In The Land of The Free - Did this REALLY happen?

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Did you people even watch the video? The cop said he's conducting an investigation. She might resemble a person of interest who is supposed to be in the area.

Also, "I don't consent to a search" means she had pot on her. He was just doing his job, not harassing anyone.


Really? That is what it means? What job was he doing? If I were out in the desert as an amateur geologist gathering rocks, it is in the interest of the State of fly a helicopter to me and ask me what I am doing? And since I am not doing anything wrong, because I do not consent to being harassed or searched for no reason, I am carrying illegal substances?

Such substances in a state that pretty much turns a blind eye to it?
edit on 10-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed to cater to the.....things......I hold my tongue.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Heads Up



Enough of the drugs discussion.

Its supposition and we aren't going there - ATS T&C's remember.

I am astounded by the number of people jumping to massive conclusions about this video which has no context whatsoever. Without the full story its impossible to determine any number of scenarios that might have mandated the cop to land and talk to the woman, including gun running, smuggling, hunt for a suspect, missing persons report etc etc etc.

I realise that the resident cop haters have a vested interest in not portraying or considering any of that, because they simply hate, but please... lets have some actual critical thought here. This is ATS after all.

edit on 10/2/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Generally speaking though, if this turns out to be a drug related issue how are we posters supposed to handle it? Or is that area of life completely not allowed here on ATS? Just specifics or is merely mentioning certain drugs and drug laws not allowed?

Quite an honest question so I don't step on the ATS Gods' toes.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I do not hate LEO's. I am actually friends with a great many of them. This however is a ridiculous waste of cash for a bankrupt county at the very least, a huge violation of that poor lady's rights and a sign of things to come at worst. Besides, overkill anyone?
edit on 10-2-2013 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 





How so? Maybe it means she has done nothing wrong and chooses not to be molested?
edit on 10-2-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)


edit on 10-2-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Iksnay on the rugsday. Odsmay issedpay....



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The officer acknowledges that she was recording. He had no intention of molesting her. She admitted to having a knife. At that point, he can make sure that's the only weapon she has.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Heads Up



Enough of the drugs discussion.

Its supposition and we aren't going there - ATS T&C's remember.

I am astounded by the number of people jumping to massive conclusions about this video which has no context whatsoever. Without the full story its impossible to determine any number of scenarios that might have mandated the cop to land and talk to the woman, including gun running, smuggling, hunt for a suspect, missing persons report etc etc etc.

I realise that the resident cop haters have a vested interest in not portraying or considering any of that, because they simply hate, but please... lets have some actual critical thought here. This is ATS after all.

edit on 10/2/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)


Understand the drug discussion enforcement, thank you.

No cop hater here, but at a time when American's equal opportunities for the preservation of life and liberty are being threatened, surely you can understand the alarm from the ATS community and the need to question just what may be going on.

From my experience on ATS, as this thread goes on all scenarios will more than likely be discussed both speculating enforcement and tyranny with some critical thinking sprinkled in for good meausre.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Can someone blank out the parts where she gives her identification, name and date of birth? She should never had published that part.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by quedup
What's the next step? Will a Drone follow up?


you asked.


The use of drones was later confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began.

He said: “This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement. That’s all I can say at the moment.”

www.express.co.uk...

Drones will be a normal tool for law ENFORCEMENT in the U.S. from this day on.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid
I can't believe that someone on ATS would actually side with a thug dressed in a suit.

We have the Mafia and the CIA working together in the drug trade.

Drug trafficking is in reality a government sanctioned operation.

And you have the nerve to call this girl a "dumb pothead"?

Unfreakin' believable...

www.whale.to...


I don't suppose you are new to something called SHILLS

people actually paid to post online to deflect, confuse, defend powers that be,

some are pharma shills, some are CIA shills and some are Zionist shills



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The patch on his his sleeve says "san bernardino county", the star shaped patch on the front makes me believe he is a county sheriff.
according to google, san bernardino county is northeast of los angeles so it`s not on the mexican border.
it looks like there are only a few major cities in the whole county,a few big national parks, as well as a marine corp base and a big marine corp air ground combat center.

maybe these people were getting a little too close to the combat center property line and the sheriff thought they looked suspicious so he swooped down to check them out?
maybe the marines called the sheriff and told him there were people lurking around the perimeter of the combat range and told him to go check them out?
edit on 10-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Not new. Some friends and I were smoking and drinking on some railroad tracks in 1987 and the Charlotte police chopper came down and landed in a parking lot and tried to arrest us. I ran into the woods and no one has ever been able to get me in the woods. but a few of my friends did get caught and went to jail.

This was a free country in the 70's. But not since then. And it gets less free each passing day.

Funny thing. As a sci-fi buff I have seen most sci-fi movies ever made. In every single ne of them except "The 6th Day" had people living in a future police state where people could actually SMOKE in public. Imagine that. No one conceived of the stupidity that smoking laws would bring. Sure, they thought of the surveillance and loss of freedom, but not a one of them thought we would be so unfree as to not be able to enjoy a cigarette after a meal.

I saw a video taken in a shopping mall in the 80's and people were walking around smoking in the mall. There were no police around and it was peaceful. We have lost so much freedom and still people try to say this is a free country. Free compared to what? Russia is freer than we are. China is becoming more free than we are.

There is no freedom here any more. None at all.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Could this be an extension of the search protocol for the rogue officer?
They did say he was possibly active in this area didn't they?
I can't think of another reason to burn that much avgas,certainly not just to check IDs.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by quedup
 

She gave him more than I would have. I would've told him fourth amendment and kept walking.
2



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Was she trespassing or something? I find it odd that a helicopter would just land and harass a woman for absolutely no reason.

There must something else to this story being left out.

Nothing is left out, its exactly what it looks like here, plain and simple harassment, followed by waste and abuse, and probably fraud, but that's a guess



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Its unfortunate that the lady did not know her rights well enough to know she did not have to answer any of the questions at all. The Sheriffs had no probable cause to bother this person according to the video as presented.

She should have just repeated "am I under arrest, no - then I'll be on my way, have a nice day" at which point she should have walked away.

In the video it appears that the Sheriff started rifleing through her items without any request to do so and only stopped after repeated non-consent by the lady.

4th amendment - whats that anymore.

Others have posed such ideas as search in area, drug activety etc. etc. , ludicrous was someone saying because she declared a legal knife that gives Sheriff right of search - I beg to differ when the stop was illegal on their part from the get go.

Supposing there was some probable cause prior to video start indicating possible criminal activety then how does one have any perception of danger percieved by lone officer approaching non-chalantly up to a possible suspect uncovered by another officer - sorry guys just that one fact alone says this was an outright mission of citizen harrassment because they could.

edit on 10-2-2013 by Phoenix because: sp



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The officer acknowledges that she was recording. He had no intention of molesting her. She admitted to having a knife. At that point, he can make sure that's the only weapon she has.


Haha. She can admit to having whatever. A machete or a pistol or an are-15. That doesn't give him the right to d anything without probable cause and a warrant. Ppl who believe as you do are the problem with this country.

Or. Since knives are not illegal. How about she admitted to wearing shoes. At that point he can make sure those are the only shoes she has. See what I did there? I replaced the word of one completely legal item with another word for another completely legal item. Now it is easy to see the stupidity of your statement.

edit on 10-2-2013 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
How horrible!
At least it wasn't a black helicopter! That would have probably been far worse. God how I am hating this crap. More and more every day. When are we going to stop taking this??? Its like water over a rock, it wears it out until the rock smooths and softens...I fear by the time we all wake up, it may be too late...









 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join