Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by NuroSlam
No, one day he woke up and realised that what he was doing was wrong on so many levels that he couldn't do it any more.

I guess there really is hope after all.

There are good people out there.

One municipal cop that I knew quit the force and went to work as the manager of a U-Haul store.

I asked him why he made the change.

His answer: " I was tired of being a hypocrite. I would take a bag of weed from teenagers, tell them that I was letting them off with a warning, and tell them to get out of town. Then I would go home and smoke their weed after my shift was over."

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Dont tell me show me. And I am not talking about when a police officer speaks out against misconduct. Show me a video of a police officer using force that you deem justifiable.

I really don't need to show you a video of what I would consider using force in a justifiable means. I don't believe that doing so necessarily make one a good cop. This may shock you, but I believe when all facts are in play, while rather excessive, Rodney King was justifiable. I do understand being in the moment and its effects on ones judgement.

What do I view as a good cop? One that offers a ride to the gas station when you run out of gas a few miles outside town.
A bad cop? One that arrests a young woman with a 3 year old child for not having insurance.

I have seen both, and while the bad cop did allow me to give the young boy water, and allow then to sit in my air conditioned store while waiting for a family member to come get the child rather then CPS, he did not need to arrest her and and place such a hardship on her when obviously, to me, she was someone just trying to get by in the times we live in.

Show me the proof that you have that Xcathdra , while working as a police officer, violates people's rights everyday. Oh, you didnt mean I know who I am , and why I say things. specifically? Oh, you meant it as a blanket statement? Then why did you use the term YOU? Well then, what proof do you have that any particular police officer violates people's rights daily?

In reference to Xcathdra, if he would like me to view LEO's as good people, he needs to show me first that he is one.
But, yes, I do cast a wide net when I say police violate peoples rights daily.
Now if you believe that the arbitrary laws that differ between states and even towns that are created by government as a means to extract money, then you are correct, they are good cops.

I however don't consider these "positive" rights and laws when I judge the job of the LEO, the only laws that should apply when an cop is performing his duties are the "negative" laws of nature Life, Liberty and Property. These are the laws that the common man expects a LEO to uphold. Ticketing a jaywalker is a violation of these rights. Jaywalking maybe a vice but there is no intent to cause harm or damage nor is there an action that does either, thus according to natural law it is not a crime and should not be punished.

Is it possible? Anything is possible. Is it acceptable and standard operating procedure? There is no evidence supporting that.

Attempting to reconcile such rulings, state courts and lower federal courts have come to draw a distinction between two kinds of lying to suspects: intrinsic misrepresentations, or those lies that relate to a suspect's connection to the crime; and extrinsic misrepresentations, or those that have nothing to do with the suspect's connection to the crime but attempt to distort his ability to make a rational choice about confessing. One of the leading cases recognizing this distinction is Holland v. McGinnis, decided in 1992 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That case affirmed the admission of a confession obtained after investigators falsely told the defendant, Holland, that they "had received a Chicago police report indicating that a witness had seen Holland's vehicle in the alley where the victim had been raped, and that Holland would have to explain why his vehicle was there."

www.straightdope.com...

Do you honestly believe I dont know that a cop can smoke a joint in order to bust a pot smoker?

Police Department's policies reguarding this type of behavior varies from one department to the next. As a general rule though, if while in an undercover capacity it becomes necessary for an officer to injest an illegal substance in order to maintain his or her cover thereby securing his or her safety, it is acceptable. The exposure is documented and all the proper medical steps are taken as soon as reasonably possible.

but is there a requirement to prove ones life was endangered?

No one has been granted the right to break the law in order to imprison people.

I have already explained the drug thing. An officer, who feels their safety is dependant on injesting an illegal substance to maintain their cover, has no criminal intent when injesting said substance.

An officer is not granted the right to lie about facts to get a conviction. If it is determined that the officer lied, the conviction will be overturned and the officer will suffer extreme penalties up to and including imprisonment.

Again, going back to the jaywalking, stopping and writing a ticket is a violation on the persons liberty (detainment and interference with the right to travel) and their Property (since the "crime" has no victim its a form of thieft)

Yes, unfortunately I do not believe the regular everyday person has any idea how the police really work. I believe television and movies tell most people how the police work which is usually a far cry from what actually goes on.

Its pretty apparent to me how the police work, they locate someone violating the "law" issue a ticket (demand pay off with threat of violence) and is the pay off isn't received then kidnapping and imprisonment occurs.

This rant shows that no matter how compelling the evidence, no matter what the circumstances, you will always be against the police. You have no first hand experience in police work. You claim you have known many cops in your life and they all speak openly about police corruption. Get real.

Non starter, I don't need to have done brain surgery to know what a brain surgeon does.

No, because you are not a police officer. You could complain to the department and they will get it fixed instead of making a big deal about it. It is the department's vehicle and they are responsible for fixing the tail light. An officer getting a ticket for a tail light out on a police vehicle is as rediculous as writing a ticket to a public bus driver because they have a tail light out.

A ticket is a big deal to a lot of people who get by pay check to pay check.

No and neither can a police officer. He must have probable cause or consent to search your vehicle. See you have no idea how the police work.

If the officer has reasonable suspicion, and you do not provide consent, it is a common tactic to use a k9 to develop probable cause. I could see where you would have a problem if the officer asked for consent and after you refused he searched it anyway without probable cause but this is proof that you have no idea what really goes into police work.

I will speak from experience here.
I was driving from Terrell Texas on my way to Ft Worth, along the way, in Mesquite my car started to over heat (actually blew a head gasket) I pulled off the highway at the nearest exit which happened to be an upper class development. I noticed a 100 foot amature radio tower and was attempted to locate the home to ask for some water for the car and directions to the nearest gas station. Before I could locate the house my car broke down. I popped the hood to let it cool down. Since i was returning home from a month long job my car was loaded with my belongings. A sheriffs deputy pulled in behind me and asked what was wrong, I told him, he then asked for my "papers" which I handed him, he came back, handed me my "papers" and "asked to search my car. I said no, i have done nothing wrong and do not consent to being searched. He said fine, but I am going to detain you until k9 gets there. An hour later k9 showed, false hit on my car and the tossing of my belongs along the side of the road began. half way threw the search, he came up to me with a piece of paper in hand, showed me my amature radio license and said I was free to go. Now I ask you, where exactly was the probable cause? And if there was probable cause why did the search stop upon finding my license?

Then that is between you and THAT department not all police officers and departments everywhere. If it was that big of a deal then go back later and get a form. Then, make a complaint about the police not having the proper forms. Or, contact your local states attorney, representative or executive and make a complaint to them.

I see no need to waste my time on something that will be ignored and covered up anyways

reply to post by NuroSlam


Ya'll need to quit listening to jailhouse(or sh*thouse) lawyers for your legal advice.....any cop can search ANY car,without permission or warrant,OR PC,for "officers safety",which means they can look anywhere the driver can reasonably reach to conceal a weapon....anything they find in that serach,weapon,or dope,or a million dollars,is considered "legally" found....as for a K9,being detained until a unit can arrive has been found,by courts,to be about 20 minutes...anything after that is a complainable offense....but if a dog hits,false or not,you will be searched...the courts have upheald that one too.....sounds like a lot of gripes have to do with higher court rulings,not the officers who enforce them....get over yourselves....or move

Originally posted by butcherguy
There are good people out there.

And there are good cops out there. I just wish that thin blue line could get cut somehow.

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Ya'll need to quit listening to jailhouse(or sh*thouse) lawyers for your legal advice.....any cop can search ANY car,without permission or warrant,OR PC,for "officers safety",which means they can look anywhere the driver can reasonably reach to conceal a weapon....anything they find in that serach,weapon,or dope,or a million dollars,is considered "legally" found....as for a K9,being detained until a unit can arrive has been found,by courts,to be about 20 minutes...anything after that is a complainable offense....but if a dog hits,false or not,you will be searched...the courts have upheald that one too.....sounds like a lot of gripes have to do with higher court rulings,not the officers who enforce them....get over yourselves....or move

Where do you get that I listen to jail house lawyers? Are using me as an example of your point or are you saying that I have some notion that the LEO is bound by law?

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Ya'll need to quit listening to jailhouse(or sh*thouse) lawyers for your legal advice.....any cop can search ANY car,without permission or warrant,OR PC,for "officers safety",which means they can look anywhere the driver can reasonably reach to conceal a weapon....anything they find in that serach,weapon,or dope,or a million dollars,is considered "legally" found....as for a K9,being detained until a unit can arrive has been found,by courts,to be about 20 minutes...anything after that is a complainable offense....but if a dog hits,false or not,you will be searched...the courts have upheald that one too.....sounds like a lot of gripes have to do with higher court rulings,not the officers who enforce them....get over yourselves....or move

Where do you get that I listen to jail house lawyers? Are using me as an example of your point or are you saying that I have some notion that the LEO is bound by law?

You referred to proable cause in your post.....you dont know squat about probable cause so I said what i said....you are getting your info somewhere false

LOL...a lot of people were so accustomed to "sickin" law enforcement on the undesirables in society and thus "legally" harassing them. Now that the police out of control and also harassing them, all heck as hit the fan!

reply to post by areyouserious2010


My post wasn't keyed around the 3 strikes laws, that law was just pointed out. My point is that we citizens have listened to politicians and DA's talking about being tough on crime, when in actuality they have become tough on EVERYONE!

My point is there are those, even in this thread, who are of the mindset that anyone beaten, arrested, harassed by police was a thug/guilty and deserved it. I'm stating that even innocent, law abiding people stand a good chance of falling on the wrong side of the law.

Peoples fear have allowed politicians to make just about EVERYTHING illegal, thus opening the door for EVERYONE to be victimized by police should that officer so choose.

reply to post by Nutter


The ruling does not give police PERMISSION to enter a house unlawfully without a warrant or probable cause. It merely says that a person cannot RESIST based on their immediate and sometimes irrational judgement of the situation.

The ruling does not preclude legal action later which, when the entry is found to be illegal, the police officer and department will be subject to heavy penalties.

I disagree with the ruling but you are misinterperating it to mean the police are now free to enter your home anytime they like without repercussion. Which is untrue.

reply to post by butcherguy

There are good people out there.

One municipal cop that I knew quit the force and went to work as the manager of a U-Haul store.

I asked him why he made the change.

His answer: " I was tired of being a hypocrite. I would take a bag of weed from teenagers, tell them that I was letting them off with a warning, and tell them to get out of town. Then I would go home and smoke their weed after my shift was over."

I would hardly classify this officer as "good people."

Not only is he smoking marijuana which, no matter what the arguement, is still against the law but he was also using his position of authority to steal it from teenagers.

This is where you show a seperation from rational argument. You claim to champion against police corruption but in the face of blatant police corruption such as this you label him a good person?

reply to post by areyouserious2010
Yes I do. He is more honest as a civilian potsmoker that can stand as much chance of being arrested as the next guy.... than as a police officer that breaks the law with impunity.

Or don't you get that? We are talking about bad cops here. That was just one of the cops that I personally know. They all break the law, every last one of them that I know.

reply to post by NuroSlam

I really don't need to show you a video of what I would consider using force in a justifiable means. I don't believe that doing so necessarily make one a good cop. This may shock you, but I believe when all facts are in play, while rather excessive, Rodney King was justifiable. I do understand being in the moment and its effects on ones judgement.

Really? Of all the justifiable uses of force by police you pick that one? Good luck with that. There are many who will disagree with you.

I dont think you find it justified, I just think you picked a very controversial incident and say you find it justified to give an appearance.

What do I view as a good cop? One that offers a ride to the gas station when you run out of gas a few miles outside town.
A bad cop? One that arrests a young woman with a 3 year old child for not having insurance.

So you define a good officer as one that is acting in a benign manner such as giving someone a ride to the gas station but the second a police officer enforces the law, they are bad?

Last time I checked, the police are not paid to be taxi drivers, although this is a nice gesture for the public. The police are paid to identify uninsured drivers and charge them with the crime of driving an uninsured vehicle because someone operating a motor vehicle without insurance is a problem. The law was passed in your state because someone, who had no insurance on their vehicle, got into an accident and could not pay for the damages or injuries to the other person. This is why we have insurance.

Arresting the Woman is a choice made by the police officer. While I do not agree with the decision to arrest someone solely for operating an uninsured vehicle, especially while they are with their child, it is not your place to judge. Are you absolutely sure this was the only crime she committed. How do you know there were not other factors that lead to her being arrested?

I have seen both, and while the bad cop did allow me to give the young boy water, and allow then to sit in my air conditioned store while waiting for a family member to come get the child rather then CPS, he did not need to arrest her and and place such a hardship on her when obviously, to me, she was someone just trying to get by in the times we live in.

Even after all this, you would still label him a bad cop for doing his job. Did you ever consider that if she could not afford insurance, she could ride public transportation? If the woman could not afford insurance then she absolutely could not afford to pay for any damages or injuries caused by her if she were to get into an accident. How fair is that to the other driver if she were involved in an accident?

In reference to Xcathdra, if he would like me to view LEO's as good people, he needs to show me first that he is one.

How can he do that? You probably do not know him personally. You probably do not know where he works and this information is undisclosed in this forum for good reason. How is he supposed to prove this to you?

But, yes, I do cast a wide net when I say police violate peoples rights daily.
Now if you believe that the arbitrary laws that differ between states and even towns that are created by government as a means to extract money, then you are correct, they are good cops.

You mix violating rights with enforcing laws that are democratically installed through the legislative branch of government. You view the fines associated with enforcing the law a means of generating revenue for the state. In actuality it is a way of punishing people and a way of attempting to change their behavior to conform with the law.

Here is an example for speeding and the fines associated with it:

People get into accidents that seriously injure or kill them. The accident is investigated and it shows that speed was a big factor which lead to the serious injuries or death of that person. A broad study is done which shows that a vehicle's speed plays a big factor in how serious the accident is. More speed + accident=greater chance of death or serious injury. Speed limits are set for certain roads based on conditions. Police enforce the speed limit by writing tickets. People are fined in court when written a ticket in an attempt to make them think and follow the speed limit thus creating a safer environment on public streets.

I however don't consider these "positive" rights and laws when I judge the job of the LEO, the only laws that should apply when an cop is performing his duties are the "negative" laws of nature Life, Liberty and Property. These are the laws that the common man expects a LEO to uphold. Ticketing a jaywalker is a violation of these rights. Jaywalking maybe a vice but there is no intent to cause harm or damage nor is there an action that does either, thus according to natural law it is not a crime and should not be punished.

Here is an example for jay walking:

A pedestrian is struck and killed by a motor vehicle. The accident investigation reveals that the driver did not see the pedestrian because it was dark, the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing and the accident as at the crest of a hill where the driver could not easily see the pedestrian and the driver did not expect a pedestrian to be in the middle of the street at that location. Crosswalks are installed at every intersection with proper lighting and pedestrian control signals. A law is passed requiring pedestrians to use a crosswalk. The police enforce that law by writing tickets. In court, jaywalkers are fined in an attempt to make them think to use the crosswalk so they are not struck and killed or cause an accident thus creating a safer environment on public streets.

but is there a requirement to prove ones life was endangered?

Yes, the exposure must be documented and justification must be provided.

Its pretty apparent to me how the police work, they locate someone violating the "law" issue a ticket (demand pay off with threat of violence) and is the pay off isn't received then kidnapping and imprisonment occurs.

Proof to the fact that you have no idea how the police work.

Non starter, I don't need to have done brain surgery to know what a brain surgeon does.

You know that the police enforce the law. You know that a brain surgeon performs surgery on the brain. What you do not know is everything that goes into both performing their duty.

A ticket is a big deal to a lot of people who get by pay check to pay check.

Then first, dont break the law. Second, go to court on the ticket and plead that with the judge.

he then asked for my "papers"

Lets get real. He asked you for you identification or driver's license.

An hour later k9 showed

At face value, yes this is a problem. If you are telling the truth about this story, which is totally unverifiable, they should not have held you for an hour. Courts have ruled that officers may only hold you for a reasonable amount of time to wait for a K9. Reasonable is generally measured by the amount of time it would take to conduct a regular traffic stop.

false hit on my car and the tossing of my belongs along the side of the road began.

The abilities of a K9 dog have been demonstrated and are recognized by the court system. Each K9 is tracked on their detection abilities and if they are not performing to standard they are removed from service. Again, you are asking us to accept your story at face value. What we do not know is if you or someone in your vehicle, had narcotics with them at one time.

half way threw the search, he came up to me with a piece of paper in hand, showed me my amature radio license and said I was free to go. Now I ask you, where exactly was the probable cause? And if there was probable cause why did the search stop upon finding my license?

What? Again, we are accepting your story at face value with no way to check the validity of your claims. This part makes it sound a little "made up" but who knows?

reply to post by DZAG Wright

a lot of people were so accustomed to "sickin" law enforcement on the undesirables in society and thus "legally" harassing them.

If you are talking about "sickin" as in arresting. And "undesireables" meaning theives, murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars and drug dealers. Then yes, I am pretty accustomed to that.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

My post wasn't keyed around the 3 strikes laws, that law was just pointed out. My point is that we citizens have listened to politicians and DA's talking about being tough on crime, when in actuality they have become tough on EVERYONE!

Or no one. Sit in on a courtroom for a couple days. See exactly how much punishment criminals get after being convicted and see how leinient some judges are.

If this is the point you were trying to make, the three strikes laws was a poor choice. The three strikes laws were brought about because people were sick of seeing hardened criminals go free because of lieniency on the part of the legal system.

My point is there are those, even in this thread, who are of the mindset that anyone beaten, arrested, harassed by police was a thug/guilty and deserved it. I'm stating that even innocent, law abiding people stand a good chance of falling on the wrong side of the law.

I would like to point out the converse. Most people here automatically assume wrongdoing on the part of the police and choose to ignore the wrongdoing of the person.

Peoples fear have allowed politicians to make just about EVERYTHING illegal, thus opening the door for EVERYONE to be victimized by police should that officer so choose.

I will agree with you on this one. How many laws do we pass yearly compared to how many we repeal. We pass hundreds of laws and do not bother to repeal outdated laws or laws where the public opinion has changed. We really should go through and get some off the books that should not be against the law anylonger.

reply to post by butcherguy

Yes I do. He is more honest as a civilian potsmoker that can stand as much chance of being arrested as the next guy.... than as a police officer that breaks the law with impunity.

You could classify his decision to quit because he was breaking the law noble. But whether you agree with the drug laws or not he was doing more than just smoking marijuana. He was using his position of authority to steal the marijuana from teenagers so he could smoke it himself. He was violating the public's trust. This makes him a bad person.

Or don't you get that? We are talking about bad cops here. That was just one of the cops that I personally know. They all break the law, every last one of them that I know.

Unverifiable claims are just that, Claims not facts or truth.

reply to post by areyouserious2010

He was using his position of authority to steal the marijuana from teenagers so he could smoke it himself. He was violating the public's trust. This makes him a bad person.

Yes, making him a bad cop. (but this is only my claim that you are taking as fact for this side of your argument) Since he quit the force, he is no longer using his position to violate the public's trust, making him a better person than he was. Who is a better person, the habitual drunk driver that quits drinking and driving...or the one that continues to do it?

Unverifiable claims are just that, Claims not facts or truth.

I understand that my claims are merely anecdotal to you, but for me, they are facts. I know about cops, because of the cops that I personally know.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

a lot of people were so accustomed to "sickin" law enforcement on the undesirables in society and thus "legally" harassing them.

If you are talking about "sickin" as in arresting. And "undesireables" meaning theives, murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars and drug dealers. Then yes, I am pretty accustomed to that.

Maybe by 'sickin', he meant harassing.

Maybe 'undesirables in society' he meant someone that is black or hispanic in a predominately white neighborhood.

Just some food for thought.

reply to post by butcherguy

Yes, making him a bad cop. (but this is only my claim that you are taking as fact for this side of your argument) Since he quit the force, he is no longer using his position to violate the public's trust, making him a better person than he was. Who is a better person, the habitual drunk driver that quits drinking and driving...or the one that continues to do it?

Anyone who engages in that sort of conduct in the first place is a bad person and a bad cop no matter how you look at it. Again, the cop who uses a justifiable amount of force to arrest someone who is resisting arrest is terrible but the cop who steals marijuana from teenagers for his own personal use but quits is a saint? Your logic is failing.

reply to post by butcherguy

Maybe by 'sickin', he meant harassing.

Maybe 'undesirables in society' he meant someone that is black or hispanic in a predominately white neighborhood.

Just some food for thought.

Yes lets throw race into it. The dying words of a failing argument.

"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation."

- Mayor (1918-1925) John F. Hylan of New York.

-----
(snip)
-----