Posted on 01/10/2009 4:49:46 PM PST by chevydude26
In my personal opinion I believe that the Police have a quota and are not looking out to keep streets safe in most occasions but looking to bring money into the general fund. You get a ticket and then you start getting advertisements from lawyers. You pay the lawyer and the lawyer still has you pay a minor fine after he talks to the judge who he's friends with...
My point this whole thing is a scam to bring in money...there is a balance of power issue and its just used to bring in revenue...why not have a point system that goes on your license record ( like a credit score that affects your insurance costs) instead of monetary punishments cut spending and stop harassing law abiding citizens for petty offenses that your being trapped into by things like speed traps??
> Have you ever had the “pleasure” of watching an Alex Jones produced video?
I haven’t seen any: next time I’m down at the video shop I’ll see if there are any in.
Like you, I don’t think it is fair to use working cops for entertainment purposes: if that is what he’s doing then it is only fair that the cops get to use working video producers for entertainment purposes.
Always, if you can, always record encounters with the police. They're recording you at every chance they get. You have the right under the first amendment to record them, period.
Indeed, and I say it knowing a few officers myself. Like any profession, they are generally good but there's always a few bad apples. In my more vigorous youth, I probably met most of them, of both types. But that was a while back, and I'm flying a little straighter these days.
My point was to make sure that everybody knows that the commoners generally DO have the right to record encounters with the police just as the police have that same right. I'm not extremely trusting of government these days.
I lived in Virginia for a while. The check points the police setup from time to time was not only wrong, it stank of some sort of police state.
When traveling from point A to point B your stopped in a que of autos waiting to pull up to a police checkpoint checking license, registration and insurance just felt like, “PAY-PAHS PLEECE, VWEAR AH ZEW GOWING, VWAT BEESNESS ZEW U HAHV”
Sorry, I am adamantly against law enforcement stopping people at random or collectively to enforce tax law or to check to see if your papers are in order.
I'm a bit split on the DUI checkpoints at 2am.
A buddy I worked with, an older gentleman. He was stopped coming from a poker game around one or two in the morning.
He was stopped at a DUI checkpoint and given the third degree. He doesn't even drink, however he was pulled from his car and made to go through field sobriety test.
You know, one leg up...count to ten. Walk the line and all that jazz.
The cop said, his eyes were red. That was supposedly the officers probable cause.
Sorry, but there is something called, “official oppression”
I agree with you. I don’t understand the comments from others defending an obvious loser with a badge.
That's not so. A lot depends on the jury and thus on the demographics. In my case (I was the cop in question, felony assaulted while I was directing traffic around a disabled vehicle) the DA thought as you did and didn't bother to call any corroborating witnesses. He made it a "he said/he said," case and the jury decided that was reasonable doubt.
I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it's not true that the cop is always believed.
“...just pointing out that it’s not true that the cop is always believed.”
Its important that people remember that the jury of 12 are the defendants peers, and not the cops. Their backgrounds carry into how they determine which story to agree with.
I know physicians who have complained that because of TV medical/hospital shows (okay, not "Scrubs" but the other ones) patients and their families are upset when something isn't cured in 60 minutes with time out for ads.
I have a little volunteer security gig. One day I decided to explain to my boss that by asking me to do this, he was endorsing the possibility that I might kill or permanently disable someone, and that he needed to be clear about that if he wanted "Security" for this job.
I want to point out that this guy is intelligent, learned, and a good guy. I not only like him, I admire him.
BUT, that being said, he asked me if I couldn't just, y'know, shoot the baddies in the leg or something. In a jocular way I explained that even if I was aiming for the COM, I'd probably hit him in the leg, but, seriously now, when the SHTF sometimes I don't shoot as well as Roy Rogers did, what with the adrenaline and all and the possible need to check for/deal with other bogies.
He thought a minute and realized he was being a little romantic with his expectations, and then said, "Okay. Your job is to protect X, and if you end up killing someone who is threatening to harm her, okay."
I think a lot of jurors have no clue about what life is like when the SHTF, and don't know how much information has to be processed and how many decisions need to be made in a cloud of adrenaline and not very much time.
Government has gotten way out of hand, monstrously so. The police are government’s enforcers and their attitudes have generally changed over the years to better fit the new role/rule of government. Way different situation from when I was a kid.
There's always stories in which the officer gets a bad rap because of some bone headed citizen over reacts.
We are not talking about that here, or at least I am not.
There are officers out there that blatantly abuse their powers.
For instance, the college student that audio taped an officer that threatened to trump up charges against him to prove HIS power over the student.
The cop was busted and fired due to the student standing up for his rights.
In Virginia, I was leaving our business park for lunch one day. Police had setup check points at the exit of the park.
So this particular day, to just go to pick up lunch, I had to wait to show my papers to be able to proceed.
I’mma stickler for having all my stuff up to date, so it bothered me that even though I was adhering to the law, I still had to present my papers to prove my compliance before moving to my destination.
That to me is unlawful detention. Even for ten minutes of my life, it was an impediment to my free right to move about unhindered.
So, if you have no problem with this type of check point, then we disagree. I do not feel the majority of citizens should have to sacrifice very basic freedoms and rights so the government can catch a few out of compliance with basically “tax, municipal or civil law.”
When they have DUI checkpoints here, they pull over 100 cars, arrest two people for DUI, hand out 50 tickets for burnt out head lights, expired Registarion, Broken tail lights, etc etc etc.
Sounds like a money maker to me.
Ah dude, you’re experience was not similar to Oscar Grant’s experience...
Thank God for tapes - as coincidence would have it - many criminals are also liars. And without the tapes, those unfamiliar with sociopaths might find them believable.
here’s a tape that’s hard to deny, Sheriff’s video, but Ohio Sheriff denies it happened, supresses tape, and victim is convicted of resisting arrest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgixrRZ-Avg
police later claim it was ‘suicide prevention’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PF6_Q-6cvw&feature=related
Officer Friendly, where are u ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.