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: 36
170
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


And just one more thing, the right to OWN property ALSO encompasses the RIGHT to use that property UNRESTRICTED!! A license is a restriction!!! GET IT YET!!!


"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.



Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless. City of Chicago v Collins (19__) 51 NE 907, 910.


What DO YOU NOT GET? It is plain as day in the court cases above. Again, I could sit here ALL DAY LONG and cite case after case, but YOUR IGNORANCE will never go away.

It is a CIVIL LIBERTY, part of the right to own property that the "State" CAN NOT IN ANY WAY RESTRICT by licensing!!!


"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” American Jurisprudence 1st Edition, Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.


Again, it is CITED as a "Constitutional Guarantee"!!!!!!!

STOP THIS LYING CRAP OF YOURS, You are obviously uninformed and an ignorant fool trying to prove a point YOU CAN'T!!

Give it up already, you have NOTHING!!! YOU ARE WRONG.....just admit it and move on.
edit on 16-2-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


If we go by the plain text reading of the Constitution, then black peple are 3/5 of a person. Traveling within a state and across state borders is constitutionally protected. The manner of travel is not.

Dont know what else to tell you.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by daddio
 


If we go by the plain text reading of the Constitution, then black people are 3/5 of a person.


What is the exact text though?

I always thought it meant that "all other persons" numbers would be totaled and that number would be reduced by two fifths, not that one individual is counted as 3/5 of one.

It was about the total number of the group, not individuals. But one can see how a person would become confused. A racist would interpret it one way, an honest man another.




edit on 16-2-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Im not really sure how to take the honest man / racist man comment....

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
edit on 16-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by daddio
 


If we go by the plain text reading of the Constitution, then black peple are 3/5 of a person. Traveling within a state and across state borders is constitutionally protected. The manner of travel is not.

Dont know what else to tell you.


Once again, PLEASE get this into your head, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU OR I..okay? IT IS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT...IT RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT...which means it keeps the government in check. The Bill of Rights...that SECURES the RIGHTS we are BORN WITH.. and the right to own property COMES FIRST, you can grab before you can speak, so possession is the first right YOU ARE NATURALLY BORN WITH.

What don;t you get? Stop refering to the "Constitution" it does NOT apply to me, I was NEVER a party to it.


THE motive of our Founding Fathers was totally self-centered. It was their personal greed that inspired them to accept the task of writing the Constitution of the United States and not patriotism. In actuality, the United States is not a land or a place: ‘It is a corporation, a legal fiction that existed well before the Revolutionary War.’ [See: Republica v. Sween, 1 Dallas 43 and 28 U. S. C. 3002 (15) ].


www.rumormillnews.com...

Here is more proof...


Documented proof that the Constitution was not for us can be found at Padelford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, [14 Georgia 438, 520]. This was a Court case wherein the Plaintiffs sued the City of Savannah for violating what they believed were their constitutionally-protected rights. The decision of the Judge says it all: "But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it." [Emphasis added]


Once again, you fail. Prove up your claim, you haven't one as I have shown that the Constitution DOES NOT apply to you or I, IT RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT!!! It does not, in any way, restrict or usurp the RIGHTS of the people to give the government the authority TO MAKE anything a PRIVILEGE, when it comes to the actual flesh and blood people!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

edit on 16-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thanks.

It looks like they are referring to 3/5s of a group, not that each individual is only 3/5 of a person.

As to the comment about racists, a racist might interpret this to mean that those "other persons" as being less than human or to deny them access to their rights or the protection of the law.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



As to the comment about racists, a racist might interpret this to mean that those "other persons" as being less than human or to deny them access to their rights or the protection of the law.


I can see how ones ignorance on this topic could cause a perrson to incorrectly come to that conclusion when they dont understand the document its in, the reason it even existed, or the politics of the time.

Its 3/5 of a person, and it was geared towards slaves, which during this time in our history was comprised mainy of African slaves.

3/5 Compromise


The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives.It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.



edit on 16-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Don't get all upset bro.

I appreciate your input. You bring alot to the table.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
A lot of LEOs on here claim they'd never draw down on their fellow citizens if ordered to by the government, a claim I seriously doubt.

The situation in Wisconsin, where the Governor is trying to outlaw all the unions (except for police and firefighters) is a good test case to prove the pudding.

How many of you LEOs would help break up the teachers' and other unions' members demonstrations protesting this violation of their civil rights? I'm pretty sure each and every one of you would wind up swinging a baton on their heads if ordered to do so.

Seeashrink, with all due respect, despite the fact you seem to be a good cop, a rarity, would you really leave your job if you were a Wisconsin cop, or would you bash heads as ordered? I'm pretty sure headbashing will begin there, because it has happened so many times before for the same reasons, and each and every time, the police, both good ones and bad ones, line up shoulder to shoulder and draw down on their fellow citizens to protect some corrupt corporate/political types.

If you were a Wisconsin cop, would you beat down fellow citizens for demanding what you have...a union? Or would you join with your union brothers and sisters and fight for everyone's rights?

My guess is that pretty much all cops will opt for personal job security, same as they go for personal physical security while denying it to others.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
A lot of LEOs on here claim they'd never draw down on their fellow citizens if ordered to by the government, a claim I seriously doubt.

The situation in Wisconsin, where the Governor is trying to outlaw all the unions (except for police and firefighters) is a good test case to prove the pudding.

How many of you LEOs would help break up the teachers' and other unions' members demonstrations protesting this violation of their civil rights? I'm pretty sure each and every one of you would wind up swinging a baton on their heads if ordered to do so.

Seeashrink, with all due respect, despite the fact you seem to be a good cop, a rarity, would you really leave your job if you were a Wisconsin cop, or would you bash heads as ordered? I'm pretty sure headbashing will begin there, because it has happened so many times before for the same reasons, and each and every time, the police, both good ones and bad ones, line up shoulder to shoulder and draw down on their fellow citizens to protect some corrupt corporate/political types.

If you were a Wisconsin cop, would you beat down fellow citizens for demanding what you have...a union? Or would you join with your union brothers and sisters and fight for everyone's rights?

My guess is that pretty much all cops will opt for personal job security, same as they go for personal physical security while denying it to others.


Exactly apacheman, when I was in Duluth Minn. for court, they tried to fingerprint me and photo me, wrong!! Where is the enforcement clause, where do they derive their jurisdiction? Article 1 Section 1 of the Bill of Rights for the State of Minnesota is very clear!!! No Consent, no problem. I asked the officer if they ever looked into what they were doing and where they derived their "alleged" authority. I could not believe their response...."I get my check every friday, just doing my job!!"

UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 

I will not violate the rights of my fellow man...period. If i were in Wisconsin and was on duty at the demonstration I would do my best to keep the peace by removing observed trouble makers. I would not be "bashing heads" as long as someone wasn't trying to bash mine. If the order was given to bash heads indiscriminately or to shoot, then I would have to take my badge off.
Apache, I know you don't know me but I have great conviction on this and will stand by my principles.
Seeashrink



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by seeashrink
 


Then, indeed, you are a good one, most sorely needed at this time, and have my profound respect.

I fear as the real economy shrinks and food prices climb, we will see more demonstrations for a wide variety of reasons, both legitimate and ridiculous, and the opportunity combined with official displeasure with such and a permissive oversight will be too much for the cowboy cops to resist, and things will get out of hand quickly.

Take care of yourself, and try to find like-minded cops so you can work together and be the calm tuning forks that keep the wavering in line remembering their duty when times get difficult. It would be well to think through and identify some folks you might wind up facing across a line and make friends now, so at least there are some open, if unofficial, channels of communication available based on mutual trust and understanding.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by seeashrink
 


Then, indeed, you are a good one, most sorely needed at this time, and have my profound respect.

I fear as the real economy shrinks and food prices climb, we will see more demonstrations for a wide variety of reasons, both legitimate and ridiculous, and the opportunity combined with official displeasure with such and a permissive oversight will be too much for the cowboy cops to resist, and things will get out of hand quickly.

Take care of yourself, and try to find like-minded cops so you can work together and be the calm tuning forks that keep the wavering in line remembering their duty when times get difficult. It would be well to think through and identify some folks you might wind up facing across a line and make friends now, so at least there are some open, if unofficial, channels of communication available based on mutual trust and understanding.


This is the best place to find like minded "cops" or "Law Enforcement" officials. I think more people need to step up and support wbsites like Jacks. I support it and I also support Cornell Law University. These and other institutions like the Cato Institute are extremely valuable for research and reference.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Here's ONE way to deal with police brutality.




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


A bit extreme.
I think taking their badge and jobs would stop them.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ..5..
 


Right. Cuz that happens so often.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


As long as I'm dreaming I might as well avoid violence in them



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
From another former cop

The role of any LEO is to serve and protect.

We fail to remember all too often that we are public servants.
We are entrusted with great powers to ensure that we carry out our jobs safely and efficiently.
These powers are a true privilege and not a right.

Whilst the op raises many good points, it should not be forgotten that we as officers are the supposed “highly trained” individuals. We are selected by careful process to ascertain that we are amongst many things, tolerant and stable. Whenever any officer acts unlawfully toward any citizen he/she should be held responsible to the full force of the law.

An officer is not above the law he is employed to enforce it.

Reasonable force is perhaps the worst aspect used in law enforcement because it is by design so vague yet potentially deadly when used incorrectly.

It is a sad fact that far too many officers become consumed with the power that they hold.
Using that very same power to inflict violence against individuals who either disagree or fail the so called “attitude test”.
The canteen culture within the “job” only serves to fuel the egos of such sad, cowardly and misguided individuals who are often looked up to by young and old officers alike because they look big, hard and macho.
(That's what they believe)

When such behaviour is challenged by credible officers they are often ostracised or ignored.

Internal affairs, police complaints etc etc simply do their very best to protect these sickening individuals in order to protect the image of our profession. Yet in doing, so such behaviour continues to be inflicted onto innocent law abiding individuals because they try to exercise their rights!
Until such abhorrent, power crazy, misguided individuals are rooted out from Police Departments with firm and positive action, the public themselves will never feel safe from the officers deployed to protect them, not beat them senseless into submission.

Perhaps officers need more training in the art of listening and communication.

Far more respect is earned with a firm but polite attitude. Unlike the OPs comment however it is toward many officers that I direct that comment toward.

Being a cop is a privilege and NOT a right, that should never be forgotten.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
It's really nice to hear all this optimistic tripe about LEO...

Unfortunately I've tried complaining about police officers' activities not only via telephone and concerned letters, every response basically laughs me out the door on serious issues. The whole "brotherhood" aspect or "we are always right and you are just a civillian, and we need to stick together" attitude projected isn't exactly subtle or unpracticed. One of these incidents corncerned federal police and a Polish man who was tased to death in an airport because he was "hostile". The video went viral and shouldn't be difficult to find on youtube. Anyways, for some reason all 8 of these "officers" thought it would be a great idea to beat the man in the face while he was getting tased by a different officer. I called in to see the result of the situation and I received an EXTREMELY RUDE "Yes, Yes. The man with the taser have been suspended for two weeks. *Click*". Now I understand they probably weren't short on calls, but what did you expect? I mean your department literally KILLED an innocent person...? And you just shrug it off? The worste part of this situation is that you have to deal with people demanding justice and getting nothing short of a slap in the face?

Ohhh Okay, I feel safe now. And this preacher-esque thread is TOTALLLLY going to change that...


Sorry. No.

P.S. Please don't say "Just get an attorney" in this economy and expect to be taken seriously.
edit on 27-5-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
170
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join