Cops gone wild

[The Merg]

Yes, let's do remember. We know who protects their own.

Cops - Executive Branch

Judges - Judicial Branch



And cops and judges get along so well? Have you ever heard how much cops complain about judges?



- Merg

 

[WHAMPOM]

Actually, in many cases the police will complete their investigation before a warrant is issued, especially when it comes to homicides. And once the warrant is served, it's up to the court if they will let the person out on bail. In many cases, the prosecutors will take the case straight to a grand jury for indictment. If an indictment is handed down, a warrant is issued by the court at that time.

And I've seen plenty of teachers accused of crimes and they have been suspended pending the outcome of their case. Unfortunately, if you are in a right-to-work state, your company can fire you if they hear you've been arrested as they can fire you for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory. That doesn't make it right though.

And there are plenty of jobs that just because you get arrested doesn't mean you will instantly lose your job. If you think that everyone that is charged with a crime is fired, that's just crazy.

As for the NFL, they are a profit-making machine and only changed how they are doing things to protect their self-image.

- Merg

LEOs are not responsible for their actions. That seems to be the point of all your posts. Seems a bit 1984ish misplaced faith in authority.

 

[The Merg]

LEOs are not responsible for their actions. That seems to be the point of all your posts. Seems a bit 1984ish misplaced faith in authority.

Where do I say that?

- Merg

 

[WHAMPOM]

Cops - Executive Branch

Judges - Judicial Branch



And cops and judges get along so well? Have you ever heard how much cops complain about judges?



- Merg

Won't let them beat confessions out of suspected perps? Need evidence of a crime before a stop and frisk?

edit: I forgot commit perjury in court.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Where do I say that?

- Merg

Your posts in every cop thread #1 through #440. Do you post in anything else?

 

[The Merg]

Your posts in every cop thread #1 through #440. Do you post in anything else?

Quote me. Multiple times I've stated that if they are in the wrong, they should be charged if it rises to a criminal violation.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Won't let them beat confessions out of suspected perps? Need evidence of a crime before a stop and frisk?



edit: I forgot commit perjury in court.

For a Terry Stop or Terry Frisk, all that is needed is reasonable suspicion. Is it reasonable to believe that the person has committed/is committing/is about to commit a crime? The police do not have to have evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

For an arrest they need probable cause. Is it probable that the person committed the crime. If a cop arrests someone because they have probable cause and the person is found to be not guilty, that doesn't mean the cop made a improper or illegal arrest.

With regard to testifying, I don't doubt that it occurs, but where are all these studies that say that cops are the worst offenders?

- Merg

 

[Thebobo]

For an arrest they need probable cause. Is it probable that the person committed the crime. If a cop arrests someone because they have probable cause and the person is found to be not guilty, that doesn't mean the cop made a improper or illegal arrest.


- Merg

Lol of course not they never can do wrong. And dont come back and say I never said that because I dont care.

btw we know who you are.

- me

 

[The Merg]

Lol of course not they never can do wrong. And dont come back and say I never said that because I dont care.



btw we know who you are.



- me

For someone that doesn't care, yet you had to quote me. Once again, I've posted that cops do wrong and should be punished when they do. I even just posted about a case I saw in court.

And believe me, you don't know who I am. Just another assumption that people here seem to make.

- Merg

 

[mizzou]

I think the principal of a no-knock warrant is the element of surprise. If they see you coming, that defeats the whole purpose...it also makes it EXTREMELY dangerous. I know I'd probable grab a gun and investigate if I heard a loud crash as if someone was burglarizing my home.

Cops see me with a gun, they aren't going to give me time to assess the situation, and my anxiety would probably be so high I may not respond immediately to "POLICE POLICE" etc.

I don't think the evidence will be so ungodly valuable that you have to place peoples lives at risk.

Different situation may be, a compound filled with armed criminals who WILL shoot anyone who blindly rolls in and knocks on the front door.

 

[The Merg]

I think the principal of a no-knock warrant is the element of surprise. If they see you coming, that defeats the whole purpose...it also makes it EXTREMELY dangerous. I know I'd probable grab a gun and investigate if I heard a loud crash as if someone was burglarizing my home.



Cops see me with a gun, they aren't going to give me time to assess the situation, and my anxiety would probably be so high I may not respond immediately to "POLICE POLICE" etc.



I don't think the evidence will be so ungodly valuable that you have to place peoples lives at risk.



Different situation may be, a compound filled with armed criminals who WILL shoot anyone who blindly rolls in and knocks on the front door.

Very true. The idea is that even your basic criminals can still just decide to shoot if someone bursts in as well. The reason for no-knocks is generally not because of the belief that evidence can be destroyed, but rather for the safety of the officers and others.

Can it and does it sometimes go wrong? Of course.

I'm under the belief that no-knocks should be a last resort where the subject has shown a propensity to violence and/or use of weapons. If the no-knock is done correctly, the people should be completely and utterly shocked at what is happening and should not have the ability to respond or react before the officers are on top of them.

It's not as easy as just waiting for them to exit their house and then arresting them then. That's not always an option. In the case of a search warrant, there might not even be an arrest warrant for the person.

- Merg

 

[lopri]

And when a civilian is accused of a crime, they are arrested and put in jail to await indictment and trial. They don't get paid for being locked up, and most jobs are going to fire you if you get arrested and jailed, even if you're later exonerated. So I'm calling bullshit on the "cops get treated just like everyone else!" line in regards to criminal investigation. What other job is going to keep paying you while you await trial? Even the NFL has stopped doing that.

Cops do not get treated like citizens. Not only they look after each other but there is this thing called "Qualified Immunity" that gives them legal protection even when caught.

 

[The Merg]

Cops do not get treated like citizens. Not only they look after each other but there is this thing called "Qualified Immunity" that gives them legal protection even when caught.

Qualified immunity is only valid with regards to civil liability. It does not relate to criminal liability.

- Merg

 

[Oldgamer]

For someone that doesn't care, yet you had to quote me. Once again, I've posted that cops do wrong and should be punished when they do. I even just posted about a case I saw in court.

And believe me, you don't know who I am. Just another assumption that people here seem to make.

- Merg

It isn't a simple case that "there are just a few bad apples" or that "some cops do bad things and should be punished", it is a very pernicious and wide spread systemic problem that is getting worse in this country. I am sure that the gentleman who was killed was someone who thought much like you and others who push the "police should be respected they have the most dangerous job and we should support them" mentality. He probably thought well, I live in a good neighborhood and I am white, and middle upper class so those problems with police that we read about everyday don't affect me.

Then BAM it happened to him. It is just a matter of time before this stuff starts affecting you and me. The fact that we are continuing to play this off as if police are "here to protect us, and we should support them, it's just a few bad apples", etc. etc. is endemic of an ostrich putting it's head in a hole.

 

[Jerem]

If they didn't follow the rules/law, they should be punished for it.

What I do find ironic though is that in other threads, the police are supposed to take someone's word as to what a situation is because they have nothing else to contradict it. Here, you have someone saying that they stole the meth from a car they broke into. The thief has no incentive to lie there, he is still admitting possession and that he broke into a car. So, here the police are not supposed to take someone at their word without anything to contradict it?



- Merg

I find it quite plausible that when caught with the drugs he was pressured to give up where he got them. Something like"If you don't tell us where you got them we will charge you with intent to distribute' or bribed with "If you tell us where you got them we will only charge you with misdemeanor joyriding instead of felony GTA'. Not wanting to give up his connection he made up a BS story. Frankly, I think it very likely that's what happened.

 

[The Merg]

It isn't a simple case that "there are just a few bad apples" or that "some cops do bad things and should be punished", it is a very pernicious and wide spread systemic problem that is getting worse in this country. I am sure that the gentleman who was killed was someone who thought much like you and others who push the "police should be respected they have the most dangerous job and we should support them" mentality. He probably thought well, I live in a good neighborhood and I am white, and middle upper class so those problems with police that we read about everyday don't affect me.



Then BAM it happened to him. It is just a matter of time before this stuff starts affecting you and me. The fact that we are continuing to play this off as if police are "here to protect us, and we should support them, it's just a few bad apples", etc. etc. is endemic of an ostrich putting it's head in a hole.

That's where we will have to disagree. I don't think or believe the issue is such a huge widespread issue that people think it is. The media loves to make people think issues are larger than they are and people love to glorify the corrupt and evil on the Internet. Does that mean since I can find tons of links on the Internet of teachers that shouldn't be teachers and few on teachers that do terrific jobs, that means that it's a systemic problem?

With police, there is a greater opportunity to record contacts with the public and anytime someone thinks the police are wrong or there is the impression something is wrong, it gets posted to the web.

Has the Internet brought to the forefront issues that have been swept over in the past? Without doubt, yes. But is everything we read about now mean that the issue is systemic? No.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

I find it quite plausible that when caught with the drugs he was pressured to give up where he got them. Something like"If you don't tell us where you got them we will charge you with intent to distribute' or bribed with "If you tell us where you got them we will only charge you with misdemeanor joyriding instead of felony GTA'. Not wanting to give up his connection he made up a BS story. Frankly, I think it very likely that's what happened.

Anything is possible...

I will also add that generally just having the word from one arrested person is not good enough to establish probable cause for a search warrant. The warrant needs to show that the informant is reliable in that they have done work in the past for the police and have provided good intel.

So with regards to this case, either the police had other information available to them or that search warrant is severely lacking in probable cause. Unless we get to see the affidavit, we won't know for sure.

- Merg

 

[massmedia]

Police should never be storming houses wearing anything but police clothing.

This kind of militaristic behavior is totally off the rails insane.
Better to have a fed bad guys get off than kill innocent people in an attempt to stop all crime.

 

[The Merg]

Police should never be storming houses wearing anything but police clothing.

I agree, but what is police clothing? Every department has a different uniform. Generally, tactical units will wear black or green. The uniforms will or should have police markings on the front and back and a badge displayed as well. To not do so is a detriment to the officers and citizens.

- Merg

 

[Oldgamer]

That's where we will have to disagree. I don't think or believe the issue is such a huge widespread issue that people think it is. The media loves to make people think issues are larger than they are and people love to glorify the corrupt and evil on the Internet. Does that mean since I can find tons of links on the Internet of teachers that shouldn't be teachers and few on teachers that do terrific jobs, that means that it's a systemic problem?

With police, there is a greater opportunity to record contacts with the public and anytime someone thinks the police are wrong or there is the impression something is wrong, it gets posted to the web.

Has the Internet brought to the forefront issues that have been swept over in the past? Without doubt, yes. But is everything we read about now mean that the issue is systemic? No.

- Merg

Well we will have to disagree then.

This problem has been bad for many many years and has gotten even worse after 9/11 when we allowed law enforcement to take away peoples rights in every sense of the word because of the whole terrorism ordeal.

Add to that the whole "war on drugs" mantra too that has allowed law enforcement to become corrupted by money and greed and outright steal peoples property, assets and money and get away with it through civil forfeitures laws. Essentially we have made law enforcement thieves.

For every video that catches these cops doing corrupt illegal things, there are 100 more getting away with it everyday who aren't caught. They know it too.

Here is a very good article written by a retired Lt. Harry Thomas about this very issue and why it has gotten so bad and is getting far worse:

How to serve a warrant: 1972 versus today, by Lt. Harry Thomas His article wasn't just posted on this site it was in a number of news outlet sites not just this one.

Then you have cops like this one who are on the force, just outright going bonkers on peaceful law abiding citizens for no reason or provocation what so ever just because they can, again these are just the ones who do get caught on camera:

OUTRAGE: Fury erupts over Ohio policeman and unlawful arrest video
If you don't want to read this article from 2011 you can just watch the video: Video Cop arrests man for legally carrying concealed handgun and trying to hand him his concealed carry license


It has become so bad in some states and some cities and counties that one Senator has tried to pass a bill (still trying) allowing citizens to legally shoot officers if the officer tries to unlawfully enter someone's home, or hurt them unlawfully and or steal from them unlawfully here:

State Senator Would Allow Citizens to Shoot Cops?

Just because it doesn't affect you and might not ever, depending on where you live and who you are, doesn't mean this isn't rampant now in the US.

The other issue I really have problems with is this whole idea that we should just allow cops to abuse us, unlawfully take away our rights, treat us like shit and like dirt bags and then follow up on some later day in court for retribution or legal justice. (Many innocent people have died from this way of thinking. Those that died didn't get the chance to have their day to follow up in court btw).

It should not be that way. In fact it is never suppose to be this way. The cops are suppose to protect and serve, they are peace officers who should be following the laws and have respect for the very laws and constitution of citizens rights. We have allowed law enforcement to spit on the constitution and all things "civil rights" related. If you don't believe me just go back and read what the retired Lt. Harry Thomas had to say about today's cops and how current cops really feel about civil rights and the citizens that they serve. There is nothing but disdain for citizens (in their mind everyone is guilty of something) and a total lack of respect for the law and citizens, and in many retired officers views it has been noted that we are dealing with very different cops today who have a "statist" often "fascist" attitude toward citizens and their communities.


As Author Leonard Pitts put it: "It seems our constitutional rights are being nibbled out from under us, compromise by compromise, expediency by expediency, while we watch with dull complacence. In our unthinking mania for laws to “get tough on crime,” we actually made it tougher on ourselves, altering the balance of power between people and police to the point where a cop can now take your legally-earned money off your sovereign person and there’s little you can do about it.

Yet, there is something unsettling about the idea that you are only allowed to assert your rights at a later date in a different forum. The bullying behavior and contempt for the Constitution that characterized police in Ferguson ought to leave us less than sanguine with that notion, ought to encourage us to resist — at the ballot box, in the council meeting and, yes, by lawful protest — this drift toward unlimited police authority".


I guess Merg whoever you are, until the day it does affect you it may be too late. So if you want to pretend this isn't systemic, rampant problem which is becoming more out of control as the months, years role by that is fine. When the day you do have issues and or your loved ones do, you won't be able to say you were not warned by people.

 

[Meghan54]

The reason for no-knocks is generally not because of the belief that evidence can be destroyed, but rather for the safety of the officers and others.

In Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia, speaking for the Court, succinctly described the flexibility and vagueness of the knock-and-announce requirement. Notice he used the word "OR" when describing the reasons to use no-knock warrants, essentially giving equal weight to either reason. I don't think Scalia is completely unaware of the distinction of using "OR" vs. "AND" in this context, being he's a lawyer and quite well versed in the subtleties and nuances of the English language.

[There are] many situations in which it is not necessary to knock and announce. It is not necessary when 'circumstances present a threat of physical violence' or if there is 'reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice was given'.

Hudson, 547 U.S. at 589

I agree, but what is police clothing? Every department has a different uniform. Generally, tactical units will wear black or green. The uniforms will or should have police markings on the front and back and a badge displayed as well. To not do so is a detriment to the officers and citizens.

- Merg

While police in fatigues/camo do have their insignias present, they're certainly not the 'usual' insignias that most think of on their street uniforms.....shiny badges, shiny insignia. Instead, the insignia/badges/etc. are sewn in black, to blend in with the camo. The police have copied the military in completely flattening out of all reflective objects on camo......black everything that makes one have to be very close to the one wearing the camo to distinguish the emblems sewn onto the fatigues. Otherwise, what benefit would camo/fatigues have? The stealth component would be negated....big shiny metal badges on the front giving an outstanding targeting point?

And that's also why the fully camo'd out SWAT teams put POLICE on the back of their uni's---not so whomever they're approaching will easily identify them, but so they don't get shot in the back by friendly fire. Notice police never put big yellow letters on the fronts of their uniforms.

In essence, to argue that by having very small, flat black sewn on insignia that are specifically designed to be almost invisible except at very close range as easily identifiable police markings is just disingenuous, at best.

 

[The Merg]

In Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia, speaking for the Court, succinctly described the flexibility and vagueness of the knock-and-announce requirement. Notice he used the word "OR" when describing the reasons to use no-knock warrants, essentially giving equal weight to either reason. I don't think Scalia is completely unaware of the distinction of using "OR" vs. "AND" in this context, being he's a lawyer and quite well versed in the subtleties and nuances of the English language.

Hudson, 547 U.S. at 589

That was Justice Scalia though. I take most of what he says with a grain of salt. Reading many of his decisions/opinions leaves me wanting to hit my head against a wall.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

While police in fatigues/camo do have their insignias present, they're certainly not the 'usual' insignias that most think of on their street uniforms.....shiny badges, shiny insignia. Instead, the insignia/badges/etc. are sewn in black, to blend in with the camo. The police have copied the military in completely flattening out of all reflective objects on camo......black everything that makes one have to be very close to the one wearing the camo to distinguish the emblems sewn onto the fatigues. Otherwise, what benefit would camo/fatigues have? The stealth component would be negated....big shiny metal badges on the front giving an outstanding targeting point?

And that's also why the fully camo'd out SWAT teams put POLICE on the back of their uni's---not so whomever they're approaching will easily identify them, but so they don't get shot in the back by friendly fire. Notice police never put big yellow letters on the fronts of their uniforms.

In essence, to argue that by having very small, flat black sewn on insignia that are specifically designed to be almost invisible except at very close range as easily identifiable police markings is just disingenuous, at best.

I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. I was just questioning the post about how they need to be wearing police uniforms. I just wanted to know what they thought that uniform should be.

Wearing a bright blue uniform with a shiny badge and shiny collar brass and name tags is certainly understandable for your patrol officer. However, tactical units need the ability to have stealth and concealment.

As an example of the latter, look at the search for the subject that ambushed the PA troopers. Those officers need to have the ability to move through the woods quietly and without being noticed by the subject if they come into contact with him. Wearing a patrol officer uniform is going to make them a walking target.

- Merg

 

[xaeniac]

cops are out of control