This was first posted by Scott Meiner on July 12, 2012, at Americans for Forfeiture Reform:
Last week, North Carolina’s Sampson County Sheriff’s Office reported another bulk currency seizure incident to a traffic stop-despite an apparent lack of evidence of criminality. Press reports indicate purported probable cause for the seizure consists of officer suspicion, a positive K9 alert, and an alleged lane violation-which seems consistent with the Sampson County Sheriff’s Office broad understanding of police power. Remarking on a 2006 bulk cash seizure, Sheriff Jimmy Thornton claimed, “[a]ny amount of money that’s over $8,000 or $9,000 can be seized or investigated…A hearing will be set up and the individual will be able to contest why the money belonged to him or was legit.”
Of course, anyone can seize another’s possessions if afforded meaningful opportunity. However, we properly call that theft in the absence of legally recognized authority. Sheriff Thornton was presumably making more than the assertion that his officers could steal something if they so desired but rather (1) his department claims legally recognized authority to seize and/or investigate cash in “[a]ny amount of money that’s over $8,000 or $9,000″ if department actors have probable cause to seize the cash and (2) in the case of bulk cash, agents have probable cause. In North Carolina, bulk cash seizures, without other indicia of criminal activity, are likely controlled by two things: (1) the property seizure satisfies the US Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing minimum threshold guidelines as defined by the adopting federal agency and (2) the cash is alerted to by a K9 unit.
Assuming that the deputies have no plans to requisition the cash for personal use (and that is not unheard of in Sampson County), currency seizures which are not run through the DOJ’s Equitable Sharing program are of limited utility to North Carolina law enforcement. North Carolina is one of several states that constitutionally direct forfeiture proceeds to education. Additionally, North Carolina severely restricts state administered civil asset forfeiture. North Carolina law enforcement frequently ask federal agencies to adopt their seizures and prosecute their cases. Federal agencies reward local law enforcement with up to 80% of the proceeds on successful forfeitures.
However, federal prosecutors still need to show probable cause to win a contested forfeiture attempt (if the claimant survives an Article III standing challenge). Until recently, a number of judges were persuaded by the Currency Contamination Theory: In a country where somewhere in excess of 75% of circulated currency is contaminated with cocaine residue, a canine sniff identifying that currency has drug residue is meaningless. That has been countered by the Methyl Benzoate Theory associated with Dr. Kenneth Furton, theInternational Forensic Research Institute, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and their ruling in Funds in the Amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars ($30,670), 403 F.3d. The Supreme Court of Mississippi summarized (in adopting the Seventh Circuit’s view of the Currency Contamination Theory):
“Instead of focusing on whether most U.S. currency is tainted with cocaine, the court turned its attention to whether the dog alerts are triggered by cocaine, or from a cocaine by-product, known as methyl benzoate. Id. The court found that based on experts’ extensive research on the scientific aspects of dog sniffs, the studies established to a reasonable scientific certainty that methyl benzoate, as opposed to the cocaine itself, triggers dog alerts to currency. Id. at 457-58. Moreover, the court found “methyl benzoate is highly volatile and evaporates at an exponential rate from tainted currency, so currency recently exposed to cocaine and returned to general circulation will quickly lose any detectable odor of methyl benzoate, even if the particles of cocaine remain.” Id. at 458. As such, the court found that narcotic dogs will alert to currency “only if it has been exposed to large amounts of illicit cocaine within the very recent past,” thus making properly trained narcotic dog alerts to currency entitled to probative weight. Id. at 459.” Evans v. City of Aberdeen, 926 So. 2d 181, 185 (Miss. 2006)
Part of the theory makes sense. Cocaine hydrolyzes in humidity. Byproduct yields benzoic acid and methanol which esterifies to form methyl benzoate. Methyl benzoate is a strongly fragrant volatile organic compound. Dr Furton’s research strongly indicates that K9 drug dogs detect the scent of methyl benzoate as opposed to the scent of cocaine (the research implies that detector dogs will seldom identify cocaine but more likely cocaine byproduct and cocaine adulterant byproduct). Research also demonstrated that the surface of currency spiked with methyl benzoate lost nearly 90% of the spiked methyl benzoate after 2 hours if in an unbundled state. The bundling of currency would be expected to slow the dissipation-preserving the methyl benzoate for later identification. Thus, positive identification of methyl benzoate on bundled currency implies contact with something that gave a byproduct of methyl benzoate (while bundled or closely preceding the bundling).
Of course, we cannot-barring the emergence of conversant canines-infer whether the alerting dog responds to methyl benzoate or something else unless a chemical test is performed identifying detectable presence of methyl benzoate (ideally a chemical capture of the field environment). Most lab tests appear to be geared towards confirming that the currency contains cocaine (which is of little value here due to compelling evidence that nearly all of our circulated currency is contaminated).
If a lab test for methyl benzoate is performed and confirms methyl benzoate presence, we still don’t know much. Methyl benzoate is pervasive in our environment. Hundreds of plant species emit detectable levels of methyl benzoate. Methyl benzoate appears in numerous products with which the average person encounters and contaminates currency, including (but certainly not limited to) fungi, pesticides, solvents, flowers, food and drink flavorers, butter, fruits, oils, perfumes, cheeses, tobacco, liquors, petroleum, and cosmetics.
A 1997 study by Paul Waggoner indicated that properly trained sniffer dogs detect headspace vapor concentrations of methyl benzoate above 50 parts per billion (ppb) with a 90% accuracy rate. The reported average canine threshold sensitivity was 16 ppb. Interestingly, a 2004 Health and Human Services occupational health study indicated that general air concentrations of methyl benzoate in the Canine Enforcement Training Center (later renamed Canine Center – Front Royal) ”ranged from 0.0034 to 0.43 ppm, with an average of 0.21 ppm [parts per million].” In other words, studied drug dogs reliably detect the scent of methyl benzoate at levels as precise as 50 parts per billion and can detect in the neighborhood of 16 ppb while the 2004 general air concentration of methyl benzoate in one of the nation’s premier drug dog training facilities ranged from 3.4 parts per billion to 430 parts per billion, with an average of 210 parts per billion.
The Canine Center’s air was probably contaminated with drugs. Mold might be a good culprit too. A Canadian study of mold in educational facilities found
A variety of solid and indoor air grab samples were taken from the selected locations and were immediately analyzed by solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. By this rapid method, methyl benzoate concentrations in solid samples were found to range: 5—69 and 6—22 ppb for schoolrooms and university rooms, respectively. For air samples, methyl benzoate (quantitation limit 2 ppb) was not detected in the schools, however at the universities; concentrations were as high as 25 ppb. This study supports that methyl benzoate may have use, as an indicator of mold growth, in indoor air research. Investigation of Mold Growth in Indoor School Buildings by Monitoring Outgassed Methyl Benzoate as a MVOC Biomarker Don-Roger Parkinson, Tonia J. Churchill, Loay Wady, and Janusz Pawliszyn Indoor and Built Environment, June 2009; vol. 18, 3: pp. 257-264.
Similar studies have led researchers to advance using methyl benzoate as a biomarker for mold detection. Studies have isolated 118 different fungal isolates in a small sampling of circulated currency. Thirty-four of which were not recognized.
We also know that methyl benzoate was detected in a prominent 2003 study of presumably ‘clean’ US and Canadian money conducted for the FBI by US Customs and Border Protection Senior Research Chemist Dr Doan-Trang Vu. Currency was collected from the Federal Reserve, local banks, Canada Customs, and Dr Vu’s personal cash. It was stored in a variety of fashions.
“To determine the effect of storage on odor levels, bulk U.S. currency samples were analyzed after being stored for a week under various conditions: (1) loosely in a drawer (Fig. 1b), (2) tightly packed in a glass container covered with Al foil (Fig. 1c), or (3) tightly packed in an uncovered glass container. Ink samples were analyzed after being stored tightly capped or uncapped to determine the effect of storage on their headspace profiles. Likewise, cotton balls were analyzed either immediately after removal from the incubating ink jars or after sitting in open jars for up to 1 h to simulate setup time in a canine training session.” Doan-Trang T. Vu, Characterization and Aging Study of Currency Ink and Currency Canine Training Aids Using Headspace SPME / GC-MS, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol 48.
Dr Doan-Trang Vu identified the presence of “ 2,2-diethyl-1,1-biphenyl, methyl benzoate and salicylate, menthol, limonene, dimethyl and diethyl phthalate, and ionol.”
There are doubts about cuing errors too.
”But even with conscientious cops, a dog without the proper training may pick up on its handler’s body language and alert whenever it detects its handler is suspicious.
In one study published last year in the journal Animal Cognition, researchers rigged some tests designed to fool dogs into falsely alerting and others designed to trick handlers into thinking a package contained narcotics (it didn’t). Of the 144 total searches performed, the dogs falsely alerted 123 times. More interesting, the dogs were twice as likely to falsely alert to packages designed to trick their handlers than those designed to trick the dogs.
In 2011, the Chicago Tribune published a review of drug dog searches conducted over three years by police departments in the Chicago suburbs. The paper found that just 44 percent of dog “alerts” led to the discovery of actual contraband. Interestingly, for Hispanic drivers the success rate dipped to 27 percent, again supporting the theory that drug dogs tend to confirm the suspicions (and, consequently, the biases) of their handlers.
A 2006 statistical analysis (PDF) of police dog tests by University of North Carolina law professor Richard Myers concluded that the dogs aren’t reliable enough to provide probable cause for a search.
HuffPost obtained the records for one Illinois state police K-9 unit for an 11-month period in 2007 and 2008. Of the 136 times this particular dog alerted to the presence of drugs during a traffic stop over that period, 35 of the subsequent hand searches found measurable quantities of illegal drugs.
See accompanying article for a more thorough analysis of the K-9 records: An analysis of the K9 records shows that only 25.7 percent of the drug dog’s “alerts” resulted in police finding a measurable quantity of illicit drugs. Just 13 percent resulted in the recovery of more than 10 grams of marijuana, generally considered an amount for personal use, and 10.4 percent turned up enough drugs to charge the motorists or their passengers with at least one felony. Read more here.” Balko, Radley. ”Illinois Traffic Stop Of Star Trek Fans Raises Concerns About Drug Searches, Police Dogs, Bad Cops.” The Huffington Post, March 31, 2012.
All of this ought to convince the rational thinker to reject a mere K9 alert on currency as sufficient to give probable cause for a currency forfeiture. That cocaine might have been the cause of methyl benzoate presence which might have been the reason for an alert is meaningless without considerable proof of elusive propositions. We don’t know that only cocaine could produce methyl benzoate levels sufficient for a dog to detect. We do not know that the dog is detecting methyl benzoate. We do not know that handling errors are miniscule and rare. It is capricious and fatuous to order forfeitures without that information. Legislators should amend the law to block arbitrary use of the K9 forfeiture loophole. And the courts, who handle the fact intensive arbitration of probable cause, need to come to their collective senses.
Unfortunately, that is not the case, yet. Sheriff Thornton would seem accurate in claiming that they can seize and/or investigate ”[a]ny amount of money that’s over $8,000 or $9,000″ because that is exactly what they (like so many other law enforcement departments) are doing.
June 2012: “A routine traffic stop on I-40 Tuesday afternoon uncovered close to $40,000, wrapped in seven bundles. The cash was confiscated but no arrests have been made. According to reports from the Sampson County Sheriff’s Office’s Criminal Interdiction Team was working in the Suttontown and Faison communities Tuesday around 12:30 p.m. when they conducted a routine traffic stop on a black Chevrolet Tahoe for a lane violation on I-4,0 near mile marker 353, in the east bound lane. During the traffic stop, deputies become suspicious of criminal activity and had a K-9 officer conduct a search of the outside of the suspect vehicle. The K-9 reportedly alerted to several locations. A search of each of the locations inside the vehicle yielded several bundles of U.S. currency. In all, seven large bundles of cash was seized, totaling $39,000.” Clark, Doug. “Close to $40,000 in cash seized on I-40 Tuesday.” Sampson Independent. June 2012.
April 2012: ”Someone is out close to $10,000 following an I-40 traffic stop by sheriff’s investigators. Members of the Criminal Interdiction Team discovered two bundles of cash hidden under a seat after a routine traffic stop Tuesday morning. According to reports, the team stopped a Mercury Grand Marquis after they witnessed it make a minor traffic lane violation. Upon further investigation of the driver because of how nervous he appeared, officers asked if they could search the vehicle, and the driver gave his consent. During the search, investigators discovered two bundles of cash, totalling $8,160, and a Sanyo mobile phone under the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Federal asset and forfeiture laws allow investigators to seize the cash and the phone, which they did. No arrests were made in the case.” Clark, Doug. “Traffic stop leads to seizure of close to $10,000.” Sampson Independent. April 2012
February 2011: Investigators with the Sampson County Sheriff’s Office are investigating how $12,000 in cash wound up in the hands of passengers who were stopped in a Chrysler PT Cruiser Thursday afternoon. According to reports, the vehicle was stopped on north McCullen Road near Goshen Church Road, just west of the Duplin County line, for a traffic violation by deputies from the Sampson County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Interdiction Team. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a $12,000 in U.S. currency concealed in the door. A K-9, was requested and the dog alerted on the vehicle, however no drugs were located in the vehicle. Since the occupants of the vehicle were unable to account for the cash it was seized in accordance with federal laws regarding forfeiture. The names of the occupants are being withheld since they were not arrested on criminal charges. It was not clear at press time if charges will be filed against the occupants of the car. Clark, Doug. “Officers question money found during stop.” Sampson Independent. February 2011.
February 2011: “Over $10,000 in cash has been seized by deputies with the county’s Special Investigation’s division, the second such find in two days. A day after deputies seized $12,000 during a traffic stop on North McCullen Road, another stop in Sampson County uncovered $10,600. According to reports released Tuesday morning, the second traffic stop occurred Friday night, Feb. 7, on U.S. 701 near King Road. That stop was for a motor vehicle violation. The cash was discovered in a door pocket of the vehicle. Neither the driver or the passenger claimed the money. Since the occupants of the vehicle were unable to account for the cash, it was seized in accordance with federal laws regarding forfeiture. The names of the occupants are being withheld since they were not arrested on criminal charges. No arrests have been made in Thursday’s stop either. Investigators said Tuesday that both incidents are still under investigation.” Clark, Doug. “More money seized following routine stop.” Sampson Independent. February 2011.
August 2010: “Deputies with the Sampson County Sheriff’s Criminal Interdiction Unit uncovered more than $6,000 during a traffic stop in Garland last Friday night. According to reports, the traffic stop, for a speeding violation, was made around 8:05 p.m. on Long View Lake Road in Garland. Upon approach the driver, identified as Raeford Fennell of Garland, notified deputies that he had a concealed handgun under the seat of his vehicle. Fennell was removed from the vehicle at which point the investigating deputy located a large sum of assorted currency in his pocket. The deputy became suspicious about the possession of the currency due to conflicting statements made by Fennell. The currency and gun were seized in accordance with Federal Asset Forfeiture Laws. During the traffic stop, a sum more than $6,000 was seized. Fennell was cited for the weapon violation, given a receipt for the seized currency and released.” Clark, Doug. “Sheriff’s deputies seize $6,000 at traffic stop.” Sampson Independent. August 2010.February 2009: “A routine traffic stop in Roseboro has netted over $8,000 and left a South Carolina man with a lot of questions to answer. On Wednesday afternoon, around 5:30 p.m., Sampson County Sheriff’s Office Highway Enforcement Awareness Team deputies stopped a Ford F-250 truck on N.C. 24 near Mitchell Loop Road for a routine traffic violation. During the stop a Sheriff’s Office K-9 “alerted” on the vehicle for possible drug detection and upon inspection, deputies discovered $8,411 hidden in the vehicle. According to reports, the driver of the vehicle, Jesus Martinez Villa, of Columbia, S.C., was unable to account for the large amount of cash that was hidden. The money was seized according to Federal forfeiture guidelines and the case was adopted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Villa’s truck was not confiscated, and no drugs were seized, according to Capt. Eric Pope of the Sampson County Sheriff’s Office. Villa was cited and released for the traffic violation.” Clark, Doug. “Sheriff’s office nets $8,000 from traffic stop.” Sampson Independent. Clintonnc.com. February 2009.
November 2007: “According to reports, the vehicle was stopped at around 4 p.m. Thursday on U.S. 701, south of Newton Grove. The stop was conducted by officers with the Sheriff’s Highway Enforcement Awareness Team, who were working motor vehicle enforcement and interdiction in the area when they observed an Accord with a window tint violation, reports state. The officers stopped the vehicle and a Sheriff’s Office K-9 gave a positive “alert” on the vehicle regarding the presence of narcotics. As officers interviewed the driver, Rivera, the suspect reportedly attempted to escape. Following a short foot pursuit, officers took Rivera into custody. During a search of the vehicle, HEAT officers discovered $140,000 in cash, which authorities said was concealed in different locations. According to sheriff’s officials, neither Rivera nor his passenger, claimed ownership of the cash. Rivera was charged with resist, delay and obstruction of an investigation and taunting a police K-9. He was placed in the Sampson County Detention Center under $3,000 secured bond. The passenger, who authorities said was cooperative, was released. Sheriff’s officials said the cash was seized according to Federal forfeiture guidelines and the case has been adopted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.” Berendt, Chris. “$140,000 Seized.” Sampson Independent. Clintonnc.com. November 2007.
October 2006: “Sampson County deputies hit the lottery Thursday, seizing $47,580 in U.S. cash hidden in a black Cadillac. No one’s been charged with any crime but the Sampson Sheriff’s Office has confiscated the large amount of cash, suspecting it was used for drug deals. The money was found after a traffic stop by the Highway Enforcement Awareness Team on Interstate 40 near Faison. A K-9 “alerted” there may have been drugs in the vehicle, which allowed deputies to perform a non-consensual search. The searching officers found the cash in a manilla envelope in the trunk of the car.
“Any amount of money that’s over $8,000 or $9,000 can be seized or investigated,” Sheriff Jimmy Thornton said. “A hearing will be set up and the individual will be able to contest why the money belonged to him or was legit.” The sheriff said it is about a six-month process to set up a hearing and determine why the man had the large amount of money. He said since the dog sniffed out the cash, there is a good possibility it could have been used in drug transactions. ”The dog hit on it, alerted on the money, which would indicate there are drugs involved,” Sheriff Thornton said. The driver of the vehicle, who could give no account for having the cash, was given a receipt for the money and was allowed to leave the scene with no criminal charges. The stack of bills was turned over to the United States Marshal’s Service.” -Beck, Jason. “DEPUTIES NET $47,580 IN TRAFFIC STOP.” The Dunn Daily Record.
An excellent list of drug forfitures. Good job Sampson Co.
Posted in ‘Americans for Forfiture Reform’ aka, “Please Don’t Seize My Drug Money.”
Stephen Anderson, Ex NYPD Cop: We Planted Evidence, Framed Innocent People To Reach Quotas — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754.html
K-9 Police Officer Admits Planting Drugs on Random Vehicles To Train Dogs — http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/06/k-9-police-officer-admits-planting-drugs
Cop caught planting drugs (VIDEO) — http://rt.com/usa/news/planting-utica-car-pocket-215/
FBI to review video alleged to show police planting drugs — http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_21192468/hearing-el-paso-police-planted-evidence-claim-postponed
Training Cops to Lie – What’s at stake when police use deception to obtain evidence? Their career and the case. Val Van Brocklin writes about the state of the law and preparing officers for this complex and critical arena. — http://www.officer.com/article/10233095/training-cops-to-lie-pt-1
POLICE OFFICER RAPES A THREE MONTH OLD INFANT AND A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD!
When you see common sense, t., underoath, psosgt and all the other shills spew their boot-licking propaganda here on Cop Block, remember, THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DEFEND!
Wichita KS police officer Officer Joseph T. McGill, 28, was convicted today of committing a sexual act on a 3-month-old child and a 1-year-old child. Officer McGill pleaded guilty in January 2012 in an unrelated case to sexual battery while on duty as a police officer and was sentenced to three years probation. Those charges stemmed from separate incidents in November 2010 and February 2011. The judge set sentencing for March 1. — http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/24/2649372/former-police-officer-convicted.html
“Gentlemen, let’s get this thing straight, once and for all. The policeman is not here to create disorder. The policeman is here to preserve disorder.” — Richard J. Daley, Mayor of Chicago
Forgive me if this was pointed out in the article. But I thought the law had to be exact, not “any amount over 8,000 or 9,000″
Which is it, columbo?
“[a]ny amount of money that’s over $8,000 or $9,000 can be seized or investigated…A hearing will be set up and the individual will be able to contest why the money belonged to him or was legit.”
Nope. It is not a crime to possess cash, in any amount, nor is it the burden of the accused to establish innocence. And unless you’re getting it straight from where it’s printed, you cannot be held responsible for the long, varied chain of command and/or any trace elements it may have been subjected to, even just a couple hours ago.
They sure do like their “lane violations” don’t they? Unless there’s a parallel collision, there’s no such thing as a lane violation. I’m not going to drive over a cyclist just because avoiding them would mean crossing a stripe of paint on the road. And I’m not a criminal for avoiding a pothole where it’s safe to do so.
People who look for a reason to control another person is power hungry and needs to be kept away from any form of power for the safety of everybody around them.
That sheriff is as big a thief as any crook that has ever been in his jail.
common sense your not american your a nazi cop, just another pig. someday you will get caught , you know not all that money is drug money.
i hope you get your ass kicked in court and fucked for violating someones civil rights. who will take care of your family while your in jail with the very type of criminals you hang out with only now all of you hide behind a badge of hipocracy. fuck you and i hope you get fucked in the ass.
just one more thing COMMON SENSE i wrote your dumb asshole sheriff you think is so smooth, a very nasty letter on his facebook shaming him as a thief .fuck you again. get a real job.
everybody should comment on that asshole facebook page. man ill bet he has a million skeletons in his family closet.
@Sayers: Dude, I gotta ask. Now I understand you may not like various laws that have beenpassed and subsequently found as constitutionally valid. Remember….its ALL of the constitution….not just the parts you want or agree with. Now I’ve been a part of a lot of assets forfeitures in the past. Unless there is something more….I think the sherrif was wrong on this siezure and the motorist should / will get it back. But setting that aside, your statement, is flat wrong.
Gee, the Government has found that the Government stealing money with no proof of wrongdoing is legit and Constitutional. I guess that makes it all OK, huh?
@t: I do remember. I remember you said that before. I remember what I said in reply to it. Typical bad cop move: Person doesn’t comply with your will, so you just repeat yourself.
Again, people that find unconstitutional laws constitutional are the ones picking and choosing. Again, I don’t need a constitution to know what’s right and what’s not. You walk up and take my money, you are in the wrong. Having a badge on doesn’t change this.
The asset forfeiture law is bad law. Very bad. It should be reversed. There is nothing good about “more drug dealer scumbags” (which is the typical cop statement) being summarily convicted by police, with no evidence, and penalized on the spot through asset forfeiture. It should be obvious that cash found after a K9 alert, where no drugs were found is a violation of the 4th amendment, and requiring that the possessor of the cash “account for it” on the spot is a violation of the 5th amendment. This concept is totally un-American. There is no justice involved here. Simply tyranny. Anyone who supports asset forfeiture is just as guilty of wishing to violate our rights, and supports more tyranny.
Forgive me if this was pointed out in the article. But I thought the law had to be exact, not “any amount over 8,000 or 9,000″
Which is it, columbo?
It sounds like this county wants no part with the constitution. The last two paragraphs of the linked article talk about the cops running TWO DUI checkpoints over the weekend
@Sayers: “I don’t need a constitution to know what’s right and what as not.”. Wow. You heard here first folks.
Stephen Anderson, Ex NYPD Cop: We Planted Evidence, Framed Innocent People To Reach Quotas — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754.html
K-9 Police Officer Admits Planting Drugs on Random Vehicles To Train Dogs — http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/06/k-9-police-officer-admits-planting-drugs
Cop caught planting drugs (VIDEO) — http://rt.com/usa/news/planting-utica-car-pocket-215/
FBI to review video alleged to show police planting drugs — http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_21192468/hearing-el-paso-police-planted-evidence-claim-postponed
Training Cops to Lie – What’s at stake when police use deception to obtain evidence? Their career and the case. Val Van Brocklin writes about the state of the law and preparing officers for this complex and critical arena. — http://www.officer.com/article/10233095/training-cops-to-lie-pt-1
POLICE OFFICER RAPES A THREE MONTH OLD INFANT AND A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD!
When you see common sense, t., underoath, psosgt and all the other shills spew their boot-licking propaganda here on Cop Block, remember, THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DEFEND!
Wichita KS police officer Officer Joseph T. McGill, 28, was convicted today of committing a sexual act on a 3-month-old child and a 1-year-old child. Officer McGill pleaded guilty in January 2012 in an unrelated case to sexual battery while on duty as a police officer and was sentenced to three years probation. Those charges stemmed from separate incidents in November 2010 and February 2011. The judge set sentencing for March 1. — http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/24/2649372/former-police-officer-convicted.html
“Gentlemen, let’s get this thing straight, once and for all. The policeman is not here to create disorder. The policeman is here to preserve disorder.” — Richard J. Daley, Mayor of Chicago
Camden, New Jersey: An officer was sentenced to 46 months in prison. While in uniform and on duty, he engaged in a conspiracy with other officers to deprive individuals of their rights by charging them with planted evidence; threatening certain individuals with arrest using planted evidence if they did not cooperate with law enforcement; conducting illegal searches without a search warrant or consent; stealing money during illegal searches and arrests; paying for cooperation and information with illegal drugs; failing to report found drugs and stashing them to use as planted evidence; and preparing false police reports or testifying falsely in court to conceal his actions.
http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2013/01/former_camden_cop_sentenced_to_1.html
I wish Glenn would submit his stories instead hijacking threads
@T
What happened to due process? I’ve carried large amounts of money myself in order to buy a car. That isn’t a crime. You may be suspicious, and so may I. But if there isn’t enough to make an arrest, then there isn’t enough to seize.
Remember the seizure story a few months ago? Just threatened people with arrest, and their children with DCF, if they didn’t sign away the money. It was extortion and should have been treated as such.
First…did you not see where I said that I think this seizure was bad? Unless there is something more to it…the motorist should get their money back.
As for due process. The money is at this point only seized. It’s not yet forfeited. Before that happens (regardless of the amount, so not just in this case) there will be a hearing where the owner of the money can present their case to get the money back. Due process.
POLICE OFFICER RAPES A THREE MONTH OLD INFANT AND A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD!
When you see common sense, t., underoath, psosgt and all the other shills spew their boot-licking propaganda here on Cop Block, remember, THIS IS WHO THEY ARE, THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DEFEND!
Wichita KS police officer Officer Joseph T. McGill, 28, was convicted today of committing a sexual act on a 3-month-old child and a 1-year-old child. Officer McGill pleaded guilty in January 2012 in an unrelated case to sexual battery while on duty as a police officer and was sentenced to three years probation. Those charges stemmed from separate incidents in November 2010 and February 2011. The judge set sentencing for March 1.
http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/24/2649372/former-police-officer-convicted.html
@T
“there will be a hearing where the owner of the money can present their case to get the money back. Due process.”
To the same asshole judges that give warrants out on the word of stoned crackheads. And even if the citizen wins, it could take a while. And as we saw in Huston I believe it was, they simply extorted the money by threatening jail and people’s children with DCF. Even against people who were obviously not mules. Just ordinary families who choose to carry cash, but had to give it up to keep DCF’s hands off their kids. Something the cops counted on. They just wanted the money.
Any seizure should require enough evidence to make and include an arrest. And quite frankly, it should include penalties if you can’t back it up with a jury.
I don’t think you have a clue just how destructive to a family’s finances seizing their assets can be. I know a lot of people who operate on cash because of debt problems. I sometimes operate on cash simply because I prefer it in particular situations. Of course you also don’t see how destructive SWAT raids can be. Cops are screwing with people’s lives and don’t give a damn if they harm an innocent. So what if you take the money a family needed to replace the car needed for work, or their rent. So what if a bad swat raid results in a cop seeing a gun that was never there and shoots at a teen girl. That happened in a recent story.
A lot of “I don’t give a shit” coming from cops, who then get an attitude if we don’t give a shit what happens to them, or could happen to them.
Shawn, you are defined the concept of “the process is the punishment”. And did you hear about those 9 judges in Philly that got arrested by the FBI for corruption and ticket fixing?
http://articles.philly.com/2013-02-02/news/36686562_1_william-hird-philadelphia-traffic-court-judges-willie-singletary
POLICE OFFICER RAPES A THREE MONTH OLD INFANT AND A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD!
When you see common sense, t., underoath, psosgt and all the other shills spew their boot-licking propaganda here on Cop Block, remember, THIS IS WHO THEY ARE, THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DEFEND!
Wichita KS police officer Officer Joseph T. McGill, 28, was convicted today of committing a sexual act on a 3-month-old child and a 1-year-old child. Officer McGill pleaded guilty in January 2012 in an unrelated case to sexual battery while on duty as a police officer and was sentenced to three years probation. Those charges stemmed from separate incidents in November 2010 and February 2011. The judge set sentencing for March 1.
T lives in upside down world where he gets to pick and choose which parts of the constitution to ignore while telling others that they’re picking and choosing, and where he gets to look at things backwards.
Seized, forfeited… the Bill of Rights protects against warantless SEIZURES. If you’re going to manipulate the language to try and make people believe wrong is right, at least choose language that isn’t strictly, word for word, forbidden.
You were also wrong to say the motorist should get their money back. The correct assessment is that the money shouldn’t have been (insert whatever word pleases you) in the first place.
Nice out of context pluck. You failed to address the rest and I know why.
Wow. I reply to Shawn about “due process”, which is what I describe. The “forfeiturre” of the money is a far different thing than seizing it. YOU were the one who just said you didn’t need the constitution. I didn’t misquote you. You said it. Don’t go all preachy about it now. I don’t really know how much more clearly I can say it….imdont think this seizure was right. That’s 3times now on this thread and still you hhaven’t gotten it. “Seizing” it as evidence is lawful and necessary. Due process is what is required for it to be forfeited. Big difference. The simple possession of some amonts of money is illegal (without the right paperwork). And because of that…the seizure of the money until due process is complete is legal and right (although a dont think this seizure qualifies) And nooffense, iI’m not really surprised that you don’t see it. You guys consistently misread / understand even the amendments that yo claim to love so. The second talks about a collective right, not an individual right. The fourth is always quoted wrong. I don’t think any of you still understand the fifth.
@t
Ahh,true colors show.
“The second talks about a collective right, not an individual right.”
All rights are individual, or they mean nothing. Is freedom of speech and religion only for a collection of people, and has no meaning for a single individual? Does the 4th only apply to a group, meaning a one person home or situation has no 4th protections? If only one person is involved, do they surrender their Fifth. The Second is an individual right, just as is the others.
As for the 4th, it says exactly what it says. No words in it regarding RS or PC. It is you who ignore that.
The Amendment itself focused on a group, ‘the people,’ and it was through a decison by the USSC that interpretated it to become an ‘individual’ right.
So, when you complain about the USSC, its their decisions that shape how Amendments are defined. When you vote, take a look at the ages of the Justices, your decision could be very important.
@t:
1. DC Vs Heller: It’s an individual right. PERIOD. Deal with it.
2. As shawn notes: The rights are ALL individual. It’s not THe New York Times that gets to print what they want under “Freedom of Speech.” it’s ANYONE. And doesn’t only apply to old tech, like the movable-type printing press of Ben Frnaklin’s print shoppe. It includes the internet, as well as flyers printed on a laser printer, as well as radio, as well as TV – and not just PBS or NBC or CNN or (insert other collective).
3. Asset forefeiture is extortion or robbery, take your pick. Examples abound, NYC being the one I knwo best: You get pulled over on suspicion of DUI – NOT proven, not even necessarily CHARGED – your car is forfeit. WTF indeed. Or, you follow the law, and on moving to NYC, take your LEGALLY OWNED guns to the police for vetting – and they disappear. Heirlooms, trophies, antiques, forget modern weapons – disappear.
4. The Constitution does not GRANT rights; it RECOGNIZES them – as INALIENABLE. The rights flow from the creator, whatever you imagine him/her/it to be. Whether God, Gaia, Great Spirit, or random sparks in the primordial soup, doesn’t matter: I have a right to defend myself from a bear, and not be it’s dinner. Same applies to you. And I have a right (and some would say DUTY) to defend myself with lethal force when you transgress my rights. We can argue the niceties – the social Contract, which is unwritten – all day. (Social contract per Thoreau is, basically, we give up certain rights in order to form a society. I give up the right to beat you to death, and we settle our disagreement in court. This applies until you try to use violence on me, at which point, I am allowed by the rights given me by being a living being, to end you. End of story. Morality might imply I should restrain myself to what is essential; I don’t know if “you” are well-trained or a clod, or even just so strong that steel can’t hold you; therefore, I’m inclined to FINISH it with whatever is possible, just as I’d guess you are. You CHOSE to further restrict yourself, to act in other’s stead to protect society. Sounds more like you belong in the big house, though – you’re sounding mroe violent than I. I at least wait until acted upon; you seem willing to instigate, to propagate the power of the police, by “finding” [manufacturing] criminals. This breaksthe social contract, as you are aggressing against me without cause. You are – simply put – attacking me. All bets are off.)
Last:
t. says:
February 4, 2013 at 7:12 am
@Sayers: “I don’t need a constitution to know what’s right and what as not.”. Wow. You heard here first folks.
NO ONE needs a constitution to know what’s right or wrong. The Constitution isn’t ABOUT right or wrong. It’s about LEGAL or ILLEGAL, not that those have much meaning any more – most of the laws violate 14th, Equal Protection clause, while claiming legitimacy under other false “powers” – Whether Commerce Clause or Executive Order, doesn’t matter. Further, you need to make a decision: Either the Tenth matters, and states ARE the ultimate authority within their borders, OR – as per Federalism – the states answer to the State (Union), in which case there is no such thing as state covereignty, or human self-ownership (sovereignty) – in which case, the State owns US, and it is in fact illegitimate prima facie. It is in violation of the Declaration, forget the Constitution.
You need to either READ the documents you supposedly exist to defend; turn in your badge; or eat a bullet. I’ll find a way to help you with the last, and I’m sure there are a LOT of patriots (as well as leftists, anarchists, lunatics, and serial kilers) who would like to help too. Maybe even a few fellow Cops (Oath Keepers, for instance.)
Common sense: Please remember that the language ahs changed greatly. “The People” is a collective noun. It includes all of us, yes.
“The Milita” is defined as “ALL ABLE-BODIED MEN FROM 18-45.”
In other words, the collective COMES from the individual. The States did not supply the arms to the “militia;” the militia was responsible for outfitting itself. Each man had his own powder, ball, shot, AND WEAPON.
Without the Individual’s right to bear arms, the State is unopposed – whether it’s a Tribal Council for a tribe of 25, or the UN dictating that Germany and the US must have Trade Parity.
ANY worship of the state obviates the individual; we are no more than slaves, or cattle, to be used and destroyed at will. We are all tools, to be used when “new”, and discarded (and destroyed) once worn out. Logically, instead of the goldwn watch at retirement, you would get a bullet to the head. Worn out tool send for Recyc (Soylent Green). Why not? We feed animals to animals all the time. (Cows eat meat meal; pigs, too. Causes disease, but it’s just cost of doing business, the sick get eaten by those that survive, and we hope the risk is acceptable. Sometimes the gamble fails, and we get trichinosis or ebola or mad cow, but usually – they’re healthy enough for Grade A markings.)
The entire concept of society flows from individuals. Anything else is illogical at best. The STATE is not the natural condition of man. Ants ane bees are the other way around: a colony-based animal. The Queen lays eggs to start the colony; the Workers are born, and are already subject to the State. That is what you want for us.
Please, if that’s what you want, go be a Queen B. The rest of us – even the Sheep – deserve better. Those of us who are sheepdogs (as one story goes) keep the nasties away. Another version of that story, BTW, postulates that we are ALL wolves – it is the Sheepdogs that are the abberation, keeping the Sheep “in line” for the Colony masters – Queen Bs, for example. But we are all BORN FREE, even now.
(Queen B used for Irony, not a mis-spelling.)
I think I am going to withdraw $9,000 from my account and drive through North Carolina’s Sampson County. When they try and take my money I am going to fight them for it. Pirates who commit highway robbery and carjackings need to be resisted and fought. Bring it on douche bags!
Wow. I really didn’t say that right. In a historical context… The second clearly was written, when it was written…after the revolutionary war…spoke about militia. That’s why the word is in here after all. “The people” is clearly a group, not an individual. SCOTUS has interpreted it to be otherwise…and so it is. I ain’t complaining, just explaining. This is a clear case of the @sayers style of picking and choosing what you like. If you like that intrepation because it agrees with you, you should welcome checkpoints, terry stops, and other decisions that in general you complain about.
@jean:
Read that case very clearly. Many of your fellow “blockers” won’t like what Scalia said in total. And you can’t have part of it, without taking all of it.
As for the rest. I swore to the whole constitution. All of it. You want to ignore parts that you don’t like because it be benefits you. I don’t have that luxury. If you want me to just follow state laws, then I could ignore your constitutional rights, bet you wouldn’t like that part. It’s is all very complex.
But I’ve give you this much that you got absolutely right. The constitution limits government. It reserves some specific rights, and other unemunerated others. But YOUR rights aren’t any more important than anyone else’s. this site is rampant with the thinking that it is. Your right to speak freely doesn’t mean I have to listen. All rights have limits. Look back at DC v Heller. It speaks about those limits to the second amendment very clearly.
About your DUI thing. Your car can be “seized”. It may later be forfeit They ar very different things. You are using them interchangeably, and they aren’t the same, not legally or even practically.
As for your rant at Common Sense. You really need to get out more. The conspiracy sites you are reading are polluting your mind.
Shawn: You really need to go read the 4 th either again or for the first time. Say very clearly….probable cause. Really dude? Really?
@rusty: Please do.
All: I was listening to a guy the other night going on and on about the constitution and how strongly he believed in it. The entire time all he could do was point the the Federalist Papers to make his point. I went to a website that he spoke of that had a lot of quoted writings from various founding fathers, which were being used to back up the sites point. The problem is, as is often the case, they only used part of the quote. Either the constitution says what it says, or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways. We can’t just take what we like and leave out what we don’t like. The constitution allows for he government to do certain things at the federal level. And it allows for the states to pass laws. Has the “state” gotten to involved? Maybe yes, maybe no. That document sets forth that we can seek redress for grievances from our government. Everything doesn’t need to be settled at the end of a gun. I’d love to go back to Mayberry. But that’s not real life. I don’t want to use force to arrest you. But if you decide to fight, then there it is. Not a desire, frequently a reality. All of the extremes aren’t good. Meet closer to the middle and everyone lives better.
the sampson county sheriff has an open to all facebook page get on there if you want the people of that county to know what he does to people on that highway . there may be some skeletons in that closet of his . maybe one will appear if we put the word out on his facebook.one thing forsure this highway robery has to stop.
@T
Ya. Here you go.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]”
“And no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,”
I did read it correctly. Oh, the word PC is in there, but not as a justification for warrantless searches. PC was the basis of getting a warrant. And checkpoints and terry stops by definition have no PC at all.
Not that a warrant means much in a nation where judges no longer see it as their duty to force LE to convince them a warrant is justified. They’ll rubber stamp warrants on the word of a crackhead. Or a cop claiming he smelled pot in a house from the sidewalk. Funny how none was found. Some might suspect the cop lied.
And my personal incompetence favorite, warrants for an arrest without first asking the cops to make sure the man they are looking for still lives at the address they have. Warrants have been given when the person had moved many months previously, resulting in an innocent family getting raided by lazy ass cops who couldn’t bother to check.
I actually hold judges in far more contempt than cops. It was supposed to be their job to deny warrants without at least some evidence to back it up.
Shawn: You have quoted it many times here. But you haven’t read / understood it yet. It really isn’t all that hard dude. “Unreasonable”, “probable cause”. Pretty simple concepts. I’ve tried to enlighten you before. The best way to look at is a scale of 0-10. RS is about 1.5 on that scale. PC is only at 2 / 2.5. To put it in the simplest terms….a crime was probably commuted, and this is the person who probably committed it. Basically, that’s all it boils down to. You want everything at be at the 10 level. And that’s say more than the BRD level which is about at 8. Its why those pesky founding fathers that wrote that document you claim to love so, wanted us to settle our differences / grievances in a “civil” way. Not through violence. Now, that document you claim to love allowed the government that it created and you hate (which makes zero sense) to pass certain laws to regulate various things, one of which is commerce. The transporting of large amounts of cash across state lines is clearly commerce, which can clearly be regulated.
Just because you don’t like it, don’t let it overrule clear thinking.
Just for some reading. Remember the Jose Guerena shooting. Here’s a link to the police affidavit for the search warrant.
Sorry, it looks like its a bit more indepth (16 pages) than ‘word from a crackhead’ and from what I’ve read, its about average for a narcotics conspiracy warrant.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57183432/PCSO-Search-Warrant-Affidavit-Jose-Guerena-Shooting
@common
The Jose case illustrates the abuse of swat. They knew tons about his life, including his job. So why didn’t they take him into custody there and do the search in a less violent manner? Remember his community had a problem with fake raids. I guess that wouldn’t be as much fun though.
Then there is the issue of his weapon. An AR with the safety still on? Marines don’t make that mistake. Then there is how long they left him lying there waiting for them to let medics in. Quite frankly, it sounds more like they screwed up and didn’t want him telling a different story. Wouldn’t exactly be the first BS ads covering story by a cop. And in the end, they admitted they didn’t get enough for an arrest.
POLICE OFFICER RAPES A THREE MONTH OLD INFANT AND A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD!
When you see common sense, t., underoath, psosgt and all the other shills spew their boot-licking propaganda here on Cop Block, remember, THIS IS WHO THEY ARE, THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DEFEND!
Wichita KS police officer Officer Joseph T. McGill, 28, was convicted today of committing a sexual act on a 3-month-old child and a 1-year-old child. Officer McGill pleaded guilty in January 2012 in an unrelated case to sexual battery while on duty as a police officer and was sentenced to three years probation. Those charges stemmed from separate incidents in November 2010 and February 2011. The judge set sentencing for March 1.
Common: Looks like you hit a soft spot.
Common: Looks like you hit a soft spot. Truth can be an ugly thing when you don’t want to see it.
Regardless of whether his rifle was on safe or not, it really makes no difference. He was armed when the police attempted to enter and shot. More then likely he feared a drug rip off because of his brother.
“Marines don’t make that mistake” – Everyone makes mistakes. To make such a generalized comment like that is rather comical.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206978/Marine-Eric-Charlton-accidentally-shot-teenage-brother-dead-camping-trip-weeps-court.html#axzz2K8puWOWO
http://www.nbcwashington.com/video/#!/news/local/Retired-Marine-Accidentally-Shoots-Stray-Bullet-Through-Neighbors-Homes/87406437
woundedtimes.blogspot.com/2011/09/marine-in-custody-in-aurora-accidental.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×2004520
Even from “Marine Times”
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/prime/2013/01/marine-safety-fatalities-down-mishaps-up-011213/
(In 2012, 64 Marines died from ‘mishaps’ in non-combat related ‘accidents’)
Not to say that Jose was a tactical operator, or whatever they call it, what about someone his is highly trained, far and above the common soldier? How about a Navy SEAL? Yep, they fuck up too.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/navy-seal-accidentally-shoots-head-article-1.1001989
Additionally, if you’d like to read more about him and his family, and the 29-count drug indictment.
//azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/family-s-ties-to-alleged-pot-ring-detailed/article_7aa21b04-49b9-5338-92bb-3092969902b8.html
@t
Yah think? I’v got a comment waiting for moderation because of all the links to Marines doing this and that, even a Navy SEAL. Not throwing anyone under the bus, just pointing something about mind you.
I do like how most ‘lay people’ don’t understand how drug investigations work. They don’t understand that the police crunch the door in March and then in November the indictment is handed down. Its okay. I like to educate those who don’t know any better.
Brings to mind the song….”it started with a whisper……and everybody talks, everybody talks”. I’ve tried to explain it.
t. says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm
[...]
About your DUI thing. Your car can be “seized”. It may later be forfeit They ar very different things. You are using them interchangeably, and they aren’t the same, not legally or even practically.
@t: New York City makes Hell look honest. :-P The seizure is immediate; it IS a forfeiture of assets. It is to be sold at auction. Seriously – if that’s not a violation of due process, what is? Yet the courts allowed it to stand. Wonder who is enriched then… Them, perhaps?
As to “The People” – it’s a collective noun. It makes no sense to refer to THE PEOPLE if you mean THE ARMY. (Of course, there WAS no standing army at the time. But the example of the Militia, defined as all able-bodied men 18-45, is pretty clear; one must wonder why the second then states THE PEOPLE, not THE MILITIA. The very structure of the sentence indicates the Militia is made up of THE PEOPLE – not sure who has good Enlgish skills any more, diagramming sentences is so very old-fashioned… but it made you aware of what was emphasized, how, and where, and what modified what. These days, it’s all, IDK, OMFG, u no? No1 has a clu. ;-) )
I will concede that many things have been (wrongly, in many cases, even before Dredd Scott) determined to be legal. In DC v Heller, at least come intelligence prevailed. This does not mean that Terry is correct, however – though we certainly need to (somewhat) abide by the law. I’m not Ghandi, however, and I (as noted previosuly) would PREFER to kill the b@st@rds. Many have said the same, not just here – we’re tired of feeling like it’s school recess everywhere we go, and the bullies are looking to steal our lunch money. Besides, once something is TAKEN – especially in the case of cash, for instance – Well, Posession is 9/10s of the law, right? Not to mention how often paperwork is mis-filed, lost, sent to the wrong place… Etc, etc, etc. If we could go to the Captain after such an offense, and he turned around and fired the cop on the spot (we could argue how many times it mght’ve happened, or how large a sum, or the odds of finding it in a legitimate screw-up), you might have a case. As it stands, We, the People, have RS that cops are a revenue collecting system, which sometimes means that we are being robbed, literally at gunpoint, and told (in violation of the law) that we need to prove we’re innocent.
DYFS, for example. Doctors “encouraged” to report “possible abuse.” Spanking as a form of abuse.
Domestic violence includes: He pushes her accidentally; he raises his voice; he wants an accoutning of finances / where the money goes; he wants her to be home at night; talking to her; not talking to her; defending himself from armed assault, by HER. Most states are “Will Arrest,” which really means, “Arrest the man.”
If a divorce lawyer doesn’t suggest that she may be the victim of abuse, tell her to get a restraining order, that lawyer can face ethics charges.
And Mary Winkler comes to mind, easy to pick that one as murder approved by the state.
All of the above are enforced by Police.
So are insane traffic regulations. Even if a cop CAUSES the problem or violation – WE get a ticket. I have BEEN pushed by the police, then pulled over for speeding. Not worth a story here, it’s just more BS to me – but it shows that a lot of people, including whites, ahve their own little story of overzealous police actions. Add in what we see and hear about? Friends who are police, or friends who are friends with police? It’s not a court of law when people talk about what they did over the weekend, and your friend says, “My cop buddy was telling me about this case…”
It’s remembered, though. My father and mother have their stories, some they feature in as the target of the cop, some they just were there. Friends have been targeted, in WEALTHY AREAS mind, under absurd charges.
Hey, let’s enforce the statutes on sodomy while we’re at it. Unless of course, gays are protected (“unoficially” of course, wouldn’t want anyone to be labelled ANTI-GAY when running for ELECTION.)
We’ve changed from Enlightened self-interest to Self-Interest and self-promotion. You run into someone like me, you’ll likely have no issues if you’re a gentleman – but I’m still ready to piss myself because you’re armed, I’m not, and I don’t know WTF mood you might be in. Maybe you’re ready to kill someone because you just got off a high-speed chase where you had to let the perp or suspect go because of department regulations. Like one episode on Cops, they were on an open road, medium traffic – but pursuing the stolen car suspect was too “risky” in that area. Too populated an area. So they had to give up pursuit. I’ll bet that makes for a VERY HAPPY COP… who in his (or her) perfect enlightened state would never dream of venting their frustration on whomever was to attract attention next…
Seriously? Lived in NJ, PA, NH, MA, DC; travelled to AZ, NY, VT, WA, MD, VA, FL, Delaware (forgot the abbreviation), WV, KY, GA, NC, SC. Cops all “smell” the same, all have the same sort of aura (hokey as it may sound.) It’s the smell of a predator, though. The worst smell of other men’s blood, and are proud of it.
I’ve been mistaken for a cop (and soldier). There was a time I would’ve thought that a compliment.
You want me to believe that this push to centralize authority and make police more and more lethal and militaristic is a temporary thing? A good thing? Adds to the public safety and well-being? Is a response to increased violence from gangs or organized crime?
you need to stop smoking what you “seize.” Violent crime is DOWN. Police work isn’t the dangerous profession that TV and movies present it as. I mean, TRAFFIC STOPS are the most dangerous part of your work? SERIOUSLY? But you need an AR-15 and body armor, JUST IN CASE, and a handgun that has a capacity of 15+ rounds, which you will then SPRAY the target with? (Multiple NYC cases, especially; Philly no better, since I lived around there, too.) But we can’t carry a KNIFE, let alone a gun, to protect ourselves… Because it’s a “Collective right.” (Trying to see it from how you presented things, to loop back to the start here.)
So, Tell me about this “collective” right of “the people.” How do we annoint the Chosen Few? By virtue of a badge? Are the rest just to do as they are told? Or is there a certain height and weight requirement? Age? Strength? Skin color? Or sex? What is the MAGIC criteria that makes sure “criminals” don’t get the tools to do anything wrong?
And why would police and judges want to enact such a thing? It’s not in their own interests (enlightened or otherwise).
You make a good point about ignoring the Constitution and only enforcing state maws; does it work in reverse, too? Parity, so you can “decide” whether the Constitution holds sway, or the state laws? Or is it depending on which day we’re discussing? Or who is in office at the time? (Part of why I say “decide”, I doubt most cops get to make any conscious decisions much any more. All mind-numbing BS until you talk SWAT. Like most jobs, problem being – we didn’t have as many problems. Straight out of Atlas Shrugged (No, I haven’t read it… WAY too long and slow. Tried three times, can’t manage. But we’re most of the way to what Raynd wrote. And PAST the surveillance of 1984 – Google can turn on your cell phone camera and audio to tell where you are and what’s around, and target you for advertising. Still in the works. And K’nex for 360 checks how many people are in the room. Cable is looking to do targeted advertising the same way, based on how many people are in the room, what you’re watching, etc. RFID license plates? I can’t board the train without swiping a card – and I have to keep it away from my DL, which makes me think there’s a RFID inside the license, too – responds with a different signal from the train card, causing system errors. Students are being tagged like animals with RFID, too. But we keep giving in to the IDIOTS, instead of sticking with what worked and made a stronger, smarter race, for eons. Tag the children, get them used to hiding from violence, teach them guns are evil, teach them to game the system – QV anti-bullying laws, which got the girl thrown out of school when she could no longer WAIT for the school to “build a case” against her bully… – Or any of a number of cases, where the bullying gets so bad that something drastic finally happens, like Columbine. Not to say there aren’t reverse cases, too – where students repeatedly abuse the system by tattling or similar (girls especially do things like this.)
But rather than telling the idiots “Sh!t happens, deal,” we make ANOTHER law, sometimes at odds with an existing one, sometimes in accordance with others, sometimes illegal, immoral, stupid, etc – and then we expect everyone to follow ALL the laws, when even LAWYERS (forget cops) can’t know them all. (I wouldn’t expect a cop to know the vagueries of SEC rulings, for example, especially WRT deriviative speculation, or what constitutes insider trading. But I’d expect the cop to recognize that excluding YOURSELF – Congress, say – from insider trading laws is prima facie WRONG, IMMORAL – and violates the 14th amendment’s “Equal protection” clause, creating a protected class called “Congressmen.” Would we un-protect them by calling them Niggers, instead? Nope – it’s not the NAME that defines the class. Calling a rose a carnation doesn’t change the smell (Nod to Shakespeare.)
Claiming that “separate is inherently unequal” should apply to Congresscritters, too. They live lives separate from the rest of us – exempted from (and sometimes ignorant of) the law. But for them, it’s an excuse.
Same for cops – and not recent news, either. That’s one of the TROPES of DC comics – corrupt cops, especially in Batman comics. It’s a trope of Westerns. Trope of Wrestling (“Every man has his price.”) Trope of the bible, too – Judas springs to mind.
The fact there are some “honest” cops out there doesn’t make the corruption acceptable to those of us who play by the rules. (“Honest” because hey, ever man has his price – they just haven’t been bought yet. Yet.) YOU get to play by different rules? Violates the 14th. Hey, if moving YOUR cash across state lines is “interstate commerce” under the commerce clause… if I shoot a cop across state lines, is that “illegal transfer of lead across state lines”? When pregnant slaves were sold across state lines, was that “interstate commerce”? Was the seller and/or buyer taxed for TWO purchases? (As Social Security is now taxed from you twice – once when taken from salary, denying you the option to use it for your own purposes – and then AGAIN when distributed, it is taxed as INCOME. And the “shades of meaning” if you will allows it. And we could make similar argument about Obamacare being ANOTHER tax, PLUS a second tax, if you get tax credits – because those credits are to be repaid at end of year. We pay taxes on our TAXES, for chist’s sake!
In the “umbras and penumbras” of the Constitution, which many seem to be willing to SCRAP ENTIRELY these days, there is a right to privacy, for a minor female to get an abortion, without telling her parents – yet there is no right to privacy when you have a wad of cash in your pocket? JUST BECAUSE you have the cash? (We aren’t even talking about contaminants yet – as this story is told, it’s the PRESENCE of the cash that CAUSES Probable Cause, and MAKES the search legal… )
Hell, in New Jersey, you are now generating Probable Cause BY DRIVING PERFECTLY. Obey the speed limit, signal your turns, stop fully at a stop sign, and you can be pulled over on suspicion of transporting contraband.
Or if you are pulled over at a checkpoint, if you refuse the police the right to search your car, you now have given them probable cause.
Catch-22: If you’re crazy, you get tossed out of the service; but if you’re smart enough to PRETEND you’re crazy, you’re fit for duty.
Funny how in this walled society we live in, the barbwire is facing INSIDE… the money flows INSIDE, unless you’re a billionaire or “ruling class”… And the cops, who claim they are on OUR side, and here to protect us, are absolved of ALL but the worst misconduct, no matter what they do. (Unless, of course, they shoot a nigger, a Jew, a Wetback, a homosexual, or a woman. All of those are protected classes. Which violates the 14th straight up, since it excludes heterosexual white males by definition. ) [Did I manage to insult every NAM in that one? I hope so...]
Everywhere WE look, there is injustice, mis-application of the law, breach of law – Often by law enforcement… And we who WOULD play by the rules see those who flaunt their invulnerability to law and order succeed, achieve, thumb their nose at justice – even become POTUS.
Might as well decalre war on the “elites.” Hey, if 100 people do so, is it a “conspiracy?” Or just 100 people, mostly, who decided they’d had enough? Leaving aside insurrection question, define if it’s a conspiracy. Tell me why? Maybe multiple conspiracies of two or three, sure – and some lone wolf types, I’d expect – but why would it be an insurrection? Or conspiracy? Is that even needed? Or can those individuals and tiny groups act on their own?
And if Economics is the weapon of choice – why WOULDN’T you exclude yourself from laws about insider trading? From prosecution of wrongdoing? Hide, seal, conceal, or destroy records of your actions? And then claim you were targeted by some oppressive group (say, media)?
And if “law enforcement” is the club YOU use to beat us – sooner or later, the 100-pound weakling learns one (or two) things: Either / or that force can be used to combat force, or that they need to act agressively (Grow up, get strong, learn to fight somehow – economics, fisticuffs, political clout, guns, to name a few.)
Want to dance?
(Already too long – I did read some of DC v Heller, I got bored after a while… Made it about 1/3 of the way through. Still better than our elected leaders do with the laws they propose WE follow, wouldn’t you agree? And I’d guess you need to start reading, too, I doubt you’ve got the entire code memorized for even your locality, let alone the state, let alone the country. Plus there’s Tax law, Criminal Law, Divorce Law, Tort law, Family law (sometimes subsumes divorce), and all the agencies rulings and findings of fact etc, and all the accompanying case law… I figure you’ll be too busy with all of that to respond back any time soon. Doesn’t answer whether you’re right or wrong, even, just that that’s a LOT to read, memorize, and be able to recall on demand.)
Jean: I’m”seize” cars all the time too. They are held until court. If convicted, it’s “forfeited”. They are different. I know a bunck of NY gguys, I’ll ask them for clarification. Not saying you’re wrong…but I doubt its different than what I say.
Jean: Had to get back to you.
Let me try to get to some of what you said, but I know I won’t get to all of it.
SWAT: This seems to be a favorite around here. I was an “operator” for quite awhile, so I have some room to talk. First let’s look art numbers. If a 1000 man dept. has 24 tac. guys, do you consider that a lot? I’m not a mathematician, but I don’t think that’s all that many. And about how teams work…there isn’t a more highly overseen, overly controlled unit in law enforcement than SWAT. No offense, but it isn’t like the movies (and BTW neither is Drugs & Vice which I did an awfully lot of). Most often its get dressed up and do nothing as administratos lack courage and conviction to use SWAT. It usually hours sweating in the truck or freezing on the ground to just turn around and go home.
“Militarizing Police”. Another favorite with zero base to it. What do you think is going on? Like I said above, 24 tac. guys out of a 1000 isn’t many. Some (still far to few) dept.s have patrol rifles or allow officer to buy their own to use. Many don’t even have shotguns. And lots have nothing other than a pistol. Not exactly a military assault force. I really think t.v. and bad Intel from sites like this one have fed you wrong ideas. Many, many departments have done additional training and gotten additional equipment as a response to active shooter incidents after Colombine and others. But the “militarizing ” of the police is not real.
CPS and Domestic Violence: Well, no is the best answer. In 17 years I’ve arrested about 65% women to 35% men. Lots and lots of women get arrested. About “mandatory arrests”…what would you prefer? A battered spouse that is so scared to speak up out of fear of more abuse and I just leave? As for CPS…again, what would you prefer? Somene has to speak for those who can’t speak for them selves. The abused child has no communication source, no ability to seek help. The other responsible adults in that child’s life have to speak up when something is wrong…because those kids can’t. What would you suggest as an alternative?
As for the various types of laws you touched on. I (we) do need some knowledge in those areas and they touch on them in the academey, in service training and other specialized training.
No one denies that they police…like all humans make mistakes. The outlandish ideas that you have are just bad t.v. and intentionally misleading web site stuff. The absolutely overwhelming amount of people will never have any police contact other than maybe a traffic accident or a speeding ticket. Some will have contact as a victim of a property crime or maybe a person crime. The remarkably huge amount of police contact takes place with the same people over and over.
Oh, and the “the people” as a collective thing. If you look at in the historical context the the constitution and the amendments came into being. A war had just ended. An absolute monarch just thrown off. An unsettled country with a vast frontier. The need to defend self was (and is) a recognized reality. The need to defend the towns, states and nation (as there was no standing army) was also recognized. The militia was the way to do that. Armed people who could assemble / be assembled to protect their homes (towns, state, country) if attacked. The founding fathers never could have envisioned or would have wanted people roaming the streets armed to the teeth. When you read Heller, that should jump right off the page at you. I don’t know of an officer that doesn’t want a responsibly armed public. But strolling along sporting your AK all over town…you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
@t
And about how teams work…there isn’t a more highly overseen, overly controlled unit in law enforcement than SWAT.”
You mean like the pro swat team who hallucinated that a teen girl had a gun and took a shot at her, with no consequences? Ya, that is professionalism.
No, they aren’t like in the movies. In the movies, they care about getting it right and they don’t harm innocents. In real life, they shoot teen girls by mistake because getting home is all they care about.
@common
“He was armed when the police attempted to enter and shot”
The question is, was he actually armed or did they imagine the gun and then claim he was armed. They made sure he got to bleed a long time before telling the medics he was now dead. They weren’t eager to let him tell his story. Nor would it be a first, lying after a bad shoot. Remember the cop who shot a kid driving away in reverse? Fortunately, his lie was as incompetent as his LE skills.
I smell pork.
Shawn: Whatever you want to believe dude. Its your world.
@Shawn
After reading the ME report, he would have died, even if immeidate medical care was provided. Sadly he was crouched, in a firing stance and shot.
The medical examiner found, in order:
one wound to the head, which the report describes as a graze;
one wound to the right upper chest;
one to the right lower chest;
one to the left upper abdomen;
three to the right upper arm;
one to the right elbow;
one to the right hand;
one to the left upper arm;
one to the left elbow;
one to the left forearm;
one to the left hand;
two to the right thigh;
one to the right calf,
one to the right foot;
four to the left thigh;
and one to the left foot.
@t
You believe cops too easily, like the one who shot the kid and claimed he was driving at him.
But in this case it isn’t what I believe, it was their own statements. They saw an imaginary gun and shot at her. Fortunately, their aim was as pathetic as their eyesight and judgement. But what other mistakes are those clowns making?
@common
The point is they made sure he didn’t get help. And we only have the word of cops as to what happened. The same people who made sure he didn’t have a chance.
@common
Oh, if I remember correctly, they shot him claiming he fired first. How does a saved weapon do that?
You’ll have to read the individual statements from the SWAT team, not just the media, to understand.
Jean: I really am open to other thoughts / ideas / concepts about dealing with domestic violence ant child abuse. Not trying to be a smart ass about it.
@ t. / February 7, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Sorry, even IT desk jockeys gotta work sometimes…
I wish I had BETTER answers, but what I’ve seen and read about so far?
The nature of woman is suspect, first off – don’t trust her. I say this after 7 years experience dealing with a c*nt who has “helped” me burn through over $700K worth of savings, inheritance, income, retirement funds. That was YEAR 1, mostly. We now have EXACTLY what I told her 7 years ago I DID NOT WANT, and EXACTLY what she claimed SHE did NOT want… And that’s something we could almost write off to her not knowing herself. (And the blame falls on me as well, I should’ve kicked her @$$ out years ago, but when she was unemployed, I couldn’t in good conscience come home and say, it’s been three months and your @$$ is still lying on the couch depressed, GTFO. I DID say the first part – I didn’t throw her out. My mistake.)
Are women CAPABLE of understanding truth? I’ll reservedly say, Maybe. You learn the triggers of the dating game, when you’ve been taught “the way it works” – in this case, “the way it works” is a little like cutting off someone’s head so they don’t get a headache, IE completely @$$-backwards… So, THAT hurt, and then there was watching my income get spent, and my savings, and I’m working my @$$ off and we can’t even afford coffee and tolls so I can get work?
But she goes to Popeye’s for lunch, which includes two bus fares, and the meal itself. Because she feels like it. (This was an isolated incident, but after I’d skipped coffee for a week or two, and then EZPass failed and we didn’t even have cash to pay the tools? I was PISSED. I think that’s fair.)
I mention some of this as a framework for the rest. You asked about domestic violence; point 1 is, get rid of the Duluth Model, which basically states that it’s the MAN’S fault, no matter what, and HE must be arrested. Also drop the mandatory arrest laws.
Have I ever…? No, I never stuck her, never even pushed her during that time, though we did have harsh words (Whoops, that’s classed as abuse now.) You want to know where there WAS “domestic violence?” She and her daughter assaulted each other – TWICE. WTF? I wasn’t even in state for one of them, and it’s a good thing we had a friend there at the time – he was able to get between them.
But for her? It’s all about how she feels. ALWAYS an excuse for her bad behavior.
And as I learned the dating rules mentioned before? I realized, even the best of my ex-girlfriends (and the best was a good woman) did the SAME THINGS. Same manipulation, same emotional BS, same blackmail, same demands. Might as well curse fire for burning. But don’t trust the fire, treat it with care and distance… Half the population is woman. If even half of them are this unstable? That’s 25% of the population, roughly – slightly higher when you work the details. And 100% of the women i’ve known have been that way: Aunts, Mother, Grandmothers, cousins, friends, classmates, sister… I don’t have any nieces, but I’d guess it’s the XX chromosomes, not the relationships.
Perhaps the best solution WRT laws is to get the government out of private personal relationships? If there’s no injury, there’s no need to arrest? The “women-firsters” (aka Feminazis) won’t like it – but women according to Erin Pizzey account for 50% of intimate partner violence. (BTW, Erin opened the first shelter, in England – and was subsequently thrown out for not supporting women-only shelters, not putting women above men. Do a Google, it’s ugly. Anyone who accounts for the incidence of violence and does NOT find that “Man Bad, Woman good” paradigm is marginalized. And then the numbers get warped… Not to mention favorites like Mary winkler, murdered her husband in cold blood, served 30 days of psychiatric evaluation and now has custody of the children. WTF? Disconnected the phone, fled with the children to another state, then claimed she was “abused” because hubby asked she wear heels while they had sex? Reverse the roles, ask if the result would be the same; if not, it’s not justice.)
We could also look into the rules about weapons, and ambush – women aren’t stupid and (most) know they can’t face a man one-on-one and hope to even inflict damage – just too great an imbalance. So they use knives and ambush. Lovely to hear of a man going to jail with defensive wounds on his arms, and she’s filing TRO claims… After SHE attacked HIM. But under “Primary Agressor”, we go back to Duluth model, and Man = bad. Man must be punished becuase she doesn’t FEEL (_____). (fill in the blank – loved, wanted, needed, cherished, respected, beautiful.)
Maybe the appropriate response is to turn a blind eye to low-level “vigilante” responses? If she’s getting hit, her father, brother, cousin comes by and has a “chat” with the responsible party… And then drives him to the hospital so they can patch the broken bones. Tacit understanding is achieved, law enforcement isn’t involved. And we’re back to, “Don’t hit a woman,” mentality. Maybe more civil in the long run?
What we have now, however, is a three-way contract between man, woman, and government, where government lays claim to their future productivity (IE, servicing debt). The marriage is a trade-off in labor for both sides. By bringing in a third-party, we cause problems. (BTw, original purpose of the marriage license was to prevent miscegenation. Mixing of races for those who don’t know. Given the POTUS, looks like it didn’t work. Statement of fact, nothing more. but like all ridiculous laws and government entitites, it never goes away. Like ATF, formed in response to Prohibition, survived repeal of Volstead… Or NAACP, which – with a black man in the white house – should shut down. But then the gravy train ends, and people like Jesse Jackson would need to get a REAL job.)
I’m rambling, it’s often hard to stay on topic, since so many things are related. Salient points still stand:
1. Man can control his animal nature. (man = male or female human.)
2. Government is NOT needed in intimate personal relationships.
3. ANY biased model (Duluth model of IPV) will produce biased results.
4. Radicals can gain control of a group and twist and distort its purpose. Most of the feminazis we deal with these days, like Dworkin, were man-haters. They became the mouthpiece of the “feminist” women-first movement. They infiltrated areas of academia and mass media, and then corrupted normal human development patterns – making the whole thing worse. So now we have “Big Daddy” government to help the poor little oppressed dears, even when there’s no need, or when family members would do it better.
5. WRT #4, that’s the POINT of government – to control. So it feeds on itself and grows until it either falls apart from within (Inadequate, and everyone knows it), or without (Oppresses the people until they take arms or leave.) If we don’t prune off the bad growth, we set ourselves up for destruction. Example, make a cop responsible for enforcing 55,000 pages of federal law, + 20,000 pages (a number for illustration) of local law, plus agency regulations (ATF, DEA, IRS, for instance, all have internal “findings” which have force of law), and that creates an US vs THEM of citizens against cops, and keeps both sides from noticing that the police are guard dogs of the “elite,” seen as oppressors of their neighbors, violating moral law (for the religious) and logic (for the atheistic) to extract resources – usually money – from the populace, while doing very little to curb REAL crime problems.
t, you said you ran SWAT and did Vice. You’ve also said most are “repeat customers.” SWAT gets suited up and goes out and freezes / bakes / jerks off for a few hours, then goes home, nothing done. Waste of time and energy much? Not to mention COST? Those dollars have to come from somewhere, and Keene (since it’s named a lot here) didn’t get a Bearcat from tax monies. Vice is repeats, too; how often do you have to go out and shit around for hours, months, days, to try and get a case put together? And yet, the drugs and gambling and whores are still available. If you KNOW these people from their frequent flier status… Why are they routinely on the street? Why aren’t they removed for longer term “storage”? Yet the guy who gets in a drunken bar fight (reason irrelevant for the question) is now a “violent felon,” prohibited from owning weapons, or “associating” with known felons (as in, went to the same bar – may not even know there’s a felon there), and has a sheet now, so any further events, he’s going to have problems and be seen as a trouble-maker…
You don’t see these two sorts of things as mutual problems that could be resolved by cutting down the government involvement to what is essential? Might make things a little more movie-like, but after detectives & officers find the source, say of drug importation – wouldn’t it be nice to be able to send SWAT in, and have carte blanche to go in guns blazing, shoot everything that moves, and just file a 1-page report saying, “Drug ring terminated. 1. Officers located shipment after 5 months of detective work. 2. Confirmed location and contents. 3. Sent in SWAT and eliminated the problem.”
That might violate the criminal’s right to a “speedy trial,” but… If they’re frequent fliers anyway, and IF the detectives and officers did their job correctly – it should be good. Also makes the penalty that much harsher. And they can be left alive, too, if that eases your conscience.
But Terry Frisking the average citizen? Asking Asian women to empty their purses before boarding the subway? Sexually assaulting minors at airports? This doesn’t strike you as “odd?”
Because to me, it seems antithetical to a free society, and counter-productive to the stated goals of safety, or freedom.
t,
Any word on the NYC car confiscation? IIRC, it was in the New York Times. I think all print is basically left-leaning these days, which means they might well use incorrect words (ie, seize = forfeit), and reporters aren’t usually the brightest. Not to mention revision by editors, “punch it up” to sell papers, etc.
But I like to make sure of things whenever possible. Since I read the cars would be sold at auction, I’d love to know what happened (HAPPENS) for real.
Jean: I literally just spoke with my NY contact. It is as I said. The car are “seized” until trial. If found guilty the car is then “forfeited”. There are some other things like innocent owners and vehicles that get “signed over” prior to trial, but in general, they are seized, and possibly later forfeited. It’s just like the original post here. Seized is t forfeited.
Ill get back to about your other comment.
Jean: Wow, what a sadly jaded view. You’re welcome to it, but not much of it is real. I’ve arrested and convicted way more women then men for DV. I know lots of guys who get the kids in the divorce (true, it’s a lower percentage, but its growing all the time).
Your use of “primary aggressor” is just as wrong as it could be. If a female turns the arguements physical…hits / punches / slaps (etc,) the male… She is the primary aggressor. In that scenario, he has the absolute right to defend himself, although he may be better served to evade / escape I stead of physical actions (but he has that right). Now unfortunately what happens a lot is she starts it…he gets really pissed off and then beats her senseless. Far more than just protecting oneself. An unmeasured response so to speak. That is where many men get into a problem and be one subject to arrest. It’s not just “arrest the man”. That’s is some bad 1980′s leftover thinking.
And I’d love to get out of the domestics business. But stopping violence is definitely a government interest. Your “might = right” idea is really bad. I’m not going to let the bullies just do whatever they want be ause they are bigger or stronger, or because there are just more of them. That’s why I took this job… I hate the bullies and the bully mentality which, no offense intended, is exactly what you are advocating
As for drugs and SWAT. I wasn’t a SWAT commander, just an operator on the team. After several years of what I believe was bad / poor managent ideas, I left the teams. But unfortunately, SWAT is a very necessary evil. The alarming trend towards more and more heavily armed criminals, that are more and more violent. The crime stats show a drop in violent crime….one of the main reasons is the proactive actions of the police…and the use of SWAT.
As for cost…many (lots and lots) of teams are funded and equipped through drug assets forfeiture. In assets forfeiture funds are strictly controlled and can only be used for limited things, SWAT and training being chief among them. And yes, it is expensive. But which is better….use SWAT and limit the likely hood that anyone gets hurt OR letting patrol guys serve the warrants and expose everyone to a very much higher likelihood that someone will get injured? I’d much rather spend a little more money and money gets hurt. Maybe that’s just me.
As for drugs. Well, to say the least it is a hugely complex area. Investigations can be very in depth and sometimes huge. Multiple buys from the same suspect. Linking suspects together. Arresting key players at various time and getting them to talk about others. It’s not just as simple as tv makes it look. But there is a far bigger point to it than me just not wanting you to get high. You can smoke yourself into oblivion tonight and the only reason I’d get mad is if I have to come do the report when someone finds your body. But the business of drugs is insidious. It’s not just about you buying the drugs. I know that there are lots of responsible people that use various drugs. But there are hundreds of times more that aren’t responsible. Those people (some are “addicts”) have to, or just want to fuel their desires. And many don’t have a spare $500 for an ounce of “headies” burning a hole in their pocket. So they need to get the money somewhere. Property crimes is rampant. And like or agree, or not, almost all of it is drug related. Pawn shops and flea markets stuffed full of merchandise. Wonder where the pawn shop gets all of those gold chains and x boxes? It’s all confected guy.
As for the police and federal laws. You know we don’t do that right? If its a federal law, we call a federal agency to handle it (mostly anyway). The local police and sherifs dept’s deal with local ordinances and state laws. Now many of those may mirror a federal law. But it’s not quite the same thing or what your thinking it is.
As for felons on the street. Don’t blame me. Juries “nullify”. Judges can be whimps. It my end of it.
As for the TSA. Nobody loves it. But what’s your alternative? Someone (maybe you) said that it should be left to the airlines themselves for security. Is it better for you that a private company seat he’s you than a government employee? It still goin to happen. I’d bet the private companies would be even stricter since the burden is placed on them.
The crime stats show a drop in violent crime….one of the main reasons is the proactive actions of the police…and the use of SWAT.
This is true but when you see a more proactive police response, you typically see an increase in complaints against the same police for misconduct, abuse, violation of rights and so on. These 2 seem to go hand in hand. Tennessee pigs stated that yes, it is true crime rates are dropping but complaints against police are rising he stated. Even so much so that the DOJ reactivated a defunct branch to deal with all the departments being investigated.
I do not know if it is true complaints are up as I never researched it but with the police being more visible, proactive and involved the potential for violations against the citizens will always be there. Not saying it is that way but to me those go hand in hand. Almost nothing operates in a vacuum.
YF: Be careful quoting Tennpigs. He had a lot of things very wrong, and could only speak from what appeared to be a limited experience in just one area. Not calling him (or you) a liar (u like @glenn=liar who’s is a proven liar), just saying that you need to look I to things on your own before you believe what he said. Bet you come back disappointed.
Violent crime has dropped due greatly / mainly / chiefly due to increased police actions. And YES, there is an increase in complaints. But people. Ok plain about everything, everywhere, about every job / profession. The idea of that “the squeaky wheel get the grease” which is promoted heavily in books, radioi, tv and movies. The idea that if you bitch loud enough they will give into you. The police are a main target of course. I’ve been the target of many complaints and I’ve investigated hundreds and hundreds of complaints about guys that have worked for me. (BTW, it’s funny how everyone wants videos but forget that we record lots of things too…like the traffic stop they say the officer cussed them out on…and there is video evidence that it didn’t happen…but the complaint was filed…very funny every time). Seldom is there any thing at all wrong done by the officer. People just get mad that they got caught and are lashing out at the officer. I’ve said before that I have very successfully sued 2 false complainants…that claimed excessive for e to where if I had done what they said, should have been prosecuted. Luckily for me on both of those, their written statements (or lies) didn’t match anything that happened on in one case video from a bar and the other time the accounts of multiple independent witnesses. All speech isnt protected An officer who is doing his job well is going to get lots of complaints, because the people he catches aren’t happy about being caught. Remember, lots of complaints are filed against the DOJ. It’s kind of he same deal. Someone didn’t like the outcome (because it didn’t go their way) so they bitch.
It’s a classic catch 22 which you see commented on around here all the time. The police are both high vigilant and sloth at the same time. Pussy because we show up with back up officers, but cruel when we use for e when it 1 on 1. We use a taser so we don’t have to fight and reduce injuries to everyone, but yet whimps be ause we don’t fight. We are wrong when we talk to suspicious people but then bit he’s about when we don’t get there until after the crime occurred. We’re some how wrong because we protect property owners (property rights) but didn’t protect protesters rights (this was an OWS reference). You want to party as loud as you want…but your neighbor wants to live in peace at his house…who’s right??? Someone is gonna be mad…every time. We just understand that and go on.
T,
I agree totally. I was not saying he was. He very well could be right but whether or not he is correct is no concern really. I just remember him saying that. The only thing I ever saw on DOJ stats was a list of all the investigations into police departments and that was it. It listed all the open investigations and nothing more.
I can get it is a catch 22 and do agree you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I have seen plenty of video’s where people complained where the dash camera showed the officer totally respectful. I remember the video of the cop pulling the guy over who, I swear had an aneurysm when he found out how much the ticket was. The trooper was a sizeable fellow and all he did was stand there and waved bye to the guy. It was comical and I have seen some where the cops deserved to be fired. The cop in Kansas I think had some long name started with a K. Totally unprofessional.
As far as complaints go, they are either flase, true or unproved and I don’t know the ratio but people do bitch a lot. I would disagree that most are upset people who got tickets or received some police action that was warranted though. Most everyone I know who was ticketed, admitted they deserved it. When I hear citizen so and so has filed a complaint against officer so and so, I wait to reserve judgement until the facts are out before I choose a side. As stated I do not hate cops and think it is an honorable profession. The issues that concern me are the ones that are department wide such as the Oakland PD and why they are still under court supervision or the Seattle PD who agreed to federal reforms. I personally have no claim in the DOJ and every police officer who responded on police one about fast and furious was dead on but just because the messenger is corrupt doesn’t mean the message always is.
As far as free speech, youa re correct. A vast % is protected with few exceptions. You can’t slander or defame someone.
You also mentioned about crime rates dropping. It is not just police presence alone. Most crimes we all hear about being stopped, were stopped in same way by a citizen as it is in most cases. I remember the National Crime Statistics Bureau talking about the number of crimes stopped every year by citizens being in the low millions so its a combination of many things. The Police department and the community need to form a symbiotic relationship and thats where the PR element of your job comes in.
As far as complaints and such. If you were to ask me, for lack of a better term, what is the number one side effect of a more active police presence. I would say the potential for increased rates of abuses of the rights of citizens. Thats not a knock against police, I think thats a fact. I loved history and thank god every day I am american because the number 1 culprit of civil rights abuses against people around the world is those countries police forces or paramilitary forces. The people only have the rights the Gov’t/police say they have(No, I don’t think we are a police state or even close) but there are valid concerns in some areas.
@T Nice convo, no potty mouths so far, well, besides uncommon…
T, the 2nd states that ‘The Rights of the people…’ if it meant people as a whole then the word Rights would Not be plural. Just like in the Declaration where it says ‘We the People’ and many statesman objected because that referd to the people Individually when it should refer to the staes themselves as the agents of change.
It also says we have not just the Right, but the DUTY to throw off an oppressive Gov, like we have now!
Stubby: I’ll just disagree on every point. But…I’ll ask, where do you see, or are you exposed to “oppressive governemt”? Not just on a daily basis, I’ll let you go to anytime in a year? Not just something the you dont like, it “oppression”? Before you answer, (and no offense intended) you may want to research what the word means.
op·pres·sion (-prshn) KEY
NOUN:
The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: “There can be no really pervasive system of oppression . . . without the consent of the oppressed” (Florynce R. Kennedy).
The state of being oppressed.
Something that oppresses.
A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.
It seems simple enough. Anytime a police officer wrongfully arrests someone who is exercising their constitutional protected rights has been at the business end of oppression. The Ibarra Bros is a prime example of people oppressed by police who did not like them taking pics of deputies in an undercover status.