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.

 

Off Duty Cop Kills Man In Bar

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
Listen, guy... I never spout off hate about cops, never have. I comment on what I know of the brotherhood of law enforcement. You keep bringing up laws and asking me to show you where it says a cop is exempt (you know I can't).


No you spout off all the time, constantly proclaiming that all cops will protect each other no matter what, will taint evidence no matter what, and will maintain the thin blue line and blue wall of silence, which is complete and total BS. You constantly claim that all cops will get out of any criminal wrong doing because you "think you know how the system works" when in reality you have absolutely no clue how it works.

Not once have I ever protected a crooked cop. Not once have I ever hid, destroyed, tainted, lost etc evidence used against another officer. Not once have I ever lied, mislead, omitted etc any information when asked during IA investigations as well as criminal prosecutions. Not once have I turned a blind eye to criminal actions of fellow officers.

Why? Because as a police officer - Its not what we do - period.

I dont defend every single officer accused of wrong doing. What I do do is explain the side of the story you and some others refuse to even consider. That although something occurred involving an officer, the action itself may not be illegal or rise to the level of crime you think it should.

Example - This OP incident.
What you see - The cop exceeding the posted speed limit, striking and killing 2 people and then arresting family members.

What you ignore -
Crossing the street where they did was also illegal.
No cross walk means cars, not people, have the right of way.
The officer did not act because he is part of the crime scene as a suspect.
The family was arrested for assault on "other" officers who responded who tried to keep them away.
The scene itself, is a crime scene and the family has no business interfering in it - especially when that emotionally disturbed and non clear thinking.
The bodies are evidence.
Even if they were dismembered, a police officer cannot officially declare a person dead, only the ME / Coroner can (some exceptions exists).

Last but not least - 2 wrongs dont make a right. Regardless of how much you hate the police, allowing a civilian to break the law simply because you hate cops solves nothing and undermines your entire position about the law treating people differently, as you advocate.



Originally posted by AngryAlien
Legally, laws apply to everyone. In the real world, alot cops feel they are above the law, and will do all they can to protect themselves or their fellow officers from prosecution. They will lie, fabricate evidence, file false reports, and submit their false findings to the "PA", who will not file charges BASED ON THE FALSE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Everyone lies, plain and simple. Trying to single out law enforcement because you hate them regardless is crap and to again assume that all cops do this is BS - plain and simple. People who aren't cops who are involved in the criminal justice system lie as well, yet for some reason I don't see you screaming about that. You concentrate on just law enforcement, constantly making asinine and blanket comments that every single one of them do it, and its a lie - A flat out lie.


Originally posted by AngryAlien
Cops have a job to do, but need to be held to the same or higher standards, which I think they are not.

We are held to higher standards, as I have explained time and again and that you continually ignore while accusing me of protecting cops.

If you fixed your rectal-cranial inversion for 5 seconds and actually read what I'm telling you, instead of ignoring it and constantly making accusations, you would see we are not only held to the same laws as everyone else, we are held to higher standards as well by being able to be prosecuted for actions civilians cannot be. We can be forced to provide evidence against ourselves, where as civilians cannot be, and we are presumed guilty in those cases instead of innocent.

As for your comments about filing false police reports, again if you spent anytime learning the law you would see that not only can we be prosecuted for filing a false police report, we can also be investigated and prosecuted under 42 USC 1983 if those actions resulted in the violation of a civilians civil rights. Something a civilian cannot be charged with.

If you hate the cops thats your opinion and I respect that as your right.

Dont expect me to be quiet though in threads where people make claims that are untrue or based on ignorance. Whats even more pathetic is how you will attack people who provide ALL of the information for both sides. instead of reading the info, you ignore it and attack the person and label them as being against you or the people.

Im not sure whats worse - going after and labeling all cops for the actions of a few or systematically labeling anyone who doesn't agree with your view on cops as part of the problem. So those rights you claim police are exempt from aren't even present in your argument.

Its difficult to hold people to a standard when you dont allow for it to exist in the first place.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I dont play darts with cops, although i do enjoy a good game of cops and robbers



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


When did I ever say i hate cops?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


When did I ever say i hate cops?


Apparently you need to also spend more time reading your own posts as well as those of others. If you don't see it, then me continually pointing it out is not going to help you. Do you not understand the meaning and intent behind the words you use?

Think about that would you please.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by USarmyFL
 


Factor in chain of command and the fact law enforcement can be ordered to answer guilt seeking questions, which is where garrity rights come into play. If law enforcement refuses to answer under orders, that action can be used against them in any internal disciplinary hearing. Police are not innocent until proven guilty in internal affairs, and there is no presumption of innocence. If the officer answers the questions, any guilt information uncovered cannot be used in criminal court, but again it s used against them in disciplinary hearings..


So if an officer admits to murder, extortion, or any other heinous crime under such questioning, he can only be "disciplined", but not charged criminally? And the "discipline" at most is what? He gets fired?

Strikes me as that is very different from what happens to the rest of us, and seems designed to shield them from consequences. It certainly doesn't seem that the law effects police in the same way as it does others.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman

So if an officer admits to murder, extortion, or any other heinous crime under such questioning, he can only be "disciplined", but not charged criminally? And the "discipline" at most is what? He gets fired?



That would never happen, because a union rep would shield the officer from such questioning.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


No it means he gets fired for the crime and gets prosecuted for it, but the information given during the interview cannot be used in criminal court. The only way that can occur is if he waives his 5th amendment rights and Garrity.

If I remember correctly evidence of his termination can be presented, but not the specific reason for it, allowing a jury / judge to infer what they want.


Originally posted by AngryAlien

Originally posted by apacheman

So if an officer admits to murder, extortion, or any other heinous crime under such questioning, he can only be "disciplined", but not charged criminally? And the "discipline" at most is what? He gets fired?



That would never happen, because a union rep would shield the officer from such questioning.


All that effort and I didn't even need to do it in the first place since you completely proved my point on your very own... again..
edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Cobra.EXE
 


Ah yes - blogs..

The end all be all to news information.

You gonna love it then when SOPA passes and all you get is your government MSM sources uh?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Cobra.EXE
 


Ah yes - blogs..

The end all be all to news information.

You gonna love it then when SOPA passes and all you get is your government MSM sources uh?


Keep reading the thread and you will see my irritation. Truth in advertising would be nice, like for starters correcting the title to where its actually truthful. By all means though please show us the CPC for execution.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
that whole bar was full of sissies, someone should stand up, vigilant, and bring justice. i would have at least cut his index finger off and then said something like "not on my watch you farm animal" but a better option would have been to ban him from society that way i dont have to cut off a finger but truthfully wouldnt it be better if everyone like that just died?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Sorry, I'm still confused.

If he confesses to a crime, and his confession can't be used as evidence, how can he be prosecuted ? Especially if he's smart enough to have destroyed any other evidence of his crime, or the nature of the crime is difficult to prove without witnesses?

Let's say there was an unsolved cold-case murder with very scant or no forensic evidence, and in the course of interrogation for something else he confesses to having done the deed, justifying it by claiming the moral high ground, the victim was a criminal scum who deserved it.

How can he be prosecuted without using his confession?

It strikes me that a well-informed and competent cop who happens to be a criminal could very easily manipulate the system to the point of being able to brag about his misdeeds to the investigators, knowing that at worst he can only be fired.

I don't see how he could be successfully prosecuted in such a case, and don't believe a DA or PA would bring charges in the first place for a myriad of reasons.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think you mistake the sentiment of hating bad cops for hating all cops.

I know for a fact you are confused about my stances: I detest bad cops immensely, but respect and support good ones to the same degree.

The problem seems to be that you think bad cops are a small minority, while most of the experiences of the rest of us seems to point the other way. There are more bad ones than good ones from the average person's point of view. It's a truism that if one person tells you you're a horse's butt, it's an opinion, if two tell you it's a trend, if dozens tell you, buy a saddle. Sometimes I think you're not listening to what the customers are telling you.

I submit that you have an understandable blind spot there.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Hence Garrity Rights. Civilians are read their Miranda rights anytime they are in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions. They can choose to invoke that right and refuse to answer any questions.

A Police Officer is also read their 5th amendment. They are then read their Garrity rights. Police can invoke their 5th amendment and refuse to answer questions. Since Law Enforcement is quasi military with a chain of command structure, and we are required to obey the commands of those above us, we can be ordered to talk about our involvement for internal investigations.

See if this break down helps...

We are arrested / being questioned. Because they are detaining and asking us guilt seeking questions, we are read our Miranda rights.

We are then read our Garrity Rights, which essentially is inforning us that if we are ordered by a superior to answer questions, refusal to answer questions is taken as a sign of guilt and will be used against us in an internal affairs investigation.

Option #1 - Waive both and answer any and all questions. Those responses can be used in criminal proceedings as well as IA proceedings. This can occur because we waived our rights and gave voluntary statements.

Option #2 - Invoke both and refuse to answer any questions at all. Since invoking your 5th does not insinuate guilt, its irrelevant in criminal proceedings. For the IA investigation it is used against the officer as being less than honest about their involvement in whats going on.

Option #3 - Invoke 5th / comply with garrity - Any information you divulge under orders cannot be used against you in the criminal prosecution because you invoked your 5th amendment right against self incrimination. The information can still be used against you in the IA investigation portion.

Hope this helps.. It can get convoluted as you can see.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Not at all and I completely understand there are bad cops, as I addressed a few times in this thread. When I give my 2 cents in these threads its not to defend the police, but offer the other side of the story that many people absolutely refuse to look at. The simple comment about vigilante justice by one of the most recent posters is a prime example of that attitude, and as you accuse me of having a blind spot, I submit the exact same for that side of the fence.

Not once have I defended this officer. What I have done is point out the other relevant information that others either ignore because they dont know, or refuse to acknowledge because it could also place blame, but not on the officer.

I listen to what people tell me in these threads, as well as in my job. Other users can vouch for my opinions and views on these topics, and I have advocated on more than one occasion that the people must get involved in government, including engaging the police in conversation, and vice versa, if we are to move past this militaristic view we have gotten.

On a different note, I do take exception to calling people customers. They are citizens, and ultimately my boss. To me a customer is someone who comes and goes who has no vested interest in the company itself. In this case, citizens, who are my boss as well as the government, are a bit more vested than just customers, regardless of their level of interest and participation.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Alright you guys have managed to get some pretty good conversation going despite the weak OP. So I'll chime.

There is no way in hell that even a cop can expect to get away this. What turned this guy inside out is what I want to know ? Maybe Xcath has some insight to what made this officer ==== well it looks like he just self destructed. From the conversation, he was looking to kill someone. We don't know the story I realise but man,
he didn't have enough time decide if he really just hated this guy enough to kill him. Seems he went looking for it.

Spell check.
edit on 31-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Just because the guy is a cop, once again, doesn't mean you need to defend him. You have a habit of having preferencial treatment for cops over anyone else, like doctors or fire fighters. You can't save the bad cops, they're bad for a reason--some psychological disorder, but there is no excuse and it's indefensible. So do the best you can, and don't make exceptions for evil people.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Option 3 seems to lead where I first said.

Agreed it can and does get convoluted.

The customers comment was metaphor, considering what a consumerist economy we live in, don't take it too seriously.

One of the difficulties for citizens is that of distinguishing the good cop from the bad one. For all practical purposes they are identical until they choose to reveal themselves, and guessing wrong can have fatal consequences. So as a matter of self-protection, it becomes necessary at a certain point to assume that they are all bad until proven otherwise, as much as it would be nice not to. Even if you luck out and have a good experience, that only proves they weren't bad that particular time. Who knows if it's just because they happened to be in a good mood? The same guy on a bad day might be a monster, you just can't tell.

If 10% are bad, then you have a 1 in 10 chance of having a bad encounter each time you so much as speak with them, as witness the subject of the thread, or the numerous dog shootings. Trying to talk to a cop and socialize with one can and has proven fatal to more than is comfortable to think about. If the risk were as low as 1% it would still be too high.

One of the overriding complaints is about the arrogance displayed by so many police and the attitude they have that people must comply with whatever an officer says. It makes a civil discussion difficult face to face. Disagreeing with an armed arrogant man who has the power to destroy your life on a whim is no one's idea of a good plan of action. The power stifles discussion. The present thread is case in point.

He may be one of only a few, but how the hell are we supposed to tell them apart?

We can't tell the Craig Peyers from the good guys. He's the SoCal CHP guy who raped and killed a woman a few years back after pulling her over for a traffic stop. He was convicted of just one, but given the number of unsolved cases, it is likely she wasn't his first kill, and several women came forward about his criminal treatment of them when the story broke.

For police, there must be zero tolerance of bad behavior, but unfortunately it is sadly lacking in most jurisdictions.

That's why I advocate testing them for genetic sociopathy prior to hiring; it's not a cure-all, but certainly a step in the right direction.

Should screening for genetic sociopathy be mandatory for politicians and police?
edit on 31-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I have no idea what made this "cop" pull the crap he did. I do know from the evidence so far he is done as a cop and his days of freedom are most likely over with as well. As far as just up and killing, keep in mind we are at the holidays. The mental problems are always present, and are not always caught by the psyche screening / everyday contact we have with people.

Contrary to popular belief it is possible to be mentally unstable and yet show no outward signs that would alert someone else there is a problem. Hindsight being 20/20 chances are this guy has made comments that were so subtle they were ignored / laughed of. This incident will most likely cause people to think about those encounters and think about what was said and start to put 2 and 2 together.

What we know is this cop decided to shoot and kill someone. What we dont know is what personal issues, if any, were also present that may have set the stage. Again contrary to popular belief a person who is wound so tight doesn't need much to set them off, making a insignificant comment / challenge in a normal everyday setting enough to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Does the cop have mental issues?
Drug issues?
Recent death of a close friend / loved one / family member / mentor?
Not get promoted?
Just got demoted / disciplined resulting in the loss of advancement / pay he was needing etc?
On illegal drugs?
On legal drugs mixed with alcohol?
Stupid when drunk?
Facing an investigation for something else/
Did the cop do something at some point in his life that has been nagging, causing mental pressure to build?
Bad breakup?
losing custody of a child?

When we are in a bad place, its hard to see the trees while standing in the middle of the forest. Meaning things may look a whole lot worse than they actually are. Even a minor issue he thinks may be major could be enough to cause him to go crackers in the bar.

No one knows, and its possible if he left no clues in his personal life, we may never know what caused this unless he talks about it.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Just because the guy is a cop, once again, doesn't mean you need to defend him. You have a habit of having preferencial treatment for cops over anyone else, like doctors or fire fighters. You can't save the bad cops, they're bad for a reason--some psychological disorder, but there is no excuse and it's indefensible. So do the best you can, and don't make exceptions for evil people.



Case in point to the other posters...

Im not defending him, nor any other cop. What I am doing is providing a complete picture because people, like you in some occasions, refuse to look at any other information that affects the overall picture.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Just because the guy is a cop, once again, doesn't mean you need to defend him. You have a habit of having preferencial treatment for cops over anyone else, like doctors or fire fighters. You can't save the bad cops, they're bad for a reason--some psychological disorder, but there is no excuse and it's indefensible. So do the best you can, and don't make exceptions for evil people.



Case in point to the other posters...

Im not defending him, nor any other cop. What I am doing is providing a complete picture because people, like you in some occasions, refuse to look at any other information that affects the overall picture.




What other information is there? There are multiple witnesses and the story comes from what I consider a legitamite source. Until something new emerges, which I doubt it will, I'll judge this with the same conviction as other posters.


Infact, most people look at a story one time, make a judgement and then the thread disapears into eternity. But if new information is presented, it will be bumped or a new thread created, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join