALWAYS. But there are still those who believe that they are doing more good than they are bad.

Sure, hold cops to a higher standard...of course. But here is a secret....Society still has to follow a standard as well. There are bad cops, yes. But there are very bad people too.


The part of your post I found most interesting is below. I do respect laws, BUT SHOW ME THE LAW, what we have are codes, regulations and such, TO REGULATE COMMERCE, NOT PEOPLE. But it is obvious to me that you and the other officers here don't know the whole story about society, you only know what you are taught. I went to law school, dropped out when I found out what a farce it was. My father was a detective, I was going to become one, now I am one on the outside and other side of policy enforcement. What you "officers" call or consider "Freemen" or whatever you want to call them, these people are dragged around by their noses to give the "authorities" something to do. If there is no trouble, we don't NEED police, why is that so hard to understand, SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

It is ALL about money, we are slaves traded on the stock market, that has been proven on ATS, we are Chattel. Collateral for the debt. This IS a fact, so bybeing a part of the corporation, the corporate security guards have to keep us in line. Again, how hard is that to comprehend? This is not a conspiracy, it's fact. People have natural born inalienable rights to hold property and to use that property in a responsible fashion. Whatever happened to the Civil Disobediance laws, those ARE laws. Disorderly conduct? Come on, there are other ways of enforcing public safety, but that would NOT bring in the huge dollars of traffic stops. It's not about safety IT'S ABOUT MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I recieve NOTHING from the state therefore I OWE NOTHING TO THE STATE!! It's that simple, driving is an occupation and NOT a privilege for the average Citizen, it's that simple.



"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.

Please, ANY officer here, PROVE this case is bogus or wrong...PLEASE prove to me it is not this way?



It's no governmental trance or ignorance. People that don't respect laws and why they exist, don't respect ANY order to society, and become dangerous to EVERY single person within it. Including the people I KNOW and love. I feel better knowing someone is doing something to protect them.

I am NOT a danger to society, the police are, stop deflecting the truth here. I do not use the roadways with any ill will nor do I go in public places looking for trouble. I wish to live My life as freely as possible and do my best NEVER to infringe on anothers rights. I know the law and I know what responsibility is, COPS DON"T, they MUST make money for the city, it is their job to subvert the populace and extort money. PROVE ME WRONG!



The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." While in practical effect regulations may be called "little laws," 1. 7 they are at most but offspring of statutes.”

I cite this case only to point out that indeed there is a difference between regulations and statutes. Furthermore, not all laws are created equal. Furthermore, a statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and lower courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades. Such is the current state of driver license laws in these United States of America. We are in the age of government excess. Over half the working people work for some form of government. By manipulating the money, by imprisoning dissenters, by owning the bulk of the stock of public corporations, by deceptive bookkeeping, and by other oppression, fraud, and malice, the governments have lulled the populace into a belief in the presumed regularity of whatever the government says.


The automobile existed how long BEFORE ANY license laws? Ex post facto. Know what Ex post facto is?

Commerce is what it is all about.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeashrink

Your rights when stopped: First, you must realize that driving is a privilege not a right
Seeshrink

edit on 13-1-2011 by seeashrink because: spacing


Contrary to popular thought, DRIVING is a RIGHT ... it is covered under the Constitution under the written section of " a RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

(LIBERTY = means freedom of movement by any means necessary without restriction or being encumbered).

Also, if you are given a ticket in a traffic stop, remember to include the following with your signature (ON ANY CONTRACT YOU SIGN) and tickets are PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS (performance contracts that require you to perform something like contacting the court, appearing in court, paying a fine and so on).

When you sign your name, also include the words or phrase above your name, "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207"
and you will RESERVE your RIGHTS under any contract signed in the UsA.

You must be warned though .... the Police especially don't like you RESERVING your RIGHTS on their performance contracts and you might be subjected to being taken to jail for reserving your rights (this happened to me years ago by some arrogant Ohio State Trooper who thought he was above the law).

Banks don't like to see the reservation of rights on their documents either. The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) 1-207 allows you to reserve your rights under any commercial contract. If you happen to use payday store loans, you will find this very useful as those "loan shark companies" charge you 611% interest on whatever money you borrow from them and they do not offer going to court to settle their claims against you, instead wanting you to use their arbitration departments to settle in their favor. They avoid the courts because "loan sharking" is a felony crime in most states. Using the Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 written above your name on their contracts allows you to take them into the courts against their will as you have reserved your rights on the contract that they are trying to take away from you. Needless to say, they will avoid going to court at all costs.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio


The part of your post I found most interesting is below. I do respect laws, BUT SHOW ME THE LAW, what we have are codes, regulations and such, TO REGULATE COMMERCE, NOT PEOPLE. But it is obvious to me that you and the other officers here don't know the whole story about society, you only know what you are taught. I went to law school, dropped out when I found out what a farce it was. My father was a detective, I was going to become one, now I am one on the outside and other side of policy enforcement. What you "officers" call or consider "Freemen" or whatever you want to call them, these people are dragged around by their noses to give the "authorities" something to do. If there is no trouble, we don't NEED police, why is that so hard to understand, SUPPLY AND DEMAND.


Why do you respect the laws and codes at all then?. YOU are the one lacking in societal knowledge. What we are taught does not even come close to what we experience. Not even close.
You may not cause trouble. You are but one in a sea of millions. Thanks for not being a bad guy.



It is ALL about money, we are slaves traded on the stock market, that has been proven on ATS, we are Chattel. Collateral for the debt. This IS a fact, so bybeing a part of the corporation, the corporate security guards have to keep us in line. Again, how hard is that to comprehend? This is not a conspiracy, it's fact. People have natural born inalienable rights to hold property and to use that property in a responsible fashion. Whatever happened to the Civil Disobediance laws, those ARE laws. Disorderly conduct? Come on, there are other ways of enforcing public safety, but that would NOT bring in the huge dollars of traffic stops. It's not about safety IT'S ABOUT MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It IS all about the money. I don't disagree. This has evolved from barter. It is a situation society chose. Inject greed, and you got trouble with either system.

I joined up to help people and catch bad guys. I don't give a crap about how much money it makes "THE MAN".
It's not ENFORCING public safety. It is ENSURING. But I suppose a brain washed monkey like me WOULD say that, right? Like I said before, I am now in the private security sector. Which is a bigger sham than ANY government organization. Those who think private security is the answer, are wrong.. Money does not motivate them to be more efficient OR professional. haha. Quite the opposite, it seems.




Please, ANY officer here, PROVE this case is bogus or wrong...PLEASE prove to me it is not this way?


That is American mumbo jumbo. I'm a Canadian.




I am NOT a danger to society, the police are, stop deflecting the truth here. I do not use the roadways with any ill will nor do I go in public places looking for trouble. I wish to live My life as freely as possible and do my best NEVER to infringe on anothers rights. I know the law and I know what responsibility is, COPS DON"T, they MUST make money for the city, it is their job to subvert the populace and extort money. PROVE ME WRONG!


You must know the truth, before you accuse someone of deflecting it. Like I said before, as probably many officers would also say...my AIM was to help, and catch bad guys. Not to make "THE MAN" money.

Bad guys: People who think they deserve what you have and worked to achieve, for nothing. People who think lives are disposable, who treat others like slaves, kill for shoes, for drugs etc.....

Do I think a person who speeds is a criminal? No. The possibility is there...yes. They could have just robbed a bank, killed a person, or home invasion, drug activity, gang activity...OR Circumstances may suggest that he/she is just merely late. If you act like an arsehead, you get a ticket. Act like a human, and I will treat you like a human. Relating to the fact that I may have been late once or twice too. My last thought is where the money is going. Posted speed limit is for safety. Not control. Speed Kills.



The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." While in practical effect regulations may be called "little laws," 1. 7 they are at most but offspring of statutes.”



The automobile existed how long BEFORE ANY license laws? Ex post facto. Know what Ex post facto is?

Commerce is what it is all about.


Again, American mumbo jumbo.

Take away the money forked out to have to pay to receive a license and base it on knowledge and skill level, I'd be happy with that. But you should at least have to be able to answer the skill testing question.

My insurance coverage pays into a fund that pays out to those damaged/injured in any vehicle incident that I may have caused. I can live with that. I'm not sure how American insurance works, but in Canada ALL vehicles must have a minimum coverage before they are allowed on public roads. Compensation for the victims in incidents that one may have caused.

Example: Some kid driving how he sees fit, crashes into your $60 000 uninsured vehicle. Destroys it with his unsafe, $100 car. Kid doesn't have insurance, we don't know who's car it was because of no regi.... You try to sue him for your $60 000 vehicle, but he is 16, no job, in the end it will be YOU forking out the $$$...so yeah, the other side of Gov't commerce.

I agree that there are some retarded taxes, fees, levy's and some laws etc...nobody likes to pay extra, for anything. It only does make THE MAN money. For example, if I buy a brand new car...I pay taxes. Through that cars existence, every time it is bought and sold, taxes are paid every time on the selling price, registration fees, etc etc....why is that? That is but one small example.

I can see both sides of the coin, but...laws have to exist. If we let unregulated citizens enforce them, that can be MUCH worse than a taser happy cop. I see it in posts on this site all too often. A video pops up of a police officer unnecessarily tasing someone and the whole forum erupts with "WHY DIDN"T THE BYSTANDERS BEAT THE COP INTO OBLIVION???" Or other such more violent fate suggestions than an unnecessary tasing. Yeah, that is definitely the answer. (sarcasm)


Don't like it here or there...move to Iran, Iraq etc...you get caught stealing, none of this innocent until proven guilty stuff...you lose a hand. Right there. You do worse, you get worse. Ever seen a stoning death? I have. We may not have it perfect...but we don't have it bad.

Where is the line? Love and peace? That doesn't exist anymore. Replaced with $. I get that.

In the end, as to the whole point of this thread: Don't be a deceitful piece of crap to a cop that pulls you over, most likely, for reasons that you caused.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Aside from what I view as a fallacy, requiring this vision of yours to rely on the kindness of human spirit, there is another flaw.

So assuming this system is in place, and private security abounds, who now has authority to prosecute criminals? Who makes laws, prosecutes criminals, and imposes sentencing? Who ensures these proceedings and actions are carried out with due process of law? Don't tell me another series of companies...

Even private correctional facilities operate under the authority of the state. Where does this authority come from in a world of corporate oligarchy?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by LegalTender
also, security companies would have one goal, and one alone (profit), the same reason you and i have such a distaste for those in current possession of power.


ALL police forces are NOTHING more than private, corporate security forces. What do you NOT understand about that? Each city is "incorporated", the police are the security forces to enforce the codes the city/corporation creates to raise revenue for themselves, it's simple extortion and the people say okay because they think the mafia style protection racket is going to keep them safe. WHAT A JOKE!!!

Come on man, what ever happened to being a responsible HUMAN BEING!!!!!


dude, i fully agree with you in many ways. though the wicked are bound by their own laws, and we are not. it's like i said earlier. they are forced to operate behind smoke and mirrors.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If I get pulled over for breaking a traffic law:

1). What contract did I sign consenting to said rules that were made for me? Where exactly did I give away my rights as a human being? Being a slave to a system I didn't sign up for contradicts my constitutional right to liberty.

2). I'd like to know who the victim of the alleged crime was besides myself. If there is no victim and I've harmed neither a person nor a person's property, the best of luck explaining to me who exactly I'm defending myself against. I don't take kindly to tax collectors on a power trip.

Truth be told, if I wasn't insistent upon sticking around and watching this world end, I would have played the self-defence game a long time ago. If someone is threatening you at gunpoint to enslave you to the Prison Industrial Complex, that's a valid reason to defend your self. However, the second I try that it becomes "assault". If I had got to play the game of life over again, a pocket of suicide pills is preferrable to a gun. If you pull out a gun while being chased, your life depends on how quick your draw is. If some Nazi thinks he wants to fist fight while screaming at you then you have way better odds.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jwest06
 


1) You were born into slavery by your parents and grandparents who fought for your right to be born in a nation that was better from whatever they had to endure. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. It is your freedom to choose wherever you want to live.

2) Breaking traffic laws that are written based on safety issues, may not have a victim every time. The laws are an attempt to eliminate victims altogether. You may not see going through a red light as serious. Until you smash and kill a pedestrian, T-bone a driver EXPECTING you to stop at your red light. Or, speeding...get a blow out doing more than the speedlimit, ok...control your car from not jumping the curb, crossing the center line and creating victims. If you think you are a victim to rules now...Tell that to someone who lost a loved one, to a speeder, a red light runner, basic traffic violation turned ugly. You aren't a victim. You are an armchair complainer.

Here is your countdown.

countdowntoapocalypse.com...

You can watch it all unfold here:

hisz.rsoe.hu...
edit on 18-1-2011 by Demoncreeper because: Provide link.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I don't even know where to start.
see, cops like to roll up on people like they are looking for a fight.
And they think their badge should guarantee them "respect." It dosen't. It simply buys them "restraint" from their victims. If you were not wearing that badge and walked up on somebody and started asking them sensative questions in such a forceful manner, you would be in a fight.

Cops are a necessary part of society, I agree. Like when someone gets attacked and you guys have to help them.
The problem is that the "respect" you guys earn from catching some baby killer, you # away every time you write some poor fella a ticket for doing 50 in a 35 worth as much as half of his rent. or some other bogus ass charge (I recently saw cops handing hundred dollar j-walking tickets to homeless people.)

"just doing my job." is a, "COP out"

I don't know exactly how the system works, or who tells you what is and is not legal, or where you see it in writing, or who wrote it, or whatever. But, You are working for the wrong people, cop.



new topics

top topics



 
170
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join