Extreme?

[The Beep Goes On]

I was thinking about this the other day...and then this somewhat explosive article shows up...

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-sh...u-shoot-a-cop/

The conclusion at the end of the article is... "When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history."


Fallout: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/...political.html

[Felinepeachy]

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history."

NO! You are wrong. That is NOT more often the case.

And this is a perfect example of criminals thriving on the indulgence of societys understanding. We pity the criminal and make monsters out of those who risk their lives to protect us from them. Yes, there are bad cops out there like there are bad professionals in every other career field but for every bad cop you find, you will find 100 good ones. You surely can not say that about criminals.

[jeff of pa]

I Don't see this thread Lasting Long,
But have to state I Agree with This part 100%

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue

People would be Barking like dogs & Pumping their
Chests Watching the Jewish People shooting
Cops in the street in Nazi Germany.

Those same people would be suggesting you be
Hung for shooting a cop who burst in your house with a warrant
Threw your Half Dressed 15 year old Daughter on her face,
Cuffed her & Put a gun to her head while
Yelling at the top of his Lungs.

& Cops TV was filming

For the Record I Still don't Own a gun.
believe in Shooting anyone,
Or even want to see a gun Pointed at any Human Being

[The Beep Goes On]

He's talking about all the dictators, Hitlers, etc. combined. He's talking about them hiding behind the law. As for police officers, I, for one, simply see them as being human. I would never advocate violence against anyone, especially the police, but neither am I willing to disregard historical patterns.

[naturegirl]

I'm glad for your last reply beep, THAT'S the stance I wish most people would take, these two articles seem slanted against 'all' cops to me. Too biased for my tastes, definetly extreme, but we can't close our eyes to history either.

[The Beep Goes On]

It is inflammatory. I have several cops in various parts of our extended family and had to 'force' myself to read it. If things got bad, I would hope that the majority would do the right thing. This is related to the 'us v them' culture that is becoming more prevalent, and possibly understandably, if not constitutionally, so, considering the atrocious goings-on in today's society.

Related: http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1...les-of-tyranny (#4)

[naturegirl]

Thanks for the link Beep!! I will be sharing that article!! It's extremely well written.

[Saturna]

The trouble is when the bad cops, like the ones that murdered Robert Dziekanski in Vancouver airport (2007) or the one that murdered that carver in Seattle (2010) walk away with no penalty.


The good cops also never speak out about the bad ones either.

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning, having been a federal and state LEO, I agree there are always bad apples in every branch, even 'Presidents', and especially politicians & Civilians ?? sheesh.

However, I can honestly say that for every bad LEO with the power complex attitude, that has secummed to "it is we against them" doctrine, there are probably 10000 that do risk their lives for the public.

Just go on a foot patrol with one some dark night in the ghettos etc and see how you actually enjoy not knowing if in that shadow over there is a lunatic that has just committed a crime and is afraid of being caught by you, so shoots from the dark

Surprisingly enough, one of most dangerous investigations come from domestic violence reports. When the cop arrives the woman frequently takes up sides against the policeman that is there to help her due to her call for help, and many times injures or kills the officer.

No, the majority of LEO's are on the publics side, however, due to movies, Tv, etc., some do go for the Rambo image or to fat bribes.

I still have the reputation of having had the smallest known bribe offered in the Border Patrol, I was offered all that the poor, hungry & cold wet had, .25 cents in change.

He was returned to Mexico, after I had personally bought him a full meal and made sure that he had a hot shower, and had his clothes washed in the local jail.

Nope. like everything else it is not simply a black and white situation, I am quite sure that even the most violent ones against LEO's are quite happy to see them when they show up to help them.

Don Jose de La Mancha (el Santito)

[piegrande]

LE is changing. I had many friends on the local force, classmates from high school.

Then, over the last 4 or 5 years, I got a different viewpoint. Twice, while driving legally in all respects across the US, I was illegally stopped, that is, without probable cause.

The first time was in Mississippi, about half an hour south of Hattiesburg, about 9:30 pm. The cop grabbed my rear hatch on my minivan and tried to forcibly open it. Not legal.

Later, I realized if he had succeeded, there would have been "weed" found in my car.

Then, he came to the front, and when he saw my wife and me, old timers, he started bull about how they weren't sure, but thought maybe I had not pulled over as I passed them searching, probably also illegally, a rental truck back a few miles. I did. I am from Texas, and you pull over.

It scared me to think they might make a mistake like that, and I might be fined for something I didn't do. When we got to Hattiesburg, I called my son, who was also driving across country to the same destination. He had also been stopped in Arkansas, on a phony, bogus claim of "swerving" and his wife was alert and he had done no such thing

When I mentioned it at the hotel in H. the clerk said a lot of people had been reporting similar events on that highway.

A couple years later, the KY highway patrol stopped me and told me he had clocked me at 70 in a 55 zone. He was just plain a lair, I was running almost exactly 55 in the construction zone, and clicked up after the 70 mph sign.

I wrote a letter to the KY highway patrol commissioner, and told him we know what they are doing, and it will be stopped.

I realize your words of "wisdom" were traditionally true, but times have changed, and a lot of forces are contaminated by this steal a car greed, to the point of false stops, perjury, and yes, false planting of evidence. Many cops don't participate, but they know it is happening, which makes them accomplices.

[dallgire]

soooo you had weed in your car but it wasnt yours?

[The Beep Goes On]

Lol...I've had my fair share of run-ins, but not that particular circumstance 8)

[diggemall]

The problem is that you have no way of knowing which ones you CAN trust, and which ones you CAN'T:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44005599...me_and_courts/

Diggem'

[piegrande]

>>soooo you had weed in your car but it wasnt yours?

No, I did not have weed in my car. I meant there was no legal reason for him to try to forcibly rip open my hatch, and I am convinced he would have tossed in a packet of weed and then confiscated my car. And, they are doing it all over the country.

I am not going to play guessing games what percentage of cops are doing this. But, I am going to state the way police departments work, almost all cops well know it is happening. And, that makes them all guilty as sin.

Recently on Cartalk a man said he was a cop in the Western USA, and he had never seen it happen. I am literate, and I note he did not say it didn't happen in his force. He said he had not "seen" it, and I noted the difference.

Though I Personally do not wish to participate in violence, I do believe cops who do this deserve to be shot on the spot. And, it happens, and they do not ever tell us why it happened.

SCOTUS in Knowles v. Iowa 1998 ruled cops do not have the right to do a complete search of a car for a bad bulb or speeding stop. Yet, even after the ruling the Iowa HP kept doing it.

Our system of laws mandates that cops must be trustworthy. Period.

All our laws in the US, even to parking regulations, are derived from the Constitution. When cops or judges or governors or SCOTUS or the president ignore the Constitution no one else has to obey it. At that point, it comes down to who has the most bullets. That is no way for a society to exist. We CANNOT permit these people to flout the Constitution.

[piegrande]

No, I am not going to. Your mind is clearly made up, and you are convinced this does not happen, so why waste my time.

It is happening often enough that a national organization has been formed. It is called Oath Keepers.

Of, Google for Tenaha. They didn't toss in weed. They just took the cars and/or money which was in legal quantities and intended for legal gambling in Louisiana. They threatened to confiscate kids if the papers weren't signed.

A while back they had a video on Youtube. Cops pulled over a man, and they searched him like three times. Then, in front of his own camera, a cop pulled a pack of weed out of his own pocket and shoved it in the guys trousers, then hollered, "Hey, look we got some weed." Right in front of the cop video.


This is the world we live in, not the world of your youth when cops could be trusted.

Still can't explain why a HP would try to rip my hatch open illegally, can you? There is no other explanation. Don't bore me with your defense of the indefensible.

[mikeofaustin]

More and more often, thanks to cell phone cameras, we are seeing the actual corruption that takes place. Previously, a cop would write down in his report that the offender 'assulted him', when in fact the video shows exactly the opposite. Cops are humans too, and some humans do not need to be cops. It alway get's me when I hear someone say, "The cops are the law"... actually, they are not the law, they just try to enforce the law to the best of their knowledge. The law is the Judge. It's sad that even cops seem to make up their own laws as they go along. Heck just the other day I was reading a story about a guy that took a photo of this overweight lifegaurd at a community pool sitting on his but and not doing his job. This person took a photo of him and next thing he knows a cops is harrassing him for "taking pictures of children in their bathing suits". It ended up with the guy agreeing to remove the photo's from the camera without incident, but you have to wonder, why would a cop knowingly destroy evidence if a crime had actually taken place?

Actually, there are indeed laws in the constitution that protects the rights of a civilian in certain situations that makes it acceptable to kill a cop. But the ending final argument is that it would cost way too much in court costs to defend yourself, than it would to simple pay the ticket (or the hospital bill should that be the case). Plus, who knows, you might actually have an accident while awaiting trial. You might accidentally fall head first 4 dozen times against a cement wall before the trial actually started.

[dallgire]

I think everyone just needs another dose of Super Troopers!!! "Whose ready for a mustache ride?!?!?!?!"

[The Beep Goes On]

If someone was shooting at me for no reason, I may react with survival in mind; a uniform, badge and gun do not a police officer make.

6 New Orleans cops indicted
Published: July 13, 2010 at 4:31 PM

NEW ORLEANS, July 13 (UPI) -- A federal grand jury Tuesday indicted six New Orleans police officers in the deadly Danziger Bridge shootings following 2005's Hurricane Katrina.

Officers Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso are charged in two shootings that left two people dead and four others wounded. They, along with supervisors Arthur "Archie" Kaufman and Gerard Dugue, also are charged with helping to obstruct justice during investigations into the shootings.

Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon and Villavaso are accused of shooting at an unarmed family on the east side of the bridge, killing 17-year-old James Brissette, and wounding Susan Bartholomew, 38; Leonard Bartholomew III, 44; the Bartholomew's daughter, Lesha, 17; and the Bartholomew's nephew, Jose Holmes, 19. The Bartholomews' 14-year-old son escaped uninjured.

In a second shooting shortly after on the west side of the bridge, officers allegedly shot at brothers Lance and Ronald Madison, killing Ronald, a 40-year-old man with severe mental disabilities. The indictment alleges Faulcon shot Ronald Madison in the back as he fled. Bowen is charged with stomping and kicking Ronald Madison who was wounded but had not yet died.

"As our investigation of the Danziger Bridge incident shows, the Justice Department will vigorously pursue anyone who allegedly violated the law," U.S. Attorney General Holder said in a release. "Put simply, we will not tolerate wrongdoing by those who have sworn to protect the public."

Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon and Villavaso were part of the so-called Danziger 7 indicted by a state grand jury in December 2006 on murder and attempted murder charges. That case was eventually dismissed but federal authorities moved ahead with their investigation that produced Tuesday's indictments.

Five other former officers, Michael Hunter, Robert Barrios, Ignatius Hills, Michael Lohman and Jeffrey Lehrmann, have pleaded guilty in the incident, as well.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...92691279053061

[mikeofaustin]

Actually, there are indeed laws in the constitution that protects the rights of a civilian in certain situations that makes it acceptable to kill a cop.

Could you possibly cite that particular law in the constitution?

I'm almost positive this exists, but I need to do some more googling... but a brief search only found some precedents... here that is. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

[mikeofaustin]

An addition to what I was previously saying (from a request to point this out). ---Also, I thought this was a national law, not just state. But, I'll give you this for the time being (for the texas law anyway).... (i'm still thinking this is national, not just state).

60 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS - 9.31 and 9.32

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force
than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's
(or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than
necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter
except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the
force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the
force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time
the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as
described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor
described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force
was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor
failed to retreat.


....so again, this is just state wide (texas), but I seem to remember a national level... And I will continue looking for this. I hope this at least partially clears my name, until I come back with what I mentioned earlier?

...STill looking.