It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
Yes lets throw race into it. The dying words of a failing argument.
You are so quick to judge, are you a trigger happy LEO?
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.
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?
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,...
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.
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....
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
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the exposure must be documented and justification must be provided.
Then first, dont break the law. Second, go to court on the ticket and plead that with the judge.
Lets get real. He asked you for you identification or driver's license.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Homedawg
Lots of opinions from people who hate cops are just that...opinions