Do you support our current president? by canttakesky

This surprises you at all ?

Look...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com /images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com /images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg
(spaced to avoid direct image linking)

ANY resistance to the established order, even something so mundane as knowing your Constitutional Rights or even asking WHY you were stopped is enough.

And it's been that way for a lot longer than most folk realize, it's just that the general public kept shouting down the folks trying to bring it to their attention while handing over more and more of our rights, freedoms and resources, that the bastards don't feel the need to hide it anymore.

And it goes back more than one or two presidents, too, so it's not a party issue at all.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/13/you-are-the-homegrown-terro
rist-threat/

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",
oh, they point the cannon at YOU, Lord.
-CCR, Fortunate Son.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 4:12 AM

America loves a winner!

I'm skeptical the story actually happened as it was told. First of all, how would the agents know the brother was " speeding toward the airport " ? Yes, there are traffic cams on most major city interstates, they're just simply not used to track real time speeders and the like. The police might know if he was speeding, but not the agents inside the airport. And of course, if the police knew, they'd have acted right away to track him down, they wouldn't hold back on a random car driving fast to see how things play out.

The other questions are conceivable, but I've got the feeling this is more of an internet urban legend than anything.

qIt is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 4:17 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

ANY resistance to the established order, even something so mundane as knowing your Constitutional Rights or even asking WHY you were stopped is enough.

Again, I must call B.S.. The cops often ask YOU why you think they stopped you. If they ask the question, it's only logical to assume you could ask the same question back to them. Asking them why you were stopped isn't an issue, it just isn't.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Since when did support of a current president become a gauge or indicator of possible crime? In a situation like this, is it acceptable for the "suspect" to answer no? If you answer no, do you end up at Guantanamo?

1. Questions are asked as much to understand the mindset of the suspect or person of interest - how a person answers this question is more important then the answer. For instance, if you acted as if you were afraid to answer such a question or became agitated that the question was asked, it might say something about your mindset.

2. Obviously.

3. No. There is no one in Guantanamo for not supporting the current administration.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 5:18 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

"Do you support our current president?"

Since when did support of a current president become a gauge or indicator of possible crime? In a situation like this, is it acceptable for the "suspect" to answer no? If you answer no, do you end up at Guantanamo?

--------------------------

Most of America didn't support Bill Clinton, as he never got over 50% of the popular vote. Seems like an odd thing to ask, regardless.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 5:28 AM

Quote:
Asking them why you were stopped isn't an issue, it just isn't.

I call bullshit.

How many folks wind up arrested for resisting arrest, which amounts to being yanked into custody for no particular reason or charge ?

It's well known, indisputable fact that if you in any way try to express or enforce your rights when in communication with a Law Enforcement Officer, they will more often than not react quite nastily, anything from petty intimidation up to outright murder, can, have and will.

Your word, especially in light of your utterly laughable credibility, telling me "it just isn't" falls flat in the deluge of evidence to the contrary which can be provided in just mere minutes of research.

Case Examples:
"I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you, officer."

Results in...
""If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight."

And
"Can't I park here? It's a commuter lot right?"

Results in...
"Do you wanna try me young boy? Do you want to try me tonight young boy?
Do you want to go to jail for some fucking reason I come up with?
Do you wanna see who knows the law better, me or you. My experience compared to your young ass. Huh? Don't ever get smart mouthed with a cop again. I show you what a cop does. Do you understand me?
Try and talk back -- Talk back to me again. I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things. Do you wanna try something?"

And you try to shovel that "it just isn't" at me ?

No, I do not think so.

It shouldn't be, but it IS, with reams of documented evidence to prove it.

Quote:
it might say something about your mindset.

And the mindset that it's none of their fucking business without a warrant is plenty enough to get them one - or how bout refusing to let them root through your stuff being probable cause for a search ?

That catch-22, napoleonic, guilty till proven innocent shit has subverted the intent of our laws to make it exactly the opposite, and giving them a free pass is bullshit.

Oh, and Clinton was every bit as much a rights violating prick, THAT fact is not whatsoever in doubt either, so shove your partisan shill crap and bust caps on the issue for once, willya ?

-F
*
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And the mindset that it's none of their fucking business without a warrant is plenty enough to get them one - or how bout refusing to let them root through your stuff being probable cause for a search ?

That catch-22, napoleonic, guilty till proven innocent shit has subverted the intent of our laws to make it exactly the opposite, and giving them a free pass is bullshit.

You’re free to not answer the question. In fact it’s your right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 8:20 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Asking them why you were stopped isn't an issue, it just isn't.

I call bullshit....

I'll second that. I got stories, but it's not even worth getting into. I just think it's funny watching the usual authoritarian sycophants come out of the woodwork to defend this shit. Are you guys into the kinky whips and chains stuff too?

Seriously, how much fascist cock will you swallow before you gag???

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 8:39 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Auraptor,

No, this is not an urban legend. I got a first hand account from the brother who was detained for half an hour.

They were asking why he was speeding towards the terminal (maybe they said terminal and not "airport"). The point is, they have cams all over the airport and speeding through the airport is suspicious. Then when the driver stops to hand over a package to a passenger, then drives off again, it is suspicious enough for them to detain the driver to investigate. They only let him go after they got a call confirming that the passenger cleared airport security.

I just found it a bit creepy that they would ask about support for the current president. Reminds me of when I lived in military dictatorships.

--------------------------
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.
--Henry David Thoreau

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'll second that. I got stories, but it's not even worth getting into. I just think it's funny watching the usual authoritarian sycophants come out of the woodwork to defend this shit. Are you guys into the kinky whips and chains stuff too?

Seriously, how much fascist cock will you swallow before you gag???

Someone asks you a question, and you think they’re trying to shove their dick in your mouth. You are so full of shit. Governments have created policies to enslaves whole nations or exterminate whole peoples, yet you find yourself in the unique position of a state the might ask you a question, and you through a fit. The lack of perspective you have makes it impossible to ever take you seriously. You shoot your mouth off with no fathomable clue what you’re talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 8:49 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Do you wanna try me young boy?

I know people who have experienced this type of questioning before. I've just never heard of any law enforcement throwing in a question about supporting our current president. That was new to me. Not really surprising, just bothersome that it is probably going to be routine, if not routine already--and that there are people on this board who think it is perfectly ok.

It bothers me that there are apparently a lot of people who like sucking fascist cock in this country. (Thanks to Sarge for that image.)

--------------------------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 9:52 AM

Oh, it’s far worse then you think. There are all kinds of people who have no problem at all with being asked questions. What kind of society do we live in when someone can be asked a question??!! It’s fascist, I say, fascist!!!!

Fascism n. A political philosophy in which questions are sometimes asked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 3:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Auraptor,

No, this is not an urban legend. I got a first hand account from the brother who was detained for half an hour.

They were asking why he was speeding towards the terminal (maybe they said terminal and not "airport"). The point is, they have cams all over the airport and speeding through the airport is suspicious. Then when the driver stops to hand over a package to a passenger, then drives off again, it is suspicious enough for them to detain the driver to investigate. They only let him go after they got a call confirming that the passenger cleared airport security.

I just found it a bit creepy that they would ask about support for the current president. Reminds me of when I lived in military dictatorships.

--------------------------
[

\

I find it hard to buy that they'd ID a car coming in to the area at a high rate of speed, let the driver park/ pull over, what ever....long enough to pass off a package, and then drive away w/ out detaining said driver on the spot.

I also find it odd to ask about supporting the President. Maybe the officer/ agent saw a bumper sticker or something which made him think of it. Who knows. Might be he was just on some power trip, and just wanted to F w/ your friend, whom ever.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 4:07 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
"Why were you speeding towards the airport?"
"What kind of package were you handing over?"
"Are you an American citizen? How long have you been a citizen?"
"Do you belong to any terrorist organizations?"
"Do you support our current president?"

These are the type of questions that good security services use to "profile" for potential threats. The questions individually aren't to meaningful, but as a whole they do tell quite a bit about the person answering them. For example, if the driver has a NASCAR sticker on his rear window and the cop asks "Why were you speeding towards the airport?", the cop would expect the driver to take great pride in their rate of speed to the airport. This somewhat confirms to the cop that the person and the car go together. If the cop then asks the NASCAR fan "Do you support our current president?", and the driver looks at him in confusion and then asks "who is the current President", this confirms to the cop that the person truly is a NASCAR fan.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 4:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's really strange that some people - like Finn - think it's ok if police ask political affiliation questions.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 6:29 PM

Oh, I think it's "ok" if police ask any question they want. It doesn't mean I'm going to answer every question they ask, but they can certainly ask it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 6:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

When you refuse to answer the questions they ask you're refusing to comply with the reasonable request of an officer and they can tase you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 6, 2008 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When you refuse to answer the questions they ask you're refusing to comply with the reasonable request of an officer and they can tase you.

I hope so. My lawyer will be able to get me a lot of money for my new car.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 6, 2008 2:24 PM

DARKJESTER

Back to the original question - Do I support our current president?

No.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 6, 2008 7:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Although one of his biggest mistakes was holding over that Democrap appointed Pineta as Transportation Sec - who has created all of the bad parts of TSA and Travel - I do still support the President (this is 2008, next year I will not). Imagining how much worse it would be with algore or Swiftboat Kerry brings on nightmares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 2:51 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
"Do you support our current president?"

Besides the fact that this whole story is a load of crap, the question is relevant not because of the question...but for the answer.

Kinda like when a cop asks you off the bat if you know why you've been pulled over. There are questions whose specific intent is to get some kind of confession or admission or to lead to follow up questions.

Best way to answer: Do you know why I pulled you over? "Yes." or "No." or "Why no Officer, is there something wrong?"

Do you support the President? "Yes." or "No." or "I don't understand the question."

That said, if someone were to rush to the airport, run inside, and hand someone a package and then leave just as quickly...I think we'd want to know a couple more details. Thats good security. But this story is crap cause Customs Agents lack the authority to operate in the manner you described.

Also, police have the right to ask anyone any question anytime if they see you at the gas station or on the street. Its called a consensual encounter. Its consensual...you can say nothing, walk away, or stop and talk all friendly like. Now if they want to detain you they need reasonable suspicion based upon reasonable articulable facts.

Based upon the made up story you gave us...well, in made up stories we can make up answers, and in this case my made up legal opinion is that they could not only pretend to detain the alleged man they could shoot him if he does not support the President (with imaginary bullets).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 10:46 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
It's well known, indisputable fact that if you in any way try to express or enforce your rights when in communication with a Law Enforcement Officer, they will more often than not react quite nastily, anything from petty intimidation up to outright murder, can, have and will.

True. I have a couple friends who are cops, and they've told me point blank that their philosophy on this kind of thing is:

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

In other words, give us any shit at all, and you're going downtown, either for resisting arrest or for disorderly conduct.

Of course, no cop will ever admit this kind of thing in front of a camera or a jury...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 2:45 PM

I’m sure you’re friends were talking about something else, or maybe they’re just assholes, but I’ve never in my life encountered an officer who was ever anything but polite and lenient. And THAT is actually how they taught to be - not this paranoid fascist fantasy that Frem has invented. In fact, just the other day, I was at the gas station, when an officer came in with a woman who was visibly drunk. The officer told her that if he catches her driving drunk again he’s going to take her to jail, and then informed the attended of the gas station, who was evidently an acquaintance of the drunk woman, that he had called a friend of hers to come pick her up. Now bearing in mind, that in this state, the police are required to take you to jail if they pull you over drunk, this officer was extremely forgiving and polite - and the truth is that this is the rule, not the exception.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 5:49 PM

Quote:
this is the rule, not the exception.

Again, I call BS, the evidence is wholly against that perception.

You MIGHT get that in a small town or district, but measured across the board the only dependable factor is abusive behavior, and the only noteable difference is the degree.
http://www.aele.org/losbeyond2000.html

"This year saw, for the first time ever, a United States Supreme Court opinion in which four justices of the Court opined that some citizens might well be justified in their belief that fleeing from an approaching police officer may be the best thing to do, whether innocent or guilty."

Oh, and mikey ?

Nowadays they don't even have to take you downtown to rough you up for a little "street justice" - that's what tasers are for, right ?

Here's the incident that started my distaste for the damned things in the hands of the police, btw...
Should anyone care to know what set me off about it in the first place.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-06-28/news/death-by-electrocutione
r/print

"Anderson fired his Taser stun gun into Graff's bare chest from close range and held the trigger for 84 uninterrupted seconds as it discharged 50,000 volts of electricity into the man."

Paranoid fantasy, eh ?

Tell that to Graffs family.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Paranoid fantasy, eh ?

Yep. I can cherry pick events or take things out of context and claim that defines the whole system as well as anyone else, but in the end, I’ve never met a police officer who didn’t treat me and others with as much or more respect then was deserved. Never. In my life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3:19 AM

Given the pathetic credibility you have after repeatedly lying to us around here, I rather doubt you'll get anyone to believe you on that.

Especially since no one HAS to cherrypick, in fact, you have to do that to get examples of where an interaction with a LEO has *not* gone nasty.

You're arguing, once again, in the face of mountains of evidence proving just the opposite of what you are trying to tell folk, which works about as well as tryin to tell em the earth is flat, and with about the same end results.

And while the behavior of the force in general over the past twelve years has indeed degenerated, in part due to militarization of the force - the sad fact is that they have prettymuch *always* behaved like this, it's just that by turning their own surveillence society against them in our technological age, they're finally getting CAUGHT at it, is all.

And in my eyes that's progress, but it's not so easy to rectify the problem when folks still deny passionately it exists.

Abusive behavior is the rule, not the exception, and I for one would like to change that, instead of denying the problem while things get worse.

Again, all I really want is for them to do their job with a minimum of waste, abuse and stupidity, and I do NOT think that is too much to ask of them.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And while the behavior of the force in general over the past twelve years has indeed degenerated, in part due to militarization of the force - the sad fact is that they have prettymuch *always* behaved like this, it's just that by turning their own surveillence society against them in our technological age, they're finally getting CAUGHT at it, is all.

The more likely scenario is that increases in surveillance devices, both those used by the police and those held by others, in recent years has allowed for isolated incidences to draw attention disproportionate with their nature. Then paranoid opportunist jump on these images to claim they are the rule, but in the end, I have never IN MY LIFE ever encountered an officer like you claim they are. I have no doubt they exist, but in what proportion? Is it just coincidence that every officer I have ever met was polite and/or lenient? Have I, by mistake, just happened upon the only good officers in the country? No, I think it’s more likely the police officer just simply aren’t the monsters you portray them as. And of course, anyone who has listened to your long tirades on the evils of the state and your Marxist utopia of an anarchic society would know that you have an ideological incentive to portray the police the way you do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 10:39 AM

You see, that argument might have worked but for a couple reasons.

First, there's a big credibility gap here - you got none, you've lied, repeatedly, been caught lying, denied it, and lied some more, and you almost never offer proof of any of your claims, the few times you have it's been shot to pieces immediately.

If I am offering unsupported opinion, I tell you up front, unless I feel it's bloody obvious, and if I feel proof or examples are necessary they get included - and if you ever even bothered (your own statements prove you don't, given the content of some previous examples and links, so don't bother with more lies) to read them instead of dismissing without a thought or glance anything that might not agree with how you wanna view the world, you might know where I am coming from.

But you can't even get your bashes right, since I am neither a Marxist, nor a Utopian in principle or practice, but a Kropotkinist in principle, and an incremental minimalist* in practice.

You are also missing the general behavioral bents that are so pointedly obvious even those who believe in the utility and function of police departments are pissed off, the conduct of the FOP, Police Unions and departments and their thin blue line covering up for instead of exposing abusive officers - were things actually as you perceive them, they would be first in line to scourge these "bad apples" from the ranks, but they are not, which shows an intentional complicity in their behavior.

That whole few bad apples and isolated incidents bullshit falls flat every single time an officer who violates the law is held to a LOWER standard than us mere citizens, instead of a higher one as they should be - it creates a class division that feeds into an "us and them" mentality that is realistically and psychologically impossible to NOT happen when the same rules don't apply to both classes.

You give a person a gun, power over others and then insulate them from the negative consqeuences of their actions, this behavior becomes inevitable, it's that very lack of consequences that feeds it, and rather than calling for an abusive officers head, the police unions, FOP, and related orgs act in a concerted fashion to conceal, play down or justify that behavior, all the while playing up how "dangerous" (which it ain't we proved that a while ago) the job is and going for the sympathy-beg.

This places them at the same level as a mafia protection racket, in my eyes, for as much as it costs to maintain and operate a police department, we should be getting a lot more for the money - and we'd do well to put that money into training instead of shiny new toys, if you ask me.

I think police officers should be held to, and suject to, every single little nitpick law and regulation we are, with MORE severe consequences for violation than any non police officer - and I very, very specifically include weapons laws in that, and as well any fine levied against a department or it's personnel for misconduct should come directly out of their salaries.

And a civilian review board drawn from the population they are serving to review any use of force or misconduct allegations, let the community decide whether they are being served or abused.

And while these measures all make sense, all have merit - tell me, what exactly is blockading them, and in a fashion that smacks of la cosa nostra ?

Why, the Police Unions, FOP, and related orgs, of course.

When they actively standing in the way of flat out common sense reforms, it's not a few bad apples or an isolated incident any more, it's a pattern of conduct that they actively support.

When they stop ACTING like a mafia or street gang, I will stop flaming them as one.

-Frem

*Incremental Minimalism is favoring a rollback of redundant, unneccessary of unwanted laws, offices, agencies and taxes as both a net cost savings and to reduce the amount of legal and social hassle upon the population as a whole as well as a cost savings measure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 11:36 AM

KIRKULES

I think a persons opinion of the police is primarily determined by the police in the area they grew up in. For me it was Kansas, where most law enforcement is done on the City level. This can be a problem because in many smaller towns the Police Chief is related to the Mayor who is related to the local Judge. This means some in the community can get away with "murder", while others will be arrested for Jaywalking. I've found that justice is more evenly administered when the enforcement is done on the County or State level. In Kansas if you get pulled over by the Highway Patrol(State Cops) you will find them polite and professional. On the other hand if you get pulled over by a local cop you're most likely to get a police academy reject with a power trip. Here in Florida most enforcement is done by the County Sheriffs Dept. and they seem to be professional and ethical. There are actually quite a few stories in the local news about cops arresting other cops. A cop that won't hesitate to arrest another cop is what we need more of in the US today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You see, that argument might have worked but for a couple reasons.

First, there's a big credibility gap here - you got none, you've lied, repeatedly, been caught lying, denied it, and lied some more, and you almost never offer proof of any of your claims, the few times you have it's been shot to pieces immediately.

You keep saying this, like it means something to me, but really I think you’re just trying to convince yourself. This is a classic example of paranoia. You are so desperate to avoid any opinion that might mistakenly filter into that closed mind of yours that you can’t see me as having a different point of view or even being wrong - no you have to see me as intentionally distorting the “truth,” as if somehow I’m out to get you. As someone who actively trying to undermine this fictional idea of “truth” you have. This is classic paranoia.

And it’s also somewhat meaningless, because I know what I know, and I know that I’ve never met a police officer that I thought was a Mafioso or a member of a street gang. Never. In my life. You can pretend, all you want, that this is not really what I know - that instead I am like those evil cops and I’m out to get you, but that’s delusional.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Do you think being white may have something to do with that ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 5:20 PM

Due to the likelihood of a criminal being black, as opposed to white, it’s probably true that more officers are more likely to exceed appropriate behavior with a black person then with a white person, but even then it’s still probably the exception, not the rule.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 5:41 PM

Finn, I highly doubt your word on anything, obviously...

But if that is the case - it is the exception, rather than the rule, and where ever they are finding THOSE cops, they need to send some of em HERE as training cadre.

I've known decent cops, even within the BCPD, Joe Goode volunteered to actually do foot patrols in the really awful neighborhood where I lived as part of a community policing initiative, which eventually failed because his fellow officers indulged in some really unbecoming behavior, but I never knew HIM to do so.

He had this idea that since resources were limited, one should triage enforcement in such a manner where it did the community the most good - busting some schlep quietly drinking a beer on his own front porch for public intoxication woulda never crossed joe's mind, nor would a lot of petty stuff that not only would NOT help keep the peace, but if pressed would provoke the community needlessly - and if he did have to take someone off the street, he did it by the book.

He retired shortly before I moved on from that neighborhood, and in all that time, no one even really tried to harm him, cause we knew him as a PERSON, not some goonsquaddie swooping down out of the night to arrest everyone in sight for anything they thought would stick...

The best protection an officer has is the respect of the community he serves, but with all forms of respect, you have to bring some, to get some.

He brought it, and he got it.

That man is the only reason I ever had the slightest bit of respect for the idea and purpose of police at all, the only example I ever had at the time, of a cop who wasn't a petty, hateful thug with a badge.

Am I so very wrong to hold the rest of the force to a standard I learned from a cop in the first place ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve never met a police officer who didn’t treat me and others with as much or more respect then was deserved. Never. In my life.

So, based on your personal experience, you think all stories about abuse of authority are what...lies? I could make a list of my personal run-ins with the idiot jocks, disillusioned that their High School status didn't transfer to the real world, who then became idiot cops and enforced whatever pleased them at the moment, but then that's just MY personal experience, so I suspect you will dismiss it.

And, as Hero says, For The Record, my dealings with the Police have, more often than not, been extremely pleasant, but the fact that there have been so many times when it has not been forces me to question their screening process.
I'm happy for you that you never had a problem, Finn, just don't take that as a country-wide norm.

Remember Serpicoisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 6:41 AM

Oh, just so that no one thinks it's rhetoric..

The BCPD, DPD and LAPD do indeed often act like a protection racket, this is only one case of many, believe me you'll have no trouble finding more...

2 Former Cops Plead Guilty To Extortion
POSTED: 8:01 am EDT April 9, 2008
DETROIT -- Two former Detroit police officers have pleaded guilty in the shaking down of a gas station clerk who chased off troublemakers with a shotgun.

Brandon Allen, 24, and Aaron Scott, 23 pleaded guilty recently to extortion charges in U.S. District Court in Detroit. Both live in Southfield, and have resigned from the police department.

They could face up to 20 years in prison. Scott is to be sentenced June 30, and Allen's sentencing was set for Aug. 4.

The Justice Department says the officers went to the gas station Oct. 19 with guns drawn and handcuffed the clerk. They told him he could avoid going to jail if he paid them.

The in-store surveillance video shows the clerk handing money from the register to one of the officers.
URL - http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/15832167/detail.html?rss=det&psp=ne
ws

But one thing I wanted to note is how and why they shook him down, there's little doubt said "troublemakers" (don't you love how they spun THAT one ?) were attempting to rob the place and fled when instead of meek compliance they wound up facing a drawn weapon.

It's possible (as has happened often enough before) that the perps were the ones that called the cops - the BCPD and DPD, and this is from my own direct local knowledge, have such a hostile attitude towards self defense in any form, that they will not hestitate to arrest YOU for it, and thus when no bullets fly or bodies hit the ground, no one will call them unless they feel the need to document events for legal or insurance purposes, you see.

But the bad guys can ALWAYS count on calling in a "man with gun" to get the police to disarm their victim FOR them.

The old guy who lived a block over, who I used to chat with when we did yardwork in our back yards... he died that way, chased off the local street punks with an old revolver, who promptly called the cops, who showed up and charged the old codger, took it from him, and the punks showed up late that night and beat him to death.

Incidents like these, isolated or not, color the viewpoint of everyone who knew the person, everyone related to them, everyone who saw it, and it doesn't take all that damn many to turn an entire community AGAINST the police dept - once reason they will not respond in 21225 with anything less than four cars.

And even in a state that DOES rememeber what the second amendment says, all too often around here, a homeowner who runs off a home invader with a weapon finds himself staring down the gun barrels of a VERY hostile police department, and soon after face down on the ground with some cops knee in the back of his neck getting cuffed, then thrown into a wall and viciously interrogated while the cops "look around" on a fishing expedition for anything they can bust the HOMEOWNER for, or worse - and this sequence of events, repeated over and over has most definately colored the communities perception of the DPD, how could it not, when it's almost an everyday occurance around here ?

You'll also note that at no time do they make any effort to go looking for the perp, too busy teaching those vile self-defenders a lesson, yes?

Too damned often people are AFRAID to call the cops, because they risk arrest and harrassment instead of help.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/30/Tampabay/Police_jail_rape_vict.shtml

This should not be the case - but it is.

Folks should be able to call in the cavalry without fear of being stampeded, shouldn't they ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, based on your personal experience, you think all stories about abuse of authority are what...lies?

Why would you think that I think that? See, there’s that selective reading again - where you ignore reading certain phrases so that you can mischaracterise my point. I’m not the one generalizing an entire group of people by the actions of a few or dismissing outright other points of view - you’re thinking of Frem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 6:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"No, I think it’s more likely the police officer(s) just simply aren’t the monsters you portray them as."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why would you think that I think that?

Because you stated TWICE that has NEVER been your experience- never. As if that had some kind of weight to it. I've never been shot- but I believe many peeps have been...

Quote:
See, there’s that selective reading again - where you ignore reading certain phrases so that you can mischaracterise my point.

Maybe it's me and maybe it's you- the main point I get from your posts is that complaining about abuse of authority is nonsense. That our rights are intact. Tell that to Frem's neighbor.

Quote:
I’m not the one generalizing an entire group of people by the actions of a few or dismissing outright other points of view - you’re thinking of Frem.

Frem has been at or near the center of conflict you can only read about ( thank goodness for your luck) so his POV is understandably forcefully expressed. Doesn't make it off the mark though, IMO.

The Death Wish-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 7:48 AM

FLETCH2

A few thoughts.

1) Since any one person's experience should have as much weight as any others, Finn and Frems experiences are equally valid. The difference is that Finn is not claiming that every officer must be an angel based on his experience and Frem seems to be suggesting all officers are Aholes based on his.

2) Frem is right, you would expect that line of work to attract certain personality types, which is probably why "the bad stuff" happens far more than we like.

3)He's also right that professional police groups are far more likely to consider complaints as attacks rather than reports of abuses. At least part of this I suspect is because alledging police harrasment is a "gambit" that some offenders use to try and avoid prosecution. If you KNOW you personally did nothing wrong but you are accused of something as part of a perps attempt to get off or gain sympathy at trial then I suspect if you hear similar complaints about another officer you're probably thinking the same thing is going on. Actual genuine abuses are probably not the first thing you think of.

4) The avaiability of cameras mean that abuses when they do happen are no longer "he said, she said" kinds of events. I think this is a good thing. However, even if we had 1000 videos (which we don't) we cant use them to say anything more than a 1000 events took place. There must be several hundred thousand police related encounters nationwide in a day, we have no way of knowing how many of those are bad events. Logically some of them must be, but by the same token people die during routine surgical proceedures. Almost anything humans do has a screwup and F***up factor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

Finn and Frems experiences are equally valid. The difference is that Finn is not claiming that every officer must be an angel based on his experience and Frem seems to be suggesting all officers are Aholes based on his.

Frem clearly gave a positive example of a good cop.

Maybe a place in the middle...off the edge....

Malisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Maybe it's me and maybe it's you- the main point I get from your posts is that complaining about abuse of authority is nonsense.

No, it’s you. There’s no way to logically get from my posts what you’ve come up with. The opinion you claim I'm expressing in this thread is completely independent of anything I've actually said.

You also practice selective reading of Frem’s posts, but the difference is that you use the selective reading to apologize for Frem, not mischaracterise him. In the end, one thing is certain- you’ve neither tried to understand me or Frem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 8:19 PM

No, Chris understands me perfectly well, it's you who never seem to get it no matter how many times or ways I express it.

My issues with us *having* a police force are minimal, I am well aware the general population isn't really grown up enough emotionally to not need that kind of backstop, although if it were not for the few decent examples of folk doing the job RIGHT - I would never have known it's value.

But see, that's the whole point - I want them to do the job, without abuse, waste or stupidity, to do it well and hold to a professional standard of conduct, part of which is NOT tolerating it among their own, WE should not have clean their house for em, THEY should do it before we get the chance, by putting the boot to folk unwilling or unable to hold to that standard, but they don't.

Instead they make excuses, cover for them, and this amounts to a tacit complicity that I find intolerable, you wouldn't want your banks manager covering for an embezzling employee, you wouldn't want your local hospital covering for a bungling doctor with a drinking problem, so why should we accept this phenomenae from our police forces ?

Folks should not be hestitant to report a crime due to fear of being arrested or assaulted by the police.
(See Also: Alice, affiliate)

Folks should not fear being hassled or arrested for defending themselves or their property.

But they are, due to a demonstrated pattern of behavior spanning multiple departments, many of which are not isolated incidents of a single officers misconduct, but like the LAPD Rampart issues, the current Chicago PD investigations, and the Kathryn Johnson case, have involved on-going, systematic, department-wide misconduct and abuse over long periods of time.

Originally published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185302
"Atlanta police narcotics officers often falsified search warrants to make busts and pad their arrests records hoping to satisfy goals set for them by upper brass, federal investigators said."

The problem is that they keep hiding behind that "few bad apples" excuse, and people LET them, when all the evidence points to a bad barrel.

And it never, ever stops, not at long as we give them a free pass on this behavior by buying into that bullshit excuse.
1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E4DC1339F937A2575BC
0A96F958260
2003
http://www.truthinjustice.org/17-detroit-cops.htm
2007
http://detroit.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel07/de092607.htm
2008
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/NEWS05/803130
348

Notice any real difference ?
Notice a pattern of specific, ongoing conduct ?
Notice a damn near continual need for the FBI to be up the DPD's ass with a microscope ?

This level of organised, systematic criminal behavior makes them a Mafia, not a police force, which is why I call them on it.

Just because it doesn't impact you directly, doesn't mean it doesn't impact you - a lack of confidence in the police can lead to all manner of unpleasantness, and who do you think pays the fines these guys rack up ?

Why, the very people they're mistreating - us taxpayers.

All I WANT is for them to do the job, and in a professional manner befitting the responsibility which they have assumed, and since *as a whole* that isn't happening, quite right that I am pissed off about it.

Sheepdogs that eat your sheep are a waste of resources and a detriment to the purpose for which you hired them.

-Frem

PS. You'll note, if you've at all been paying any kind of attention, when a cop DOES do a good job, or even gives a good faith effort despite a training failure, I am just as quick to call it a good job of things.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31658

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, Chris understands me perfectly well, it's you who never seem to get it no matter how many times or ways I express it.

You only express it one way - ‘any cop is a bad cop.’ Yes, after someone points out how ridiculous you sound, you’ll eventually throw a bone to try to recover your lost credibility. You’ll mention the ONE “good cop,” but only as a last resort, after your attempts at character assassination have failed. If you were honest about it, I suspect you’d have to admit that you want to believe that all cops are bad, because it fit’s the requirements for your extremists views of society. How can your dream of a purely Marxist society ever come to pass, if the state continues to police the public? You don’t want the police to regulate themselves - you want the police to be disband in favor of an anarchic society. You don’t care about confidence in the police. Your whole attitude is an attempt to undermine confidence in the police. You don’t want them to do their job - you want them gone - out of the equation completely. No I don’t think Chris understand you, but I’m pretty sure I do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:05 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I just think it's funny watching the usual authoritarian sycophants come out of the woodwork to defend this shit. Are you guys into the kinky whips and chains stuff too?

I'm on your side on this issue Sarge, but I quite enjoy the bondage scene. Don't knock it till you try it....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 5:44 AM

You're so fulla shit Finn.

You have this half-ass, concocted image you wanna present as a strawman, and it just pisses you off mortally that I keep ruining your illusion, doesn't it ?

You wanna sit there and try to portray me as a one-dimensional cardboard cutout like some flunkie from the extras list of a john woo movie cause you ain't got the guts to face the points I make and argue them, especially when the evidence is so heavily against your view on the subject.

But that's the thing, you can maybe, sometimes get away with turning someones argument into a strawman - but there's no way in hell you can successfully do that to a person who can blow your deliberate misperceptions to bits just by stating their own goals and opinions instead of the ones you try to duct-tape onto them.

It's also a seriously asshole thing to do, especially in light of me being crystal clear about my motives, intent and opinions, so much so that I continually clarify them in the face of your asinine distortions - no matter HOW you try to spin it, you don't speak for me, you CAN'T speak for me, because you are too busy addressing an image manufactured from whole cloth rather than the person due to the fact that you are either unable, or unwilling, to face them directly.

You, and the rest of your ilk around here, condemn yourselves far more with your own actions and behavior than I could ever do to you, you are your own worst enemy and all too often let your temper get the better of you when proven wrong, and throw little tantrums like this, showing all involved that you simply don't have the maturity to effectively argue the topic.

What's worse, is that you are completely blind to just how easy it is to set you up and drop you through the manhole because of the inherent gullibility that lead you to support parties, leaders and agencies that act against your own interests instead of for them, something you won't admit, because it would require a careful self examination I do not believe you are capable of.

Now, if you'd like to offer something on the topic rather than attempted strawman character assassinations and other lame shit that just makes you look like a nasty, petty little brat, that might be a start, but I figure being caught out once again, you'll just slither away leaving nothing but a slimy trail in your wake once again.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 6:10 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You have this half-ass, concocted image you wanna present as a strawman, and it just pisses you off mortally that I keep ruining your illusion, doesn't it ?

You wanna sit there and try to portray me as a one-dimensional cardboard cutout like some flunkie from the extras list of a john woo movie cause you ain't got the guts to face the points I make and argue them, especially when the evidence is so heavily against your view on the subject.

You mean kinda like this?

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I just think it's funny watching the usual authoritarian sycophants come out of the woodwork to defend this shit. Are you guys into the kinky whips and chains stuff too?

Seriously, how much fascist cock will you swallow before you gag???

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You don’t want the police to regulate themselves - you want the police to be disband in favor of an anarchic society. You don’t care about confidence in the police. Your whole attitude is an attempt to undermine confidence in the police. You don’t want them to do their job - you want them gone - out of the equation completely.

Finn, uh, I think you're doing with Frem what you said I'm doing with you, which is cherry picking & telling HIM HIS position on stuff.
Can we just agree on the following?
About a third of people in general are clueless or petty, and since cops are people, you should expect about the same percentage out of them.
See, if I was a cop, I'd be as quick to rat out a dickwad in my department as I would be to arrest a perp in the streets- an attitude that could get me killed, do you get that? We NEED police; I would just like to see a higher standard of recruitment & professionalism is all. But then the same goes for all government everywhere, IMO.

Quote:
No I don’t think Chris understands you, but I’m pretty sure I do.

I think the emotionalism here is makin' that a little difficult.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:53 AM