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.

 

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

page: 20
112
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


You are so quick to judge, are you a trigger happy LEO?




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


I'll use my own post to help you through this:


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?

I am not claiming he is a saint.
I am saying that his conscience got the best of him and he did a better thing than to continue in his bad ways, which is G-O-O-D, not B-A-D.

He was a bad cop, then he changed his ways, making him a better person.

I hope that you can follow the logic there, if not, I'm sorry.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 



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

So you are in denial?

No black or hispanics get harassed because they are in the 'wrong' neighborhood? You really think that it hasn't happened? That it has never happened?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 




You are so quick to judge, are you a trigger happy LEO?

Others are so quick to judge the actions of the police to be wrong taken at face value and ignoring all the facts. Does that make them "trigger happy LEOs?"

Taking the story at face value, which he is presenting as fact because he "knows" all these police officers and knows all of their misdeeds. If it is a fact that this was a police officer and he was stealing marijuana from teenagers for his own personal use, then what more do you need to deem his actions and character bad?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




I am not claiming he is a saint.
I am saying that his conscience got the best of him and he did a better thing than to continue in his bad ways, which is G-O-O-D, not B-A-D.

He was a bad cop, then he changed his ways, making him a better person.

I hope that you can follow the logic there, if not, I'm sorry.

And all I am saying is that a person who would engage in that sort of activity is also a bad person not just a bad cop. Just because he quit because of his conscience does not excuse the fact that he still committed the act and make him a good person.

It is good that he quit because he can no longer victimize the public. He is still a bad person though.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




So you are in denial?

No black or hispanics get harassed because they are in the 'wrong' neighborhood? You really think that it hasn't happened? That it has never happened?

No, I am not in denial.

I am merely pointing out that it is coincidence that an argument about the police, which has nothing to do with race, is suddenly turned to race in an attempt to draw support from the subject.

It is also coincidence that you brought up race when your argument seemed to be failing.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





seemed to be failing.

That would be a claim.
Facts?

edit on 21-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
It seems to me that all the cop-excusers seem to want to hold to a double standard.

They prate sanctimoniously that we "don't know the circumstances", "shouldn't pass judgment without all the facts", cite the necessity for split-second decisions "to protect themselves," etc., etc., ad nauseum.

However, they justify their actions by jumping to conclusions, treating their paranoia as factual in every case, and refuse to recognize the citizen's rights to the same. After all, when a bunch of armed strangers come kicking in your door, you have to make some split-second decisions, too, "to protect yourself and loved ones".

I'm in my sixties and have seen, known, and talked to many cops...and no, I'm not a criminal, nor do I have any much sympathy for criminals. However, I have even less sympathy for cops. I've seen them lie, fabricate evidence, accept payoffs, steal, beat their wives, abuse alcohol, drugs (favorite for them seems to be steroids), cheat with/exort hookers, and numerous other crimes. As a class they are definitely not trustworthy.

Most police departments I've seen are corrupt and entangled with gangs, syndicates and cartels. Wherever you have a high crime problem it is generally because the local cops are protecting it, fostering it, and profiting from it, as low crime rates aren't good for them and their budgets.

The "bad apple" defense is a blatant lie and distraction. If a cop even suspects another of being a "bad apple" and doesn't report him, then that cop is a co-conspirator and has violated the public trust.

In my experience, there is rarely a good outcome when you call the cops, because whatever the situation, they will view it and use it in the way that best serves their needs, not the public's. Far better to ignore them and deal with your own difficulties without gambling on what may easily turn out to be a barely contained delusional psycho bursting in and shooting first without regard to the realities.

As far as "Internal Affairs"...they are mostly a cleanup/coverup squad. Police misconduct should be investigated by a completely independent, non-cop agency. The job isn't so different that we, the public "can't understand the whatever". Intelligent adults can generally comprehend a lot if the facts are available. The problem is cops want complete control of the interpretation of those facts, allowing them to be seen only through their lens, not the general public's. What the general public views as criminal conduct, cops view as just them "doing their job". The court system has been corrupt for as long as I've lived . As a boy, I was taken to observe a payoff to a judge as part of my education in "how things work". The payoff was to ensure a "proper" decision concerning my mother in a divorce.

Personally, as a minority, I can't afford to give a cop the benefit of the doubt. Until proven by repeated behavior, it is far safer to assume any cop to be an unpredictably potential threat to life, limb, and economic well-being.
edit on 21-6-2011 by apacheman because: sp



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Homedawg
 


The defender of the LEO is the one that said cops were bound by probable cause, I was asking him to show me where in fact that was in play, I guess you have read nothing that I have written if you believe I think the LEO is bound by anything



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




That would be a claim.
Facts?

Good call. That would be my opinion and not a fact. I stand corrected.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 




It seems to me that all the cop-excusers seem to want to hold to a double standard.

I preach no double standard. I only ask that you look at each incident with all the facts and be reasonable when drawing conclusions. I would ask you to do this with all things in life and not just ones that have to do with the police.


They prate sanctimoniously that we "don't know the circumstances", "shouldn't pass judgment without all the facts", cite the necessity for split-second decisions "to protect themselves," etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Ok. And your point is?


However, they justify their actions by jumping to conclusions, treating their paranoia as factual in every case, and refuse to recognize the citizen's rights to the same

If you speak of the healthy sense of caution that an officer assumes when dealing with people a reasonable person would see no issue. There are dangerous people out there that are willing to hurt other people to further their goals. Police included. If you dont trust the police then dont call. If you really need them and have to call then allow that police officer to prove how trust worthy they are.


After all, when a bunch of armed strangers come kicking in your door, you have to make some split-second decisions, too, "to protect yourself and loved ones".

Armed strangers as in a home invasion or armed strangers as in the police. In a home invasion nothing has precipitated those criminals entering your home and taking your things. With the police, something has precipitated them doing something like that and it is for a justifiable reason.


I'm in my sixties and have seen, known, and talked to many cops...and no, I'm not a criminal, nor do I have any much sympathy for criminals. However, I have even less sympathy for cops. I've seen them lie, fabricate evidence, accept payoffs, steal, beat their wives, abuse alcohol, drugs (favorite for them seems to be steroids), cheat with/exort hookers, and numerous other crimes. As a class they are definitely not trustworthy.

You can CLAIM to have whatever experience you want. You cannot seriously expect me to believe that you have had contact with enough police officers to be able to speak on all 500,000 in the United States and their intentions.


Most police departments I've seen are corrupt and entangled with gangs, syndicates and cartels. Wherever you have a high crime problem it is generally because the local cops are protecting it, fostering it, and profiting from it, as low crime rates aren't good for them and their budgets.

And how have you come across this in depth knowledge of all police departments and their associations with gangs, syndicates and cartels? I think you are being a little rediculous when you claim to have inside knowledge on something like this.


The "bad apple" defense is a blatant lie and distraction. If a cop even suspects another of being a "bad apple" and doesn't report him, then that cop is a co-conspirator and has violated the public trust.

We have already gone over the "bad apple" issue before. Do we really need to do it again?


In my experience,...

Sir, how can we verify that you are a reasonable, level-headed person to deal with? I am sure that everytime you have called the police you were a calm, rationable person. I am sure the police were the ones that caused the situation to escalate. I am positive, because I am taking your word for it, that you were not irrational, unreasonable and were perfectly capable of handling the situation yourself, which is why you called the police right?


As far as "Internal Affairs"...they are mostly a cleanup/coverup squad. Police misconduct should be investigated by a completely independent, non-cop agency. The job isn't so different that we, the public "can't understand the whatever". Intelligent adults can generally comprehend a lot if the facts are available. The problem is cops want complete control of the interpretation of those facts, allowing them to be seen only through their lens, not the general public's. What the general public views as criminal conduct, cops view as just them "doing their job".

The regular average person does not know of all the policies and laws that are in place to guide the actions of the police. The regular average person does not know what it is like to deal with an irrational, unreasonable person. The regular average person does not know what it is like to attempt to effect a legal arrest on a person and have then resist. You cannot claim to know this either. That is why there is an Internal Affairs section to look at cases and investigate them. That is why there is a State's Attorney's office to review Internal Affairs investigations to ensure they are done properly. That is why some Departments have a civilian review board to review these cases.


The court system has been corrupt for as long as I've lived . As a boy, I was taken to observe a payoff to a judge as part of my education in "how things work". The payoff was to ensure a "proper" decision concerning my mother in a divorce.

So did your mother, and in effect you, benefit from this action? No one is saying that there is not corruption amongst judges but your experience with one judge does not provide any evidence that all are corrupt.
edit on 21-6-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: fix



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


First off, I didn't say all, but only those I'm familiar with; applying the same rules of logic that governs polling, if you have a big enough sample, you can extrapolate to the whole. I have a pretty big sample set. When you see the same problems in city after city, year after year, for decades, then you can make reasonable conclusions as to causes. When the probabilities lie on side of corruptio, go with the probabilities.

Second, it's a pretty big leap to claim police are always justified in their entry into homes, as witness case after case of getting the wrong address, wrong guy, etc. I've suffered through 2 home invasions, one claiming to be police. Since the innocent homeowner doesn't know if the armed strangers kicking his door in are actually cops, or actually have the correct address, the whole thing says shoot first if you can.

Third, one of the biggest delusions that cops have is that their job is more dangerous than average. It simply isn't true: go to the DOL and look up workplace injury/mortality rates and clearly, police work is far, far safer than construction, farm work, fishing, taxi-driving or clerking at a 7-11.

Fourth, "the average person doesn't understand"....condescending hogwash. If they don't understand, just give them access to the regs, rules, and records and they'll figure it out. Police personnel records should be open and public (not their addresses, just their work record). If they aren't breaking laws, they have nothing to fear. The claimed need for secrecy implies having something to hide.

I grew up in Chicago, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina and briefly Mexico (USAF brat). I've lived as an adult in a half dozen more, and a few countries (USAF member). I think I've seen more than the average person, and more than enough to stand by my assertions.

Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with the history of this country knows that historically most police departments and police have been corrupt. Even the FBI, created and run by J. Edgar Hoover: a transvestite blackmailer of politicians, a gambling addict with ties to the Cosa Nostra, Mafia, organized crime figures who supported his gambling habit. The standards are set from the top, and those standards have always leaned heavily towards encouraging and tolerating corruption.

Truth is, most cop barrels are filled to the brim with bad apples...virtually every really good cop I've known has quit in disgust or lost his life trying to expose the bad apples.

Actually, my father was paying the judge to convict my mother of a non-existent crime to avoid alimony.

I learned long ago not to involve police, and as a combat veteran, yes, I am pretty cool under stress. I've safely disarmed irate bikers and gangbangers, calmed bar fights, and even foiled a robbery...all without anyone getting hurt. Most cops escalate into violence quickly if they are even slightly challenged because they are afraid, and can't control their fear, but instead feed on it and end up hurting people. Calm patience, an understanding of and tolerance for emotional outbursts goes much further in defusing a situation than arrogant demands of immediate compliance, especially when, by definition, the cops really don't know what's going on. They jump to quick judgments, often erroneous, and feel justified to intimidate, beat, or harass the citizens who pay their salaries and to whom (in theory) they are answerable to.
edit on 21-6-2011 by apacheman because: add for clarity



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by Homedawg
 


The defender of the LEO is the one that said cops were bound by probable cause, I was asking him to show me where in fact that was in play, I guess you have read nothing that I have written if you believe I think the LEO is bound by anything
This is your quote,correct?"". Now I ask you, where exactly was the probable cause?"""for what?..asking for your "papers"?...Any officer can ask for ID....you were on the side of the road....for searching your car?..none needed again....he asked,you said no,within your rights...he detained you until a K9 arrived..within his rights and procedures...again,standard procedure in a high drug running area...Texas wasnt it?..High courts have upheld the use of location(totality of circumstances)..you are a cop hater who isnt going o change your mind...you will use any encounter,no matter how its handled,turn it to prove your point...cops are bad...ok...we get it....you dont like,and never will like,cops.....glad you settled it for us in less than 75000 words and posts....



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Homedawg
 


What exactly are an officer's "rights" and from whence do they derive, and how do they supercede their employers, the taxpayers, rights??

Absent obvious criminal activity an officer has NO right to demand id, to detain or search a citizen of this country, who by law, are innocent til proven guilty. You apperently think that an leo can and should interact with the public he supposedly serves on the opposite track: guilty til proven innocent (but quick to claim the other when caught lawbreaking themselves).

The "rights" you claim for an leo are nothing but the assertions of thugs and their corporate sponsors to justify their unconstitutional behaviors.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Exactly my point, cops can do what they want for any reason they choose and its upheld by a group of judges for the most part appointed for life to decide and only accountable to other judges. The legal system is a shame. Its not just cops I do not trust its the entire system, they just happen to be the "muscle" for the system.

When everyone is treated as a criminal, considered a lier what is one to expect. You say the totallty of the circumstances arbitrarily decided by a LEO who is unable to find employment outside of being a legalised criminal. There is no respect of a persons rights.

Respect is earned.I will respect the LEO when the LEO respects me.
edit on 22-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 
Star on your last reply to me.





posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
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.

Yes really, you asked for an example, and now all of a sudden I'm a lier.


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?

No, I define a good cop that is civil and respectful of life, liberty and property in the course of his duty.


Last time I checked, the police are not paid to be taxi drivers, although this is a nice gesture for the public.

I don't recall saying they were paid taxi drivers, What I did do was show how a good cop can act. The cop pulled in behind me on the side of the highway, requested my papers, and yes I will call them "papers" as that is in fact what they are, if you don't. like it, that is not my problem comrade. Ran his checks, asked me if I had a gas can and offered a ride, it was in no way expected since I don't feel 3 miles is that far to walk, and if it was I do have AAA. Best $100 a year on can spend.


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.

I completely understand the need to liability insurance, please stop assuming I'm an idiot. My point is that in no way does having insurance prevent the accident, nor does it guarantee that damages will paid. Second, no amount of money can replace the lose of a loved one from an accident. That is unless you have a defined amount that someone is worth emotionally to someone.


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 know for a fact that that was the reason, I was stepping outside my store before opening it to have a smoke when he hit his lights and she pulled into the spot directly in front of my door. I heard the entire exchange, after he came back she said "Is there someone you can call to come get your son? I'm afraid I'm going to have to arrest you for failure to provide proof of liability". He in fact lied to her at that moment in time, as I know first hand they don't have to arrest you or even impound your vehicle, first clue he is a bad cop. Second while he did allow a family member to come get the child, he in fact took a mother from her son for nothing more then a quota. A good cop would consider the effect it would have on the child and would have impounded the vehicle. I expect you will call me a lier again.


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?

Again, proof of liability doesn't stop the accident.


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?

that would be for him to decide.


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.

Yes, conformity to the law, it was the law to beat slaves at one time, it was the law to hang a horse thief at one time, it was the friggin law to kill jews at one time. All in the name of obeying the law.

I'm afraid I don't believe in democracy. Let me tell you how a real democracy works, 5 men and one women are in a room, one man says lets have a vote on if we should rape this woman, all men vote yes. that is democracy, and you can keep 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.

Again, just because its the law, does not actually make it a crime.


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.

Once again to blindly follow the law for conformity




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

Sorry, I just don't believe that.


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

I don't get tickets, I drive safely, I have never had an accident. I was not referring to me, but people living pay check to pay check something a cop will never understand as no matter what they do they will get paid.


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

Once again, I will call them what they are, they are a number of papers that are "required" to drive.


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.

I agree totally unverifiable except for the fact I do have an amature radio license, Also verifiable that the LEO considers radio operators as a minor branch of the "brotherhood" since every police force has a working relationship with ARC a RACES amature radio clubs to provide communications during first response needs as well as public events, from the local level all the way to the federal level.



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.

I in no way implied the dog did not do exactly as it was trained, Yes I know for a fact that no drugs had been in the vehicle at any time.


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?

yet you ask me to accept the fact that there are only a few bad apples. I'm sorry but a few is 3, and that is just not the case,
Example, The Odessa police force framed a woman, the person who planted the drugs on the women testified in court that he did it and she was convicted, it wasn't until Barry Cooper set them up and proved that they indeed violated a number of "laws" in order to obtain a search warrant.


Can you say misconduct?

Example the Police force of the city of Philadelphia bombed a house end a stand off with one house and destroyed blocks of homes.

Can you say excessive force?

Example the Broward Sheriffs force,during a protest shot an unarmed woman lawyer in the back and legs and head with a rubber bullets and laughed about it,

Can you say totalitarian police state?

edit on 22-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I can give you a perfect example of a law that limits personal freedom and it's purpose is to help private corporations increase their profits and generate income for the government.

SEAT BELT LAWS

I can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. The seat belt protects the wearer from injury...no one else.

My neighbor can get on his motorcycle without wearing a helmet and drive to the same place I might have been going, with his 5 year old son sitting behind him (wearing a helmet, by law). There is no seat belt holding that child in place. That is legal.

Yet it is illegal for me to have my 8 year old sitting in the back seat of my car, with seat belts, because that's not good enough.... she needs a child safety car seat?

Before anyone tells me that it is about saving lives, get real. The seat belt laws are bought and paid for by the insurance company lobbyists. It helps them with their financial bottom line. It is a win for the government because they get to generate revenue through fines.

I understand laws governing safety of minors, but I am an adult and should be allowed to make that choice as I see fit, just as motorcycle operators in my state have the choice to wear a helmet or not.



It should be my choice to wear seat belts, not the governments.
edit on 22-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Lots of opinions from people who hate cops are just that...opinions



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
Lots of opinions from people who hate cops are just that...opinions

Hate to tell you, but those videos are not opinion.
Fact: cops have only themselves to blame. When a good man does nothing when confronted with evil, it makes that man just as evil
edit on 22-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)







 
112
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join