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.


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

page: 31
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:38 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:56 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by FarFromEden

You would hire a p.i. to solve your family members murder?? That's right, I forgot about all of the millions of dollars every p.i. spends on forensic science labs and c.s.i. people.

I would prefer we didn't have taxes, that way many PI companies would be established and funded with money which would have otherwise gone to police detectives. These PI companies would have their own labs. The free market is far superior to the police so get down from your high horse.


Just because you are so close minded that you can't even consider the possibility of doing things an alternate way and debate about it, doesn't mean you should yell at me to grow up. This is so typical of the unintelligent, hostile, angry nature of police officers. It is half the reason why so many hate anyone with a badge. They are unable to control their emotions and rampage around thinking they're doing the world such a service and therefore we should all bow down to them. Why don't you grow up, cop?

Who would you hire to replace the military....the cub scouts??

Nobody, but it's getting rather off topic to discuss the benefits of not having a military so I'll try to leave it at that.

edit on 21-1-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:46 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:46 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:12 AM

edit on 21-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


edit on 21-1-2011 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:18 AM

Can we please get back on topic. And leave the insults at the door.

If you have a problem with someone posting in the tread please use the Alert! function and the staff will look into it.

Thank you.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:02 AM
reply to post by Gemwolf

Thank you gemwolf!

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:30 AM
reply to post by FarFromEden

Ironic! I heard a story today about cops letting boyscouts issue speeding tickets (though it was in the UK).

Not that we are doing much better here, see:
I can't get that damn url to work, even using the link option.

I would love some proof and honesty out of a cop, but just like in the real world it's the same in these forums, we won't get any. I have seen terrible behavior out of cops on a national, local, and personal level. Actually one of my good friends father was killed by cops, shot in the back of the head while unarmed. I may have him write about it and post it as a thread for him sometime.

edit on 21-1-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:35 AM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Yep my life has proven police in london organise gang stalking, so if a policeman comes on here saying the opposite, there word is useless. My life proved it.

A policeman or woman should come on here stating about real crimes the police do, and then we will listen to them.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by andy1033

Well.. what happened to you? How were you stalked.
I had a good bit of police harassment. A cop that came to the scene of a wreck I was in (just me sliding into a creek, no others injured) thought I was on something. So for months (maybe a year) after, he pulled me over every time he saw me (and also knew where I lived and would hang at a gas station near my driveway) and gave my car the full search each time. Never caught me doing a thing and I finally confronted him about it when we were both at that gas station.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by andy1033

What I think is funny is that in the story where British police are letting scouts clock people and decide who to pull over. When the scouts were given the option of ticketing or warning the driver, all the scouts chose to warn. Showing they still had their decency. I'm surprised the cops didn't tell them they had to pick one person to give a ticket to. To strip away some of that scouts innocence with a moral dilemma.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:49 AM
I hate cops. They are ignorant and too high on themselves. They do whatever they want and take people down for doing the same thing. That is why people don't respect them and think they are all a joke. I have seen cops beat people, give people tickets just because they didn't like them. I have seen cops arrest people for no reason. I have seen cops thrown people on the ground because they were simply trying to figure out what the heck the problem was. I have no respect for them, never will.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by FarFromEden

Far your an ass for even suggesting someone that is against the criminal government and against the lacky criminal cops is anyting like J.L.

How rude and how sick are you? DISUSTING! You remind me of a fox news broadcaster, shill..

You know the robbery and the violent crimes as well as poverty are symptoms caused by the corrupt system of greed, lies and manipulation..

Your kind are so brainwashed in the whole capitalism is king, survival of the fittest crap that you cannot even imagine s system without the haves in power. You cannot even imagine what it would be like for a free and educated people to police themselves, you cannot even imagine what its like to give before you take, die before you kill and love before you hate.. I can't hold you 100% responsible for your lack of vision, but I can hold you accountable.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by FarFromEden
reply to post by Loki Lyesmyth
Tell me, Loki Lyesmyth, if you or your family were ever attacked by one of the meth-smoking street scum I saw on the streets not long ago in Daytona Beach, would you expect help from the roid-raging, inferior-complexed local cops?? Or would you just roll over and take it?? I believe you would be screaming for the cops to get the scum who mugged your family so loud they would hear you in Orlando.

Because I am allowed to protect myself with a firearm, or with equal force I will protect MYSELF and should I see a person who cannot protect themself (elderly, child etc) its my duty as a decent human being to stand for those who cannot.

I was a bouncer for several years and NEVER called the police for back-up until we had to deal with them in public areas.

I do not call the cops unless I need paperwork filed for insurance purposes. 90% of ALL other problems I handle myself or with others involved.

I do not look to the state to take care of me as I am a free, grown man and have the rights at this point in time to handle things myself as a free person. I have the right to protect myself and property and will with equal force.

I do not look to the police for help becuase they are none. They do not care about solving problems because that costs them money, it gains them nothing. While fines earn their pay-check and rolling over to the feds earn them even more money.

ITS HIGH TIME WE CUT SPENDING ON BAND-AIDES and start spending money on education, MAYBE instead of having 30 CSI's and dancing with the stars and all the other ignorant useless brain damaging shows, we start using the TV for education and advancement of our kind.


posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by Azp420

Love all the points you make. Myself, I have a problem with the thread title itself.

HOW in the hell is a "cop" (read: corporate security guard) going to explain to ME, an actual LAW abiding National, MY rights?

I have not ha d alicense in over three years and do not have tabs on my plates, they have "NO EXP" and Tax Exempt" tags on them. It is MY right according to the State Constitution Article 1 Section 1.

Section 1. OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.
Sec. 2. RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

Due Process....where is that. In order for a statute to be interpreted as a "law" it must conform to the Constitution, if it does not and it is shown to violate the natural rights of the natural "person" then it is null and void.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had NEVER BEEN PASSED... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) (emphasis mine)

The above are 2 distinct and direct COURT CASES, neither of which have been overturned or challenged with any effect. I challenge ANY and ALL "cops" to argue them.

This is the current situation, 18 USC 31 (6) (10) are the ONLY leagal and lawful definitions of a "motor vehicle". For the states to use any other defintion or to exclude certain wording from Title 18 is void for vagueness.

Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term –

(6) “Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or
drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

(10) “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection
with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]”

See, I have posted many cases here and legal definitions and the like. What has been offered by the "cops"? Nothing but rhetoric and name calling. They are wrong, they know they are wrong and they can't deal with the tyranny they are a party to. They are criminals and they know it.

"... [T]he exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation
License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their
own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or
property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the
Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions. --In re Schmolke (1926) 199
Cal. 42, 46.

"It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or
property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * *
* Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their
separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who
merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or

--Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238." (State v. Karel, 180
So. 3 at 8.)

I mean really, how much more information does one have to present for the message to be heard?



§ 9-109. Classification of Goods: "Consumer Goods"; "Equipment"; "Farm Products";

Goods are:

(1) "consumer goods" if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or
household purposes;

(2) "equipment" if they are used or bought for use primarily in business (including farming or a
profession) or by a debtor who is a non-profit organization or a governmental subdivision or
agency or if the goods are not included in the definitions of inventory, farm products or
consumer goods;

Relevant applicable stare decisis case cites relating directly to UCC 9-109:

“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use
and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal
use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott,
Inc. v Gee
, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden v
Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.,
8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198

I mean, I could paste a ton of stuff here and the "cops" still would not get it that they are committing Federal Crimes against the people of the community.


§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having
so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to
prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or
an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

There is also 18 USC 242, 18 USC 1671, 28 USC 1746, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986. All of these PROTECT the rights of the flesh and blood living soul AGAINST the stealthy encroachment of the state, through the state sponosred fear program of the illegal "policy enforcement officers". These people have been indoctrinated into the system to violate and usurp and subvert OUR rights for the benefit of the Elite.

If only the cops could see the forest for the trees. Please officers, DO NOT try and explain to ME what MY rights are or what YOU "believe" MY rights to be. I am a civilized individual and NOT a "person".

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain "persons" or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; /inklũwzh(iy)ow yanáyəs ést əksklũwzh(iy)ow oltíriyəs/. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (emphasis mine)

When, in any law or statute, code or regulation, a reference is made to a “person” it is to the exclusion of Natural and sovereign persons or people. This has been held to be truth and fact in all cases.

What more can I say?
edit on 21-1-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by daddio

driving is not a right, its a privelage

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by daddio

when you cite the US code it doesnt automaticly override state law. thats why its called federalism. federalism is where you have a central government (federal government) and the state governments. the states are given powers (by the US constitution) to enact and enforce laws, another words laws arent the same in every state. the same US code you are quoting gives the states their powers to enact and enforce laws. people seem to think they have all these right to do what ever they want and it is not true. there are laws that are in place, if you violate a law, you can be subject to law.

i am going to be quite frank here, there are bad cops out there I have seen it firsthand. how many people on here will say "great job, you arrested me because I was DUI or committed a home invasion? the vast majority of cops are great and would anything for anyone. these men and women that you all hate have children, wives, mothers and fathers. they are people just like you and me. they go out and do a job thats negative all day long and put up with crap from people who go out, commit crimes and then blame law enforcement for something they did. its a low paying job, dangerous and there are no set days off but they do it because it takes a special person to do it.
stop bitching and whining suck it up and take responsibility for your actions. why not go on a ride along and see if you can hack it.

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:05 PM
its a cush, sit on your ass job, where you hide or drive around on the taxpayers dime and predate scenarios to keep the judicial system and your departments alive.

hey i'm not denying that there are real scum that are out on the streets, that need killed or locked up..i know that, but the entire attitude of law enforcement is to grow and that's the problem.

why does a town with less than 500 resident need 20 cops?

i was raised in a large lake community of 2500 people and they had 1 cop. if they needed assistance they called the sheriff. everyone minded their own business and no one needed to lock their doors. now they have 35 cops that harass everyone that is out of place on the lake like they are the friggen gestapo...this is the new mentality and it must STOP

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by anumohi

I heard something today, about the RCMP. After training they are given a few choices which community they get to police. Problem is, their own community is not on that list. You are not allowed to be a cop where you grew up, or where you live, they see it as a conflict of interest.... Anyone else see anything wrong with that?

I wonder if police in the US are the same way... Used to be most of the police were locals, that is why they treated the community with respect. Because they are actually part of the community, and know everyone.

top topics

<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in