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.


Cops dealing with people, understanding your a dude

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by MidnightTide
The only thing I can add to this thread is my personal experience.

I was driving home around 9pm at night, after seeing a movie. When I was almost home I saw the lights flashing in my rear view mirror, so I pulled over

As the cop comes up to my window I ask What did I do wrong?

He replies - Nothing, I can pull you over if I feel like it (with a smirk on his face)

I was pissed, but didn't want to get in a fight over it, he asked for the usual...I gave it to him and then he says I recommend you go home.

WTF - I don't care who you are, what is up with that.....and it isn't the first time I have run across that type of attitude with police (and I have no police record, nor do I go out of my way to find trouble)

Seems to me the new breed of officer likes this DO WHAT I SAY entitlement.

Until you complain to the PD.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:11 PM
Complain to the PD....and what happens - nothing.

Just take a look at the G20, cops took off their identification - and nothing happened to them. The police officer that said "This isn't Canada anymore." - nothing happened to him either.

Nothing will happen, nor do I expect it to.

People look after their own, just like the cops do.
edit on 30-1-2011 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:20 PM
in response to KOZMO

"it doesn't matter, your parents did it for you by registering you for a social security number. You affirmed said contract when you signed for your driver's license and registered with selective service if you are a male. You further affirmed said contract by filing taxs, completing I-9 forms and filling out a W-4."

Ummmm........Kozmo, methinks that you misunderestimated the intent of my question..........If I am unaware of the "contract" because there is no provision for a layperson to know that a license is a contract, within the framework of the licensing procedure, due to nondisclosure, then I never "affirmed" said contract never having been informed as to the.....true.....intent and nature of such licensing, or registration, etc.
With that being said, does'nt that constitute non-disclosure, in and of itself, and make such a document void?

edit on 30-1-2011 by YouSir because: to credit above quote

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:22 PM
I've not read much of the thread honestly, but I thought this might be an appropriate thread to ask about what ATS thinks of the World Freeman Society? This fella "Robert: Mernard" is a Canadian that circumvents almost all laws abiding to citizens. He calls himself a "free man on the land" and excludes himself from Canadian Society and thus forms his own Freeman Society, which is the means for his avoidance of anything "the law". If you search YouTube you can find a few videos of "freemen" getting caught driving without a driver's license, and once the freeman presents some document to the cops stating that he is not a Canadian citizen, they are forced to let him be free. Robert has also made a handful of his own documentary type videos explaining his philosophy, I've seen a few they are a little mind blowing. Interesting, to say the least. I do realize this tactic would be of no use in a more extreme military takeover, but could and evidently does work on the small scale. And the idea of it is actually pretty awesome...It's damn tempting to go through a lot of legal trouble so I could live just that more free.

edit on 1/30/11 by metalshredmetal because: link

well i must be a da'g on psychic, sorry to be the reiteration, hah.
edit on 1/30/11 by metalshredmetal because: psychic powers took over body

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by YouSir

You apparently did not read my entire post as I stated exactly that. Freemen have won control of their strawman in court for EXACTLY that reason - there was never full disclosure. A lack of full disclosure nullifies informed-consent thus voiding the contract. Since most of this whole ysstem is currently viewed as a "Social contract" it is inherently implied that full disclosure is inherent through your very nature of participating, ergo there is no need for the government to go out of their way to inform you - it is all codified. As a result, the defense by the state has always been that all of this is public information and your plea of ignorance is not an acceptable defense. Ever hear the saying, "Claiming ignornace of the law is not a valid defense?"

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I like this OP! It's brilliant, well thought out, intelligently written... and totally unrealistic! It belongs in a Philosophy journal, maybe.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Although I can appreciate your wise words when it comes to aiming for the greater good, I still can not see your point of view when it applies to the licensing of motor vehicle operators.

No where in any constitution is a person guaranteed the right to operate a motor vehicle. No where. It is your interpretation that preventing a person from operating a motor vehicle is limiting their ability to travel or pursue happiness. In fact, you can still travel and pursue happiness without a motor vehicle. It is your interpretation that a motor vehicle is NECESSARY to travel and pursue happiness but that is an unreasonable assessment and here is why.

Believe it or not, it takes a basic level of skill and responsibility to operate a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle can cause great damage to property and can be a great threat to other's safety becasue of the size, weight and speeds a motor vehicle can reach. A person without this basic level of skill and responsibility operating a motor vehicle poses a threat to other citizen's safety and property. I do not think there is any rational argument to this line of logic.

Laws have been passed, for the common good, that require a person to prove to the state that they have the basic level of skill and responsibility to operate a motor vehicle. Once one has proven they have the basic skills to operate a motor vehicle, they are granted a license to drive. After this, it is a matter of responsibility. If you prove to maintain a level of responsibility and not drive recklessly or violate the basic traffic laws, enacted for the common safety of other drivers, then you may keep your license.

If you violate these laws and show that you lack the responsibility to operate a motor vehicle, then you pose a danger to not only yourself but others operating their motor vehicles or simply walking down the road. If you show a complete disreguard for the basic responsibility required to operate a motor vehicle, then your license will be suspended or revoked. All of this after due process of law and your day in court.

If you decide to disreguard your suspended or revoked license and drive anyway, in some states you are subject to arrest. This is justified because of the threat to public safety because you have already demonstrated that you lack the basic skills or basic responsibility to operate a motor vehicle.

Even with a suspended or revoked license, a person is still free to travel anywhere they please or pursue happiness until they find it. Those rights are not taken away just because you can not operate a motor vehicle. It is your interpretation that your rights have been alienated because you can not do what you want whenever you want. I submit that it would be unfair that someone who has demonstrated that they lack the basic skills and responsibility to operate a motor vehicle, that weighs thousands of pounds and can reach speeds of over one hundred miles per hour, is allowed to operate said motor vehicle and crash it into another human being seriously injuring or killing them in the process.

Traffic laws are not enforced with fines to generate revenue for the state. The fines are in place as a punishment or deterrence to change the driving habits of drivers in an attempt to make them more safe for the common good. The police department should not, and in most cases do not, benefit from the fines collected on citations. The fines should go, and in most cases do go, into the general fund for the state which then can turn them around and use the revenue towards fixing the roads which licensed operators use. All of those that claim the police department benefits financially from writing citations are most likely wrong. The reason I say most likely is because I do not know a single municipality where this is the case. If you have proof that any police department directly collects revenue from the citations it writes please correct me. The reason no police department directly collects revenue from traffic citations is because it is a blatant conflict of interest and if it is practiced by any municipality it should be corrected.

You are correct in saying it is not the badge that is to be respected but the person, I wholeheartedly agree with you. What I do not agree with is the fact that you would attribute most police officers as being rogue or lawless. I agree that there are bad cops, but I would submit that they are the minority. I can understand why people would think that bad cops are the majority but this is not the case. This minority of bad cops and their actions get the most attention. Through the media or by word of mouth, the minorities actions ring out the loudest while the majority of good cops whose actions meet or exceed the expectations of the public get much less notoriety. It is everyone's duty to weed out bad cops who abuse their power and mistreat the public, including other police. But it is also everyone's duty to realize that not all police are bad.

To those of you who think we live in a police state, we absolutely do not. The police enforce the law which is voted in by the majority. If marijuana was to be legalized tomorrow, the police would not continue to arrest people possessing it just because they disagreed with it. That is how it works. That is how the people directly control the actions of police officers. Through legislation.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by areyouserious2010

BZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! You are a product of the system and programmed to believe absolutely everything you wrote - like most people. If you understood even the BASIC premise of Common Law or the Magna Carta, you would have thought twice before wasting your time typing that tripe. But alas, I cannot blame you for you were never taught about either of the things for exactly this reason.

Have fun at the trough with the rest of the sheeple. If, however, you are interested in loosing the ties that bind you, stay tuned and continue to read this thread and the countless of other threads previously posted on ATS on this material. A whole new world will open to you, I promise!

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by Adamanteus

Yes I do have a State ID You cant exist with out it now a days!

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I like this OP! It's brilliant, well thought out, intelligently written... and totally unrealistic! It belongs in a Philosophy journal, maybe.

Thanks for stopping in and sharing your opinion. Although I cannot call it an educated one as you have supplied absolutely no evidence to support the fact that you believe this to be "Unrealistic". Conversely many of us have posted a great deal of evidence to support the fact that not only is it realistic, but it is REALITY.

This goes back to my psot on page one where I stated that I am always amused by those who so adamantly refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and fight so vociferously to defend the status quo. It just goes to show the power of social conditioning.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by kozmo

Ummm.....actually, I did read your whole post and I did see where you stated that.
I only wanted clarification and in your subsequent post you provided that. Thank you
your response is corroboration that my thought process on this matter is correct.

Again thankyou


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by mrwiffler

Originally posted by mrwiffler
How is driving a car a constitutionally protected right? Under what specific part of the constitution of the USA is it said "...have the right to bare cars..."

I must be missing something here.

The "something" that you are missing is comprehension. You also demonstrate an obvious ignorance concerning basic Constitutional elements.

1) Freedom of Movement is a right. If the only way to move anywhere is roads (city, suburbs,etc.), then that means a right to use the roads.

2) Paying tax especially means you have a right to use public roadways.

3) As Horse Carriage owners, the Founding Fathers knew that people would be using personally owned transportation on public roadways, paths, and trails, and did NOT prohibit it.

4) Sarcasm makes people look ridiculous, not intelligent.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by YouSir

The pleasure is all mine! This is a VERY convoluted area - and for a reason. Just remember, because everything is codified, it is published and free for preview. Therefore full disclosure has been made, albeit in a very complicated legalese. Couple that with the social conditioning that gives everyone the impression that this is simply how it's done, and you have a very dangerous system stacked against you.

God speed and good luck!

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:13 PM

Originally posted by brokedown
Police Officer are YOU “We the People” or Not ?

It is up to you and you alone in what kind of country in which we live. That’s the bottom line.

I'd say the various departments and agencies of "enforcers" will get maybe half the say in what kind of country we're going to live in, and lots of freedom-loving guys with brass balls will have the other half. Whose half carries more weight is what would then be decided.

I think cops standing down themselves, when they have the same weight of authority hanging over their own heads to do as they're told, but being mostly bullies anyway are too weak to stand up to their own authority, are just going to get caught right in the middle of it. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany. In the end, all the good cops left for one reason or another and all the cops left in Germany were either monsters or passive to others' monstrous behaviors. The good people may leave but the monstrous institutional frames will remain until they're hacked down or negated by a higher government power, and those higher government powers can easily be seen as the root cause of all the police state corruption in the first place.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by kozmo


Please, provide at least one productive post to this discussion. I am not wrong simply because you say I am wrong. If that were the case I would have simply posted, "you're wrong," instead of trying to make a productive point and adding something to the discussion. Look at what I have wrote and try to argue based on fact, not simply bantering about everyone else is wrong, uneducated and you are the enlightened one.

Your posts simply lend evidence to the fact that you are not being realistic and have no business in this thread.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by seeashrink

Ummmmm..............You, Sir, are not a realist........and you are most oath keeper.
Rather, you are a willful, representative of an unlawful corporate entity. You ignore the constitution and uphold the unlawful statutes of your corporate charter............The only oaths you keep are corporate, not constitutional.
Your fascile claim that you would shut down this thread........exposes you for what you are.

Realism, would take heed of the.........pulse..........of the people and inform the utter seriousness, of their disposition......Reason, would determine the regard of the people is nearly at it's limit, and the people stand on the far side of this moment.

Realism, would heed the warning of revolution that is spreading across the world........When the same occurs here.........I will keep the overbearing, overintrusive, corporate charter.


Slick, you don't know a thing about me. You don't know that I have a military issued flag hanging in my office of a public building up side down. I'm just going to assume that you know what that means. You have no idea of the people that I cut slack just because I don't like getting in their pockets because the governments are getting into them enough without my help. You don't know that a ticked book last me 2 years when most officers go through a book in 6 wks to 2 months or less.

Every cop has his strong point, an area that he/she likes to work. Some love traffic, some love drug cases, my particular strong point is investigations. I get stolen guns off the street and out of the hands of violent criminals. I find stolen cars. I investigate child sexual abuse and rape and murder. Stuff you wouldn't have the guts to come from behind you cushy computer desk to deal with.

As I told someone in the other thread, the idea that you guys have would be wonderful in existance, but it is not going to exist in this current society until there is a breakdown of same.

Have you ever rode with a cop? Have you ever served in the military or are you just a mouth piece for your own ideas and design without anything in your vast experience to support it? I've served MY country in both the military and civilian role and I've done so with more than words. I would be surprised if you could say the same and I don't know that I would believe you if you. You seem to enjoy the anonymity of the internet. I've had a mod on here challenge me as to if I were a cop of not. I gave him my office phone number and gave him permission to talk to my chief. So yes, I am real, and I am a realist and I don't need the internet to hide behind.

You and your kind are so full of hate that you can't see the forest for the trees. You're just sad little people. You will be amazed as you grow up how much you learn and how much of what you thought you knew but didn't.

Gee, I hope that I don't get deleted by a mod for M&D. Anybody want to take bets on that?


posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:38 PM
Great topic and post Jean Paul.

It occurs to me that you are constitutional, natural human rights, scholar. If not by trade by desire - even better if by desire. My question to those who enforce the law: Why are you not the same? If you have taken up arms to protect "natural human rights" or "constitutional rights" how is it that you were allowed to enforce these without spending years studying the topics?

If I were to be a doctor, I'd have to spend years studying the body. If I were to be an engineer of trains, I'd have to spend years studying physics and mechanics. If I were to be a pro basketball player, I'd spend years learning the game. You get the point here.

To be an officer, a cursory training course on guns, fighting, paperwork, testifying and some rudimentary notions about "laws" and that's it. This makes no sense to me. To be a peace officer, one needs to know what the peace is, and as Jean Paul has so eloquently put it: peace comes with the ability to be confident in your "natural human rights." Peace does not come via a ticket, court date, handcuffs and a belligerent attitude derived from faux authority.

What Jean Paul and many others have said about the process is rather than being peace officers bound to uphold the natural human rights of all that live, most police officers are Policy Enforcers" bound to find ways to collect taxes under the guise of "laws" and THEN use their authoritative position to "keep the peace," which only seems to be needed to keep folks paying the tax.

Have any of you asked why driving must come with taxes? Those taxes don't go to paying for the roads - that would make sense and police aren't needed to collect them. Why does parking this way or that require a ticket? The answer, which was conceived AFTER the fact is, to alter behavior. But if we were not slaves fighting for every scrap of freedom we might not need this draconian form of behavior modification. In the case of driving - traveling by car, if we all went to racing school, learned the physics of the car, went to school to understand the greater good of traveling - there might be no need for tickets and the like. Instead we get 15 minutes of instruction and we are simply wired for endless tickets - taxes.

Sadly, we slaves have decided that a freedom of travel is not important, we'd just be happy to be lucky enough not to be ticketed - taxed, have our insurance rates go up - taxed, and happy enough just to be able to leave the house at all. There was a time when this wasn't the case, but alas we are all reduced to begging for scraps of "freedom" while calling the ability to get taxed on everything we do the price of freedom.

Why does freedom have a price?

Why does freedom need enforcement?

Why does freedom need to be spelled out in document form?

Kudos to your Jean Paul for taking on this topic and sticking with it, it can't be easy reading the replies that tell you and others to shut up, take the ticket and deal with it as this is what freedom is and will always be. The endless problem with these discussions is that folks argue the excuses for the draconian actions rather than go back far enough in the timeline to argue the natural person issues. So they say "society is evil, so laws are needed to keep people free, we just execute the laws, otherwise there would be chaos." They see this as fact, when in fact, folks made up that to justify what they were going to do to the slaves several hundred years ago. The created violence, then brought "the peace" but it was a cost - problem: reaction: solution. Someone creates all three and the slaves just follow.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by kozmo


Please, provide at least one productive post to this discussion. I am not wrong simply because you say I am wrong. If that were the case I would have simply posted, "you're wrong," instead of trying to make a productive point and adding something to the discussion. Look at what I have wrote and try to argue based on fact, not simply bantering about everyone else is wrong, uneducated and you are the enlightened one.

Your posts simply lend evidence to the fact that you are not being realistic and have no business in this thread.

I have contributed several EXTREMELY productive posts to the thread!
You are wrong, not because I say you are wrong, but by the very nature of your post - it is INCORRECT! I apologize if you are unable to comprehend what has been written here, but I have previously linked to a very lengthy document that would detail for you the numerous ways that you are wrong. You have neglected to do your research.

I'm sorry that I lack the time to sit here and type out a lengthy dissertation pointing out each of your erroneous statements but they have been documented ad nauseum all over ATS - use the search function and be prepared to be floored! There are no less than 100 threads on this very topic, all very carefully researched, linking to a treasure trove of supporting data. Read Johnny LIberty's The Global Sovereigns Handbook. Read and understand the Trading With The Enemies Act. Look beyond your HS text book leading you to believe that the Civil War was about slavery and research how it affected State's Rights. Learn about what happened in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve and what that meant to our Constitutional Republic. It is all around you.

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by seeashrink

you are a true jackboot corrupt bully, willing to support a corrupt system because you personally profit from it..

i am a former marine who went to places that "dont exist", was a rescue operator in the uscg, worked with a border tactical unit in san diego, and was a govt contractor who did more "things that never happened"..

while at "margaritaville" (recon) on camppendleton my chief warrant officer taught us "cops pin on their courage and strap on their balls"

when i got out i was in the A class (above 90 percentile) for police hire, until i hung out with a few cops, did ride alongs and realized their IQ's were really low..

if you are too stupid to realize whats happening with the corruption then you are willingly particiapting in it..

p.s., i live in NC also.. if you ever wanna receive some free hand to hand combat training ill gladly oblige you.

6'3" 240 and have won bare knuckle tough man contest in illinois (while in college) and in sonoma county california..or i will outshoot you on any rifle/handgun/scattergun course..

you were a Marine or were you Aren't Really Marine Yet (army)?

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:52 PM
It does not matter if you do know your rights. Do you think every cop memorises the rights you as a citisen has?
I have had my rights violated,and i was jailed,when infact i did not break the law. I even let the cop arressting me know he was violating my rights,well i guess like 95%of cops out their,he did not study peoples rights and i was thrown in jail. Only after letting an outside party know of this they got me out.

Lesson of the story, you only have the rights,that the cop arressting you has studied.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in