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.

 

Police Officer charged with rape and kidnapping to get 1 year house arrest?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


What there should be are cams in all cruisers that stream live to a public website, so any cop could be watched/recorded all day long.
edit on 20-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by calstorm
 


What there should be are cams in all cruisers that stream live to a public website, so any cop could be watched/recorded all day long.
edit on 20-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


In most departments essentially it is recording at all times. Some agencies have it set where the dash cam kicks on when the lights come on, or the vehicle exceedes a certain speed. In addition to dash cams (which arent streamed btw for evidence reasons / chain of custody reasons), we have internal cams that face backwards (where the cage is) newer tasers have audio / video recording when they come on (not delpoyed, but tuyrned on) in addition to individual body cameras on officers as well as some west coast agencies testing out mini cams on their duty weapons.

The reason video is not relased right away is because its evidence, for better or worse. People need to keep in mind that in addition to protecting the officer (cameras) thety also protect the people we are dealing with. When something occurs, and a police agency doesnt release video, dont always assume its to protect the officer.

Also most court rulings to date in conjunction with departmental policy and priocedure reviews have put in place safeguards to the in cams on several of the topics above. This ensures a secured chain of custody and prevents tampering / editing / erasing by the officer who its assigned to. Only evidence / supervisor has the ability to remove the data, where in most states its required to be submitted as evidence.

As far as streaming video, thats present in several agencies, including the highway patrol in several states. It allows Supervisors to be able to "link" into dash cams / in car cams to see whats going on. General HQ command staff has the ability also.

In addition to all of that newer systems also have GPS style tracking on patrol cars, and that info can be used as well to determine speed, direction, location etc etc etc.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


What can I say? The bias in favor of police, in the justice system... It is just so blatantly obvious that it is disgusting.

Gee, I wonder what would have happened if it had been a black man from a poor neighborhood?

edit on 20-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by calstorm
 


What can I say? The bias in favor of police, in the justice system... It is just so blatantly obvious that it is disgusting.

Gee, I wonder what would have happened if it had been a black man from a poor neighborhood?

edit on 20-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


............he would be charged with solicitation and assault and would face the same punishment.

The charge was not rape / kidnapping.

Props for dropping the race card though... Not sure why it even matters, aside to use it as an excuse to attack the system and continually perpetuate a sterotype.

Mind linking some issues that fall into the category of your accusation?
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


The page we were just arguing on has video of a black kid who a cop chased and then incidentally killed for looking suspicious. You see everything the cop sees from his dash cam. It's a black kid on a bike who he decides to go after.. the kid runs on his bike (he's done nothing, he just knows that when a cop tries to hassle you for no reason if you can avoid it you do). Unfortunately he never thought, being on his bike, that the cop would be as persistent as he was considering he had no real reason to go after the kid, he was wrong. The cop tasers the kid from the window of his moving cop car and instead of parking and jumping out to follow the taser he swoops the car around and kills the kid he falls off the bike in front of his car (they of course blamed the kid not the guy chasing him. Here is the video (there is a long one somewhere:


\



Officer Jerald Ard would later say that he tried to stop Victor because he had seen him at a construction site and thought he may have stolen something. But witness Victor Stallworth said he saw Victor ride his bicycle past the construction site without stopping. Months later, Ard gave investigators a different reason for stopping Victor: He didn't have a light on his bike — only two reflectors. The day after the funeral, Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigator Eli Lawson called Cassandra Steen's newly-hired attorney, Aaron Watson, and told him that TV news was about to report that a paramedic had found a gun in Victor's pocket. A video, taken from the dashboard of another officer's car, recorded what happened in the minutes before the discovery: Three officers squatted next to Ard's car, looking under it at Victor. Ard unlocked the passenger side of his car and got something out. The object is light-colored and floppy, but isn't clearly visible. Ard, holding the object, crawled under the car next to Victor's body and stayed there for 40 seconds. Two minutes later, paramedics found a 9mm silver and black semiautomatic in Victor's pocket. Lab tests showed the gun had been wiped clean. No fingerprints were on it — not Victor's, not anyone's. Victor's family, as well as his pastors and friends, were aghast. Victor was scared of guns, they said. He would not have carried a gun around. Aaron Watson, who wondered if the gun might have been planted to make the teenager appear dangerous, worried aloud that it would be a distraction from the officer's "reckless pursuit." "The focus here," Watson told the Times, "should be on why Ard was pursuing Victor in the first place and why he fired a Taser at a kid on a bike from a moving vehicle. The gun really has nothing to do with the issues."


People don't perpetuate the stereotypes that cops harass black, males for no reason! It is undeniably true.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

"I can't imagine anyone hiring him, and that was one of our concerns," he said.


What has that got to do with the price of eggs?

Why should they be "concerned" whether he ever works again?

Hell, I'm a truck driver and if I got done DUI, I doubt they would be "concerned" about how it would affect my employment before they took my licence away!

The DA should focus on his job...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Just curious? What is your opinion on this case? Can you honestly say that cops don't get away with crimes? Do you think had this guy not been a cop he would have gotten a year of house arrest and not be a registered sex offender.
If anything he should get twice the sentence for abusing his power and completely betraying the woman's trust.
This woman has a good excuse to never respect or obey a cop for the rest of her life..



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
So legally she cannot consent if she is a prisoner, but she technically wasn't a prisoner, and therefore they can't press the charges that apply to only law enforcement officers.

BUT, what about regular rape charges? Did she consent or not? If she claims she was raped, then he should be tried by those laws. Apparently she was not handcuffed, but she is suing the department for $10 mil. So if she claims she was forcibly raped, or raped by threats or coercion, then he should still be tried.

The loophole is only on the technicality that a prisoner cannot consent. But that only comes into play if they both say she consented. If she claims it was by force or coercion, then the technicality is out the window.

I think the prosecutor got soft on this one.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


This double standard is why some dont pay these laws any mind. SMH



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You just dont get it.... and based on your adament argument to justify and defend the bahavior of criminals under the guise of all cops are evil is a joke and just sad.

I can show you just as many articles where civilians have attacked / seriously injured / killed the police for absolutely no reason at all. Whats funny though is nothing will be resolved, because you will once again come and say the cops must of done something to deserve it.

What does that, or for that manner any other incidnets you have brought up, have to do with the topic? What you completely do not understand is jurisdiction, how has it, how it works, laws of the respective jurisdiction, and how they work and are applied.

1st degree murder in Missouri will not be the same as 1at degree murder in New York, California or Wisconsin. The premis is the same, but the requirements to get there are not.

Comparing an incident in one state to an incident in another state is not a comparison, in any sense of the imagination.

You have a bad habbit of placing your morals / opinion and what you think should happen and what you think the law and punishment should be, without properly understanding how it all works.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Just curious? What is your opinion on this case? Can you honestly say that cops don't get away with crimes? Do you think had this guy not been a cop he would have gotten a year of house arrest and not be a registered sex offender.
If anything he should get twice the sentence for abusing his power and completely betraying the woman's trust.
This woman has a good excuse to never respect or obey a cop for the rest of her life..


Go back and reread my posts and you will ahve your answer... At no point have I defended this officer or his actions. What I have done is provide information so people who dont know how this works have a base poin reference to help them understand.

The biggest issue people have in this thread is confusing what he was charged with, his punishment and the overall situation.

He was NOT charged with Rape.
He was NOT charged with Kiddnapping..

He WAS charged with assault and solicitation of a lewd act because the LAW that deals with law enforcement and prisoners is FLAWED.

Ive already stated people should talk to the legislators to get the law fixed.

Law Enforcement has nothing to do with creating the law. We dont determine guilt or innocence. We dont determine if a perosn is charged with a crime or not.

Suggesting there is prefferential treatment going on, and supporting that erronious position by invoking the police, reinforces my statements that people MUST learn how thier governmnt works, from the Executive, to the Legislative to the Judicial. It would cut down on comparisons that people make regarding cops and treatment.

Also, the Police dont surrender innocent until proven guilty....

For some people to suggest a harsher punishment for the police shouldnt be making the arguments about how the police are treated in the Judicial system. Afterall, people get tired of the perception cops dole out punishment instead of a court doing it.

To suggest cops be stripped of the same rights as a civilian undermines your entire argument that you and others have made.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
He WAS charged with assault and solicitation of a lewd act because the LAW that deals with law enforcement and prisoners is FLAWED.



It is not flawed, it is designed exactly who they wanted it written. In a way and with language that ensures that the pawns of the politicians (law enforcement) are held to a lower standard than us, and enjoy more immunity from their tyrannical acts.

Good luck trying to get it changed. Your local politician will smile nice at you when (if) you get to meet with them and as soon as you are gone they will laugh at your naivety. The will of the people means absolutely nothing to 90% of those in office.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
So legally she cannot consent if she is a prisoner, but she technically wasn't a prisoner, and therefore they can't press the charges that apply to only law enforcement officers.


Correct - the language the lw uses creates a loophole due to it being overly specific.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
BUT, what about regular rape charges?

He was not a civilian at the time the inncident occured... He was performing his offical duties. Keep in mind laws vary from state to state.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
Did she consent or not? If she claims she was raped, then he should be tried by those laws. Apparently she was not handcuffed, but she is suing the department for $10 mil. So if she claims she was forcibly raped, or raped by threats or coercion, then he should still be tried.


Yes and No - When an individual is in custody / inmate, they are not acting on their won free will (otherwise they would be somewhere else instead of in custody or jail). Because they are not free to come and go (Supreme court standard is what would a reasonable person believe) they are not free to give consent.

Example -
* - They dont get a choice in providing information on who they are when in custody / inmate.
* - They dont get a choice in determining if they want to go to jail or just go home.
* - They dont get the choice to just walk away from the officer.
* - They dont get the choice of wearing handcuffs on the way to the jail / DOC
* - They dont get the option of driving themselves to jail / DOC

etc etc etc....

When a perosn is in custody, they are the responsibility of that person / agency, up to and including their safety as well as medical / mental health issues.

A perosn in custody cannot give consent for sexual behavior. Even if the lady wrote out and testified in perosn she consented, it would be irrelevant. The law puts that in place to protect those in custody, not the officers. The law is specific to the extent of officer action, not inmate.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
The loophole is only on the technicality that a prisoner cannot consent.


Actually no, the loophole revovles around the wording of the law and how it defines the term in custody / prisoner / inmate. From what I have seen its looking like the term prisoner / inmate in this state have been defined enough to create enough of a difference for their to be a distinction.

As a municipal officer, unless I am transporting an individual from jail to a court proceeding, I will never use the term inmate to describe a person in my custody. Inmate is a person who have been charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced by the court.

A prisoner is a person who is in my custody facing charges should the PA prosecute.

Inmate = long term
prisoner - short term



Originally posted by getreadyalready
But that only comes into play if they both say she consented. If she claims it was by force or coercion, then the technicality is out the window.


Actually no its not. Again, in this case there has to be a law that covers law enforcement. We are allowed to deprive a person of their freedom of movement lawfully (arrest) where a civilian cannot (exceptions for bailbonds exist).

The technicality is the wording of the law for rape / kidnapping when the suspect is an officer. If you ignore those technicalities, then an officer in that state could be charged with kidnapping anytime they arrest a person since movement is being done against the will of the person arrested.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think the prosecutor got soft on this one.


I think the PA got screwed by the wording of the law. Had they not went down this road, then its absolutely a possibility the officer could have walked away with no punishment / convictions at all.

You guys also need to keep in mind how filing charges work...

If a perosn is charged, and it makes it into the court, and the defense is able to argue that what the client is charged with is not supported by the evidence based on how the law is written, not only could it be thrown out, its also a possibility that they cant refile charges - Double Jeopardy


The U. S. Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury trial when the jury is sworn. In criminal cases tried by a judge without a jury, also called a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn.


Keep in mind if depositions are done (where a lawyer meets with witnesses to ask questions in an offical setting - person is sworn in to tell the truth) can qualify and attach jeopardy.

What wou you do faced with the same? Use origional charges and lose with no possibility of justice, or the second option used here? Lesser charges resulting in the person never being a cop again?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


No, the law is flawed due to wording. The Police do not work for the legislature, and we are not a part of the judicial branch. Cops fall under the executive branch. Charges filed, what those charges are and why, is the sole determination of the PA.

Your argument then is based soley at the legislature since they make the laws, and the PA, since they prosecute them.

Cops have nothing to do with it, and blaming them demostrates a severe lack of understanding on how the system works.

People really need to stop being paranoid and seeing conspiracies in everything. If you dont like the outcome, the may iI suggest that nstead of complaining in here, you use that energy to rally the people tog et the law changed?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


At no point did you ever say anything negative about the situation either and you definitely are taking the more defensive tone attacking anyone who attacks this officer as a cop hater, this is a cop hate thread, etc. Isn't that basically the same thing?

Why wasn't he charged with rape? Take out the whole no consent in jail custody thing. The woman said she said no and she isn't being doubted? Why is the rape charge discounted?
edit on 20-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


At no point did you ever say anything negative about the situation either and you definitely are taking the more defensive tone attacking anyone who attacks this officer as a cop hater, this is a cop hate thread, etc. Isn't that basically the same thing?



No actually its not.

What I have done is point out how this all works. What others have done is to be upset because in their mind this guy either got special treatment, or was found guilty of rape and kidnapping only to receive a very mild term comaptred to the crime.

They ignore what he was actually charged with.
They ignore the reason for those charges...
They don't bother to learn the intricacies...
They don't understand how the government is divided and how it operates, blaming police for something they arent even invovled in.
They compare incidents from other states while being oblivious to the fact that its another state, and as such the laws are complately different, including case law from state courts that affect those laws.

Ive explained why there are seperate laws that are specific to police, and ive explained why that is, yet people just ignore it.

Long story short -
If a person doesnt like something, they should take the time to research the entirey of the problem, identifiying what they dont like and researching why that dislike is present. When you completely understand an issue, you are in a better position to not only speak iontelligently on the problem, but can make an argument as to why it needs to be changed, using real information instead of corruption / unfair treatment / police state / etc etc etc.

The cop broke the law and was charged, as he should be in this case.
The cop was charged, and because of the law those charges had to be changed in order to go forward. The other alternative would be not to charge him at all, in which case we would still be in this thread, arguing the same thing.

The PA explained why they could not move forward with rape / kidnapping. Do you really think they would give an explanation in theat manner if they are somehow in cahoots to give preferential treatment to the police? The records are a matter of public record so anyone can check in on what occured behind the scenes.

The reason I dont attack the officer in threads is because of a concept that civilians, and people in these forums, dont understand or accept. I have pointed it out time and again, and people just refuse to listen so why bother?

The Supreme Court has ruled that an officrs use of force can ONLY be reviewed in the context of what the officer perceived at the exact moment the use of force occured. I am also familiar, just as people in here go after cops all the time for their behavior, with how criminals comport themseleves and how they take advantage of the judicial system to go after law enforcement on false claims.

A person who is spending 20 to life in prison is not going to care that filing a false report against an officer / corrections officer could result in an additional 5-10 years being added onto their sentence.

People hate the police so much, basing it off of misconceptions and ignorance of the how it works, that they dont care to find the answers. They dont care who fiels the complaint... All they see and want is to punish the police.

this is evident in all of th stereotyping, in addition to using incidents in other states to justify hatred for the police in other states and in this case.

How does the bicycle incident relate to this incident? Its not the same officer.. Its not the same department, its not the suspect, its not the same crime, it doesnt share any commonalities other than law enforcement.

Why should I not take those comments on? If I let it go its going to just perpetuate the ignorance people exhibit in these threads on these topics.

Im fine with holding a cop accountible for his actions.

I take exception to punishing that officer more harshly because some idiot cop in another state years ago also broke the law.

Law Enforcement is a case by case topic.

In your bicycle case that officer could be charged...
Its also entirely possible for another exact incident to occur that has a few slightly differnet facts, justifying the officers actions.

You guys ignore the second part...

Also.. not condemning an officer should not be construed as support.
Just as people making comments using bad police conducts from others states shouldnt be construed as a cop hater.

Afterall, its case by case.

Funny how it turns out the be one sides and only one way...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


No, the law is flawed due to wording. The Police do not work for the legislature, and we are not a part of the judicial branch. Cops fall under the executive branch. Charges filed, what those charges are and why, is the sole determination of the PA.

Your argument then is based soley at the legislature since they make the laws, and the PA, since they prosecute them.

Cops have nothing to do with it, and blaming them demostrates a severe lack of understanding on how the system works.

People really need to stop being paranoid and seeing conspiracies in everything. If you dont like the outcome, the may iI suggest that nstead of complaining in here, you use that energy to rally the people tog et the law changed?


And you seem to believe that the whole "seperation of powers" still exists. Well it doesn't, the legislative branch serves the other 2 just as the other 2 serve the legislative. The only "check and balance" we have left in this nation is each branch checking to make sure the other is doing their part in promoting tyranny and reducing liberty.

And to correct you cops have everything to do with it when they are corrupt and break not only the laws in which they are meant to serve but also break the trust of the public to which they serve. Perhaps if you would look better at my post I said that it is written with "language". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the same as "wording"?

If you do not believe that the legislators write laws with the express intent on protecting law enforcement or that work in their favor then I really do not know what to say to get you to change your mind. Just take a look at all the laws on the books to inhibit the public's ability to be our own, constitutionally empowered ultimate check and balance. Laws such as the ones that make it illegal to photograph police, laws that make it illegal to inquire as to the actions of LEO's.

There is no paranoia or conspiracy here on my part, just simple evaluation and common sense. As far as me complaining, well I am sorry that you choose to see it as such. The fact is, as I said in my post, there is no sense in trying to push for legislative changes to these laws because the politicians don't care what the public wants, only their contributors and friends in power.

Just in case you may still consider me "paranoid" well the way I look at it, I took 2 bullets for this country, lost an eye and now the illegal Mexican's that sneak across the border can come here and qualify for more food stamps than I would get and more assistance than I would get if I were in need of it. If I cop pulls me over and I question why or answer that it's none of his business why I am out driving at 3am I can be questioned as to what I'm hiding and locked up for being insubordinate or refusing to allow him to look in my vehicle (which the 4th amendment is meant to protect from).

So don't tell me I'm paranoid, I'm just looking at the state of our nation with unconstitutional laws, corruption, indignity, and a complete lack of virtue on the part of those whom most of society depends on for their safety.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by calstorm
 


What can I say? The bias in favor of police, in the justice system... It is just so blatantly obvious that it is disgusting.

Gee, I wonder what would have happened if it had been a black man from a poor neighborhood?

edit on 20-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


............he would be charged with solicitation and assault and would face the same punishment.

The charge was not rape / kidnapping.

Props for dropping the race card though... Not sure why it even matters, aside to use it as an excuse to attack the system and continually perpetuate a sterotype.

Mind linking some issues that fall into the category of your accusation?
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


I dropped a race card?


I asked a simple question. If you took it as racist, that is all on you. Not sure why it matter? Because there is an obvious bias against minorities. I never accused anyone or racism.

Mind linking some issues? Are you saying I am black? I am a 24 year old middle class white guy. I have had it easier than anyone. I have never had issues with people hating me because of my skin color. Nice try though.

That said, you completely misunderstood what I was getting at. The system is broken and anyone with half a brain knows this. There is a very noticable bias in favor of the police in the justice system. And this is coming from some one who likes and supports the police, unlike many here.

If you think I am playing a race card or hate cops. You are gravely mistaken. All I did was point out the obvious.

There have been many cases in which black guys get the book thrown at them while cops, or white people got a slap on the wrist. This cop got a slap on the wrist.

I hope you are right that there would be no bias in the justice system against say, a black man from a poor neighborhood. But reality says other wise.

reality. Welcome to it.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
And you seem to believe that the whole "seperation of powers" still exists. Well it doesn't, the legislative branch serves the ........

Uhm, no its still alive and well.



Originally posted by Nucleardiver
And to correct you cops have everything to do with it when ...................snip

No really we don't. We do not make the laws, and we do not prosecute the laws. We do not prosecute cops either. The Prosecuting Attorney does that, so again, your anger is towards them and not the police. So kindly come down off your high horse would you please...




Originally posted by Nucleardiver
If you do not believe that the legislators write laws with the express intent on protecting law enforcement or that work in their favor then I really do not know what to say to get you to change your mind. ..........snip


And once again your missing the point. Are there laws the protect law enforcement? Absolutely, and civil immunity along with Garrity Rights are at the top of that list. There is a term you and others must understand and stop ignoring -

Color of Law

An officer in ceretain circumstances cannot be charged under a law that is meant for the general public by virture of their duties and responsabilities. As I pointed out prior, if we use kidnapping in the civilian sense, then any and all officers who efect an arrest and trasnport that individual to another location is, by defintion under that regular law, committing the crime of kidnapping.

Regular laws do not take into account certain abilities granted to law enforcement that are not granted to the public.




Originally posted by Nucleardiver
There is no paranoia or conspiracy here on my part, just simple evaluation and common sense. As far as me complaining, well I am sorry that you choose to see it as such. The ...........

If there is no point in trying to change the law, then there is no point in continually complaining about a perceived injustice now is there? It doesn't solve anything does it?

As I said, I dont mind people complaining, but do soemthing constructive with it. Simply spouting off and making blanket accusations towards law enforcement accomplishes nothing. What it does do is make people look lazy and apathetic, and undermines their argument about the police.

Failure to take action on the part of the people when they perceive an injustice, does nothing but support that injustice and give validety to it. By extension - you, and everyone else who ehines but does nothing to change it, are in fact supporting the injustice through inaction.

This officer I guess owes you his thanks?.


Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Just in case you may still consider me "paranoid" well the way I look at it,

Paranoid -
* - Yes, to the extent that you think things can't be changed.
* - Yes because you deny there is no seperation of powers
* - Yes because you think the government is so corrupt that it cant be changed.
* - Yes because you make blanket statements that all cops are crooked and always get away with crimes, while ignoring everything else that doesnt support your argument.

Even if we remove paranoid - the term Lazy would easily takes it place. To acknowldge a problem yet not do anything about it, is exactly what you suggest.


Originally posted by Nucleardiver
I took 2 bullets for this country

Thank you for your sacrifice and service to our country.

With that being said....

Making wild and blanket accusations in the manner you and others do, would be as appropriate as me calling you a babykiller for serving in the military, regardless of your actions and service, no matter how honroable and distinguished it is.

Are there bad cops? Sure, just as their are bad military members, politicians, judges, lawyers, child services people, as well as your every day run of the mill person.



Originally posted by Nucleardiver
So don't tell me I'm paranoid, I'm just looking at the state of our nation with unconstitutional laws, corruption, indignity, and a complete lack of virtue on the part of those whom most of society depends on for their safety.


Yes yes.. Ive heard it all before.. The US is messed up, everyone is crooked, civilians dont have rights blah blah blah.. If that were the case you wouldnt be in here complaining about stuff your to lazy to change.

Im not sure whats worse - A cop breaking his oath to the people, or the people being to damn lazy and apathetic to do something about.

I guess its easier to just continue to blame and make yourselves victims, than to do whats hard AND required of our population, which is to give the government legitimacy.

Being lqazy and not taking action to change something, gives that legitimacy.

You are supporting a position you and others rail against.. Ironic
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I dropped a race card?


I asked a simple question. If you took it as racist, that is all on you. Not sure why it matter? Because there is an obvious bias against minorities. I never accused anyone or racism.


Then the purpose of giving a hypothetical where the person is black was for what, exactly?

what have you dont to change the perception that their is bias in the legal system and with laws?

Aside from complaining and invoking the race card?




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join