LA Police Caught on Body Cam Planting Drugs in Black Suspect's Wallet

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Well put sir, I believe you when you say you have been treated unfairly, and that you have witnessed the same as well. I just hope you know that not every officer behaves like that, and those who do frankly don't deserve a badge. No doubt the system as a whole needs overhauled though. There are some major shortcomings that I feel originate in the judiciary but ultimately rest on the thin blue line to carry out. Stop and frisk is one of many such examples. IMO, militarized police and no-knock warrant service is another major violation (for all but the most dangerous/volatile situations).

To me, it seems the government & its actors (state, federal..whoever) are too happy to walk the thin line between constitutional/unconstitutional as opposed to making a concerted effort to uphold civil rights and ensure fair enforcement of the law.

You do make a very good point about legislative action, as it is undoubtedly more difficult for minorities to get things passed by lawmakers. I honestly don't have any suggestions or recommendations, other than proposing some better alternatives to professional policing (or even policy changes).

To be sure, I do not support targeting or oppression of any individual or group, and I do not support the LEOs who engage in that activity

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In fact, to go one step further: how to minorities, who are targeted for legal enforcement provably more often that white people, and who have that enforcement remove their right to vote or own firearms (or find a decent job, no one will hire a felon), use the ballot box to change the laws that are obviously targeting them more than non-minority citizens?

Its bad enough that they have the uphill battle of being the smaller voting bloc. But we further cripple their effort by removing their right to vote when the cogs of "justice" chew them up.

Its no wonder we see the violent backlash. 2nd Amendment supporters use the excuse of "we have to fight tyranny" to justify gun ownership. This notion isn't reserved only for white folks.

a reply to: JBurns

i have employed officers as security for large events and in our bars. I know many cops, and have to say they are (predictably) just like regular folks. Some are nice guys, some are real a-holes. And everything in between.

I treat all individuals as individuals. Individual merit is the only way. Im arguing more against the badge itself, not the humans wearing it. Although that is where the problems lie, the reality is humans are just not really fit to have much authority over each other.

Serious question here. When IS it OK to plant evidence?

Never?

No offense, but to act like you are all high and mighty lawful good fools is hore#. We all deceive and we all lie, in some capacity. If you tell me you don't then I know you're not an honest person.

So, let's say a real piece of sh!t is constantly skirting laws or getting away with many crimes, maybe even violent ones.

Is it not only for the cop to plant a baggie and get the POS off the street?

Serious...

originally posted by: Tempter
No offense, but to act like you are all high and mighty lawful good fools is hore#. We all deceive and we all lie, in some capacity. If you tell me you don't then I know you're not an honest person.

The primary reason I say that humans are not fit to police each other.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Tempter
No offense, but to act like you are all high and mighty lawful good fools is hore#. We all deceive and we all lie, in some capacity. If you tell me you don't then I know you're not an honest person.

The primary reason I say that humans are not fit to police each other.

So, survival of the fittest then? I think government and police work at an extremely local level. The problem arises when you have such large pockets of the lower class, whI are less educated and more likely to commit crine, whether out of necessity or not.

That's why I think conservative values are the best, most forward-thinking values there are. It promotes personal responsibility and private ownership. With those two things come marriage, a need to better oneself through education and ultimately less reliance on the public, promoting a SMALLER POPULATION. Yes, I said it. I think there are too many people on this planet and not enough like me.

However, I would never advocate for the termination of life because I feel we have too many people. Yet if we espoused conservative values and miraculously reverse this trend of human growth, it will have been through no help from the Left.

I used to think that there was no point in picking sides. To be honest, I've been through many iterations of what I would call my Political Oort Cloud and I'm pretty sure I'm sticking with this one.

Freedom through Contribution. It's the only way to a smaller and more focused society.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Agreed Texan, a lot of people have this idea that LEOs are somehow different than "normal" people. That couldn't be further from the truth. So to say they don't ever make mistakes, or even illegally discriminate would of course be wrong. You are also right that some are good guys, while others are arrogant a-holes, no doubt about it.

the reality is humans are just not really fit to have much authority over each other.

Agreed. For what it is worth, I prefer a system that sees private Citizens carry out acts of law enforcement according to the common law and codified statutes for each state (minus N.C.). Main reason is because arrests by private Citizens do not carry the same protections as arrests by LEOs. If an LEO mistakenly arrests someone, their department *may* be liable but TBH it is unlikely they'd face any serious consequences. If a private Citizen mistakenly arrests or detains someone, they are in serious civil jeopardy, and will likely face criminal false arrest charges.

A system like this would ensure arrests are only made when the arresting individual is absolutely certain of the circumstances surrounding the case. As the common law says, without unreasonable delay after an arrest, the arrested should be delivered to a magistrate for arraignment.

In all but the most serious of cases (public safety concerns), pre-trial detention is an unfair practice which presumes guilt without due process.

a reply to: Tempter

The first issue: how are you defining crime? The vast majority of "criminals" would not be so if their personal habits were not criminalized. I grew up with a handful of potheads that, due to their desire to be potheads, had them end up in prison. Which then led to them being criminalized by the environment they were in.

Which baffles me...we have people we let out of prison, but keep tabs on via sex offender registries. Meanwhile, we put pot heads in prisons. Why in the seven hells would we release people we don't trust into society while rounding up petty offenders breaking laughable laws to take their places?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


There is no doubt things are backwards in this regard. For what it is worth, I think prison time for any non-violent offense is ridiculous. I also think defining any non-violent crime as a felony is also ridiculous.

Sadly I have never been in a position to make the laws, but I have used my personal discretion on several occasions to right what I believed was wrong.

I would encourage all LEOs to utilize their broad discretionary powers when enforcing the law. Enforce the law equally, always, but much like jury nullification LEO discretion exists to prevent abuses of justice.

Additionally, In my state any misdemeanor offense had to have been committed in the presence of an officer to conduct a probable cause arrest. In examples of such crimes being reported by a witness, I would ask the aggrieved party if they wished to move forward with charges against someone accused of a misdemeanor or breach of the peace.

I would explain to them that since they (the caller/victim, not LE) witnessed the misdemeanor offense, they would have to directly arrest the offender or delegate their authority to arrest to us. Regardless, I would make it clear that they were the arresting party, and that I was simply carrying out their wishes as I was required to do. Usually people didn't want to go that far, as they would be solely liable for false imprisonment. But for those who did, we had several options.

1) accept custody of the offender from the person who witnessed the misdemeanor and transport them to jail or the magistrate for arraignment (depending on time of day);
2) accept custody of the offender from the person who witnessed the misdemeanor and cite & release them;

Felonies are a different ball game of course. But in general, a felony should be reserved for the most serious and egregious violations of law with real and tangible victims.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


There is no doubt things are backwards in this regard. For what it is worth, I think prison time for any non-violent offense is ridiculous. I also think defining any non-violent crime as a felony is also ridiculous.

I take it you are (or were) a cop. If so, you make 4 cops on ATS that have earned my respect by being good mannered people who speak intelligently. Your job has nothing to do with it.

I think that the reason you see felonies coming out of non-violent crime has to do with the racism we talked about on the prior page. How do you keep black folks from legally owning guns or voting? Make a bunch of laws that you can remove those rights with by calling them "felonies".

Our laws trample the rights of minorities. And they have been framed in such a way as to seem completely logical, until you look at who is being screwed over.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I really appreciate that yes I was a LEO for 30 years, but it was during an entirely different time for our country. Happily retired now though, spending plenty of time with the family and out shooting on our land almost every day now

Things are so different today, I do not even think most would recognize it (like night and day). One of the links I came across showed militarized units kicking in a door over some very insignificant drug use allegations. I'm not personally a fan of drug use, but for anyone to believe it rises to the level of a public safety threat/swat raid is just..wrong. Very worrying, especially considering this particular substance's legality in a decent number of states.

I dealt with drug possession about as often as any other offense, and I personally felt that destroying the contraband was punishment enough for a vast majority of cases. The thought that a warrant should (or even could) be obtained for a later search of that individual's home wasn't something that even crossed my mind.

Another thing I recall was fist fights between two or more people. Since it is a misdemeanor here, we were unable to actually cite or arrest someone for battery or assault unless we happened to witness the fight. So usually by time you explain to all participants that they'd actually have to arrest one another, they had lost interest and settled the matter by shaking hands and parting ways. There are so many things that can be dealt with through common sense and adult discussion, rarely needing to create a mess by involving the legal system

I admit I had never taken a truly critical look at the laws, and especially not who they affected. I always assumed (falsely may I add) that laws impacted everyone the same way, and I learned they clearly do not. Justice is supposed to be "blind" but it seems the exact opposite is the case.

The number of "crimes" considered felony level conduct is extremely unsettling as well. Given the ease by which many of these so-called felony offenses can be committed, it seems like a very convenient way to restrict civil rights of the people subject to those laws. I support each amendment in the BOR, and believe every single person in our country deserves those protections.

I think that people like you who bring attention to this mess is the only way out of it. Until more people start standing up to demand true reform, out of control laws will continue to impact those who are most vulnerable to civil rights abuses. In my humble opinion, any law which is created with a specific group of people/activity in mind cannot claim to be "blind"

Thanks again for the kind words, and I sincerely appreciate the enlightening discussion