In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by bhale187
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What evidence were they going to destroy, the $17 and change??
Smart-* suspects still giggling inside, limited ingress and egress points, a small amount of money to "destroy" = search warrant in the book of the constitution.
Did you read the story? There was no money involved, that was the crime itself.
Yeah and I edited my reply while you were posting this one. You beat me to it.[:I]
I had meant to add the food and had only listed the dollar amount to emphasize the true nature of the crime.
I see, well as I see it the true nature of the crime was theft from person, a felony. I don't see a problem with knocking down the doors of &%^# felons who refuse to open up.
I don't know why I bother posting retorts anyway, some people just like to monday morning quarterback tough decisions with very limited information. Hell, it's the internet and everyone knows what arguing on the internet is like [B)]
quote:Originally posted by bhale187
I see, well as I see it the true nature of the crime was theft from person, a felony. I don't see a problem with knocking down the doors of &%^# felons who refuse to open up.
I don't know why I bother posting retorts anyway, some people just like to monday morning quarterback tough decisions with very limited information. Hell, it's the internet and everyone knows what arguing on the internet is like [B)]
I agree that the crime is probably classed as a felony. Regardless, how do you reconcile the 4th Amendment's restriction placed on government, with breaking down a door without a warrant, when a warrant could have been readily obtained, based on what I read????
Most do not give these issues a second thought and in my eyes, that is a huge problem and in large part why we have so many police powers consistently getting broadened.
If you will have noticed, I qualified my response to both situations by saying that all the facts were not available.
The discussion, at least from my perspective, was simply about the underlaying theme of the police actions and under what circumstances they may have been, or may not have been, lawful.
The subject of a predatory government and actions taken upon citizens by the police is an important topic in my eyes.
There can be little argument that a large encroachment into basic constitutional rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, has been happening steadily. We are talking serious stuff, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th and 6th and on, and on....
Nothing wrong with getting into a philosophical discussion over the powers of America's Police and what the limits on those powers should be.
I maintain that there is a bright line of distinction between those of us who police our communities. there are two distinct camps, one being substantially larger and more visible than the other. The camps are those who look at their role as being a "Law Enforcement Officer" and those of us who view ourselves as "Peace Officers".
I won't digress too far into this subject, since it is probably worthy of its own thread.
I will close by saying that the LEO's are all about having more laws and more authority and power to enforce them, regardless of the spirit of the law, or its "rightness". Those of us on the Peace Officer side, take a dim view of many of the multitude of "malum prohibitum" laws and we view our activities in light of the "rightness" of the particular law and how what we do has an effect on others and our oath to the US and State Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by susie
No, I' not debating the issue of whether they should have arrested the miscreant, only the method of entry-a battering ram. A murder suspect gets negotiated with for hours on end when locked in an apartment and a bunch of giggly females get an apartment door demolished for seventeen bucks worth of pizza.
I beg to differ. Cleveland executed a battering ram entry on suspect last year who fired through the door at the officers. One of the officers was hit in the spot where his vest does not cover and died.
---70% of all police officers are a threat to the community they "serve". ("Serve" being the LA street gang term for "dominate".)
BS. Show me some hard statistics. If police misbehavior were as rampant as some of you cop haters claim, it would be so common as to be unworthy of notice in the press. The fact is, police misbehvior IS an anomaly, and that's why it makes news.
quote:---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
Wrong. "Civilian" has more than one definiton. This is from the Merriam Webster Onlline Dictionary:
civilian
Main Entry: ci?vil?ian
Pronunciation: \s#601;-#712;vil-y#601;n also -#712;vi-y#601;n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1
- civilian adjective
quote:---When called to task for their actions, their union kicks in to protect them along with the police department managers (they call themselves "chief", "lieutenant", "captain", etc.). YOU ARE NOT MILITARY....GET IT!!
Police and fire departments use, and have used titles such as you mentioned since there have been police and fire departments, a darn long time. You'd think if such titles were improper, they wouldn't have survived. What would you have us call the supervisors?
Most agencies of any size have people assigned to handle complaints against, and investigate alleged wrongdoing by their officers. We have such people, and they do a very good job. The in-car video has made their job a lot easier, and a simple review of the video proves most complainants to be liars.
quote:---When called to task, they whine about having to face the dangers of the street and that they only see the "underbelly" of society, etc. Police CAUSE 75% of the problems they face in the street. If they don't like the work, GET OUT!! Why do they stay? So they can retire at age 40-45 with a full disability (stress) pension. They get all benefits, pay, etc. and play for the rest of their lives at our expense.
You speak from IGNORANCE. You should keep shut lest everyone see it. We fund our own pension accounts, with matching funds from the city. Most employers offer 401K plans and match funds. What's the difference? We have no "disability" pension. If we have 10 years in, we are vested and can draw a pension when we reach retirement age, and we can retire at any age after 20 years service. BTW, 20 year retirement will net us about 35% of our working salary, and we have to fully fund our health insurance, about $500 a month just for the officer, never mind any dependents. We must put in over 30 years to get any sort of decent pension.
quote:---Police are actually tax collectors and janitors. That's it. They hand out tickets for "gotcha!" offenses, which do not endanger anyone. Tickets are a MAJOR source of revenue for municipalities, don't let anyone fool you. When you hear the police whine about not having enough officers, it's because the municiplaity is down on the manager's (oh! excuse me! "Chief's".) * to raise revenue by handing out more tickets. Their janitorial functions consist of cleaning up messes. Police rarely prevent crime, accidents, etc. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens.
So...driving drunk, running red lights, and speeding in school zones don't endanger anyone???? What color is the sky on your planet?
We don't "collect" anything. We arrest people, and we cite people. It's up to the courts do collect, if there is any collecting to do. If the court decides to go easy on a violator, or let him off altogether, well, we did our job.
And, yes, we do clean up messes. YOUR messes that you don't want to deal with.
quote:---Cops are told and they believe this; citizens are expendable and they are not.
Blatant lie.
quote:News flash for police officers!! YOU are expendible. That's what you are paid for. That's why you get more pay and benefits than comparable government employees in non-police positions.
If the job is so desirable, why do we CONSTANTLY work short-handed, and are always testing for new recruits? If it is such a desirable occupation, with such great pay and benefits, why aren't YOU signing up? Thought so.
I make no excuses for police misbehavior. If an officer is wrong, he/she can and will be dealt with through proper channels.
On another thread, I answered you point for point, just as I did here, and you did not respond. I don't expect you will respond to this either.
quote:Why would you spend your time to responding to something like that? Being branded "cop hater" here myself, even I can't take what he said seriously.
I don't know. Just can't let that sorta crap go unanswered I reckon. At least I was nice about it. When I was younger, I wouldn't have been.
All I know, from personal experience, is that when I try and enforce the rules on many black people (usually women) they automatically go into the resistance mode. Even when the situation could be a calm and easy situation, they seem to have it in their DNA to make the situation more difficult for everyone concerned. Difficult for them, for their companions, for me, for my fellow employees and for the other employees in the area.
I only offer this as my own personal observations proven over many years time and time again.
quote:---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
Wrong. "Civilian" has more than one definiton. This is from the Merriam Webster Onlline Dictionary:
civilian
Main Entry: ci?vil?ian
Pronunciation: \s#601;-#712;vil-y#601;n also -#712;vi-y#601;n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1
- civilian adjective
Dave, the dictionary is wrong. Anyone not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a civilian. You still have all of the civil rights as defined in the Constitution whether at war or peacetime. Military members are not allowed to quit during a battle. Civilians may quit at any time and just walk off without punishment (Remember the cops in New Orleans?). My leave papers used to say that in an emergency, make my self available to civilian authorities if unable to return to my duty station.
Police like to think they are paramilitary, going as far as to dress up in BDU's with a kevlar helmet and carry military weapons, but it's just make believe. Cops are just citizens with positional authority. Not a slam, just the truth.
Nunn,
You beat me to wolf's outlandish feable attempts to bash LEO's everywhere.
I would REALLY like to know where he found such trash ..
he must have got a parking ticket for parking in a disabled parking only spot and now hates police..[:p]
AND,,, For one, I do NOT think in any way that i am PARAmilitary or anything related to the military ! NObody else on my department beleives this either, even the ones who are in the armed services. what do you want me to wear Gym shorts ? do you want me to carry a slingshot instead of a subgun ? Replies like this Do not make sense ! not at all ..
I'm not trying to start a debate, but Dont call me something that I am NOT. I have family and friends who are serving oversea's at this time. I respect what their doing and respect all ( Servicemen )who are over their.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What evidence were they going to destroy, the $17 and change??
Smart-* suspects still giggling inside, limited ingress and egress points, a small amount of money to "destroy" = search warrant in the book of the constitution.
Did you read the story? There was no money involved, that was the crime itself.
Yeah and I edited my reply while you were posting this one. You beat me to it.[:I]
I had meant to add the food and had only listed the dollar amount to emphasize the true nature of the crime.
I don't know why I bother posting retorts anyway, some people just like to monday morning quarterback tough decisions with very limited information. Hell, it's the internet and everyone knows what arguing on the internet is like [B)]
I see, well as I see it the true nature of the crime was theft from person, a felony. I don't see a problem with knocking down the doors of &%^# felons who refuse to open up.
I don't know why I bother posting retorts anyway, some people just like to monday morning quarterback tough decisions with very limited information. Hell, it's the internet and everyone knows what arguing on the internet is like [B)]
I agree that the crime is probably classed as a felony. Regardless, how do you reconcile the 4th Amendment's restriction placed on government, with breaking down a door without a warrant, when a warrant could have been readily obtained, based on what I read????
Most do not give these issues a second thought and in my eyes, that is a huge problem and in large part why we have so many police powers consistently getting broadened.
If you will have noticed, I qualified my response to both situations by saying that all the facts were not available.
The discussion, at least from my perspective, was simply about the underlaying theme of the police actions and under what circumstances they may have been, or may not have been, lawful.
The subject of a predatory government and actions taken upon citizens by the police is an important topic in my eyes.
There can be little argument that a large encroachment into basic constitutional rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, has been happening steadily. We are talking serious stuff, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th and 6th and on, and on....
Nothing wrong with getting into a philosophical discussion over the powers of America's Police and what the limits on those powers should be.
I maintain that there is a bright line of distinction between those of us who police our communities. there are two distinct camps, one being substantially larger and more visible than the other. The camps are those who look at their role as being a "Law Enforcement Officer" and those of us who view ourselves as "Peace Officers".
I won't digress too far into this subject, since it is probably worthy of its own thread.
I will close by saying that the LEO's are all about having more laws and more authority and power to enforce them, regardless of the spirit of the law, or its "rightness". Those of us on the Peace Officer side, take a dim view of many of the multitude of "malum prohibitum" laws and we view our activities in light of the "rightness" of the particular law and how what we do has an effect on others and our oath to the US and State Constitution.
No, I' not debating the issue of whether they should have arrested the miscreant, only the method of entry-a battering ram. A murder suspect gets negotiated with for hours on end when locked in an apartment and a bunch of giggly females get an apartment door demolished for seventeen bucks worth of pizza.
I beg to differ. Cleveland executed a battering ram entry on suspect last year who fired through the door at the officers. One of the officers was hit in the spot where his vest does not cover and died.
quote:LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH RIGHT NOW!!!
---70% of all police officers are a threat to the community they "serve". ("Serve" being the LA street gang term for "dominate".)
BS. Show me some hard statistics. If police misbehavior were as rampant as some of you cop haters claim, it would be so common as to be unworthy of notice in the press. The fact is, police misbehvior IS an anomaly, and that's why it makes news.
quote:---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
Wrong. "Civilian" has more than one definiton. This is from the Merriam Webster Onlline Dictionary:
civilian
Main Entry: ci?vil?ian
Pronunciation: \s#601;-#712;vil-y#601;n also -#712;vi-y#601;n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1
- civilian adjective
quote:---When called to task for their actions, their union kicks in to protect them along with the police department managers (they call themselves "chief", "lieutenant", "captain", etc.). YOU ARE NOT MILITARY....GET IT!!
Police and fire departments use, and have used titles such as you mentioned since there have been police and fire departments, a darn long time. You'd think if such titles were improper, they wouldn't have survived. What would you have us call the supervisors?
Most agencies of any size have people assigned to handle complaints against, and investigate alleged wrongdoing by their officers. We have such people, and they do a very good job. The in-car video has made their job a lot easier, and a simple review of the video proves most complainants to be liars.
quote:---When called to task, they whine about having to face the dangers of the street and that they only see the "underbelly" of society, etc. Police CAUSE 75% of the problems they face in the street. If they don't like the work, GET OUT!! Why do they stay? So they can retire at age 40-45 with a full disability (stress) pension. They get all benefits, pay, etc. and play for the rest of their lives at our expense.
You speak from IGNORANCE. You should keep shut lest everyone see it. We fund our own pension accounts, with matching funds from the city. Most employers offer 401K plans and match funds. What's the difference? We have no "disability" pension. If we have 10 years in, we are vested and can draw a pension when we reach retirement age, and we can retire at any age after 20 years service. BTW, 20 year retirement will net us about 35% of our working salary, and we have to fully fund our health insurance, about $500 a month just for the officer, never mind any dependents. We must put in over 30 years to get any sort of decent pension.
quote:---Police are actually tax collectors and janitors. That's it. They hand out tickets for "gotcha!" offenses, which do not endanger anyone. Tickets are a MAJOR source of revenue for municipalities, don't let anyone fool you. When you hear the police whine about not having enough officers, it's because the municiplaity is down on the manager's (oh! excuse me! "Chief's".) * to raise revenue by handing out more tickets. Their janitorial functions consist of cleaning up messes. Police rarely prevent crime, accidents, etc. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens.
So...driving drunk, running red lights, and speeding in school zones don't endanger anyone???? What color is the sky on your planet?
We don't "collect" anything. We arrest people, and we cite people. It's up to the courts do collect, if there is any collecting to do. If the court decides to go easy on a violator, or let him off altogether, well, we did our job.
And, yes, we do clean up messes. YOUR messes that you don't want to deal with.
quote:---Cops are told and they believe this; citizens are expendable and they are not.
Blatant lie.
quote:News flash for police officers!! YOU are expendible. That's what you are paid for. That's why you get more pay and benefits than comparable government employees in non-police positions.
If the job is so desirable, why do we CONSTANTLY work short-handed, and are always testing for new recruits? If it is such a desirable occupation, with such great pay and benefits, why aren't YOU signing up? Thought so.
I make no excuses for police misbehavior. If an officer is wrong, he/she can and will be dealt with through proper channels.
On another thread, I answered you point for point, just as I did here, and you did not respond. I don't expect you will respond to this either.
So many opinions......so few facts.
Till later, thanks Mateo for spitting good Glenfiddich on your screen. That was worth reading about.
Sorry.
I'll try to consider your feelings in the future.
To Wolf:
Why would you spend your time to responding to something like that? Being branded "cop hater" here myself, even I can't take what he said seriously.
I don't know. Just can't let that sorta crap go unanswered I reckon. At least I was nice about it. When I was younger, I wouldn't have been.
I only offer this as my own personal observations proven over many years time and time again.
quote:---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
Wrong. "Civilian" has more than one definiton. This is from the Merriam Webster Onlline Dictionary:
civilian
Main Entry: ci?vil?ian
Pronunciation: \s#601;-#712;vil-y#601;n also -#712;vi-y#601;n\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1
- civilian adjective
Dave, the dictionary is wrong. Anyone not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a civilian. You still have all of the civil rights as defined in the Constitution whether at war or peacetime. Military members are not allowed to quit during a battle. Civilians may quit at any time and just walk off without punishment (Remember the cops in New Orleans?). My leave papers used to say that in an emergency, make my self available to civilian authorities if unable to return to my duty station.
Police like to think they are paramilitary, going as far as to dress up in BDU's with a kevlar helmet and carry military weapons, but it's just make believe. Cops are just citizens with positional authority. Not a slam, just the truth.
You beat me to wolf's outlandish feable attempts to bash LEO's everywhere.
I would REALLY like to know where he found such trash ..
he must have got a parking ticket for parking in a disabled parking only spot and now hates police..[:p]
AND,,, For one, I do NOT think in any way that i am PARAmilitary or anything related to the military ! NObody else on my department beleives this either, even the ones who are in the armed services. what do you want me to wear Gym shorts ? do you want me to carry a slingshot instead of a subgun ? Replies like this Do not make sense ! not at all ..
I'm not trying to start a debate, but Dont call me something that I am NOT. I have family and friends who are serving oversea's at this time. I respect what their doing and respect all ( Servicemen )who are over their.