• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another Cop being a Hard-on and Liar

Thanks again, for another great contribution to the thread.

Oh , ad hominem again ? ? ?

Oh well, if that is all you have to give , then give whatcha can. :roll:
 
The video aside, what is most striking is all the information provided to you which you consistently refuse to accept. All of it validated and endorsed by the SCOTUS and upheld time after time after time in a court of law by judges and ultimately juries.

Yet for you, it's much ado about nothing.

The World According to Voidwar.
 
Caine,

The video is legitimate; the officer in question is/was suspended without pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

Check this thread --- there is a link to the article about the officer and his suspension.

:mrgreen:
 
Vader said:
Caine,

The video is legitimate; the officer in question is/was suspended without pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

Check this thread --- there is a link to the article about the officer and his suspension.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know.... check this thread again.....

I posted it!

Along with retracting my suspicions of the video being fake.
:mrgreen:
 
Caine said:
1-If you can tell me where it says that go right ahead and try.

2-That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

3-the focus is on getting to know who hangs out where, with whom, etc. This is essential so that when a crime occurs, you know which people commonly frequent that area, what they look like, who their acquaintances are, etc.

4-An officer asking for your identity is neither a search NOR a seizure.


5-Incorrect.
There are other warrantless searches. Consent Search, Exigent Circumstances Searches.
That is, assuming that the 4th amendment states the REQUIREMENT for a warrant prior to a search. Which it doesn't.
Click to expand...

1-My point is that it is a right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches. Of course, a police officer who wants to know all about you will always see it as reasonable, no? The Bill of Rights was not written for the agents of the government, but for the people. I don't personally read it to find out what it doesn't say, but what it does.

2-I'm sure it is. Your papers, please? That's what bothers me. If it is a reasonable request, and I've nothing to hide (as always), I have zero problem showing who I am and taking myself out of the equation so you can go on and catch who you're looking for. If it is an unreasonable request- "Just show me because I'm the law"- it is an attempt at intimidation and unreasonable. Just to clarify where I'm coming from. "We've had some break ins, have you seen anything?" I say "sure, no prob. Haven't seen anything."

3- So because I'm "hanging out" somewhere, and you want to know who hangs out there, I'm required to let you know? Because hanging out is a crime?

4- I'm not talking about asking your identity, I'm talking about taking my ID and running a search on the database on my history. How is asking for my ID, my "papers", not a search? I understand the current legal standing, I just don't agree with it, because it gives more empowerment to a civil servant than I need given- for me and everyone else. Just my opinion.

5- I'm not arguing (if it seemed that way, I apologize) that there are no cases for warrantless searches. I think I made it clear in the other post, and then probably diluted my argument through tired writing. A consent search, I would assume, is when the individual gives you consent and thus obviously it is not covered by the fourth. The Exigent Circumstances...if you're referring to that link a few pages back, that only covers impounded or secured vehicles, as far as I can tell. There may be other legislation, but as I read it that link was pretty clear on that. My assumption is that the individual would be in custody at this point. Search away, the right is already violated.

My issue with your reading of the fourth is that you always skip the "right to be secure" and move directly to "unreasonable/reasonable". As I stated above, what is reasonable to the officer will always be what the officer wants, while the individual who has the right may see it differently. If it is objectively reasonable (red-handed), I'm not arguing, because I'm not about letting criminals go.

I'm no friend of criminals, believe me, but I've witnessed and heard second hand about some pretty flagrant violations by police officers, too. What bothers me is that when something like the video here happens, very little is done. He was suspended, but if there had been no camera, then what? To me, that guy was way out of line, and I don't want him rolling around my community licensed to carry a firearm and in uniform, because I see that as very dangerous to me- as dangerous as a criminal would be. It must be a very difficult job, but I've seen plenty of officers do it and still treat people (and the law) with respect. Those are the ones who have my respect as well. Just like any other profession.
 
PolarComposite said:
1-My point is that it is a right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches. Of course, a police officer who wants to know all about you will always see it as reasonable, no? The Bill of Rights was not written for the agents of the government, but for the people. I don't personally read it to find out what it doesn't say, but what it does.

2-I'm sure it is. Your papers, please? That's what bothers me. If it is a reasonable request, and I've nothing to hide (as always), I have zero problem showing who I am and taking myself out of the equation so you can go on and catch who you're looking for. If it is an unreasonable request- "Just show me because I'm the law"- it is an attempt at intimidation and unreasonable. Just to clarify where I'm coming from. "We've had some break ins, have you seen anything?" I say "sure, no prob. Haven't seen anything."
Click to expand...
And I can't imagine a time where asking someone to identify themselves is NOT REASONABLE can you? If an officer of the law is going to get out to talk with a complete stranger, I can't see one scenario where it is not reasonable to identify who that stranger is. What you don't seem to understand, and most people don't, is that we don't have crime-ray vision. I can't look at someone and tell if they are a frequent law breaker, violent, dangerous, or a friendly, supporter of law enforcement type person. Criminals come in all shapes and sizes, colors, cultures, and genders. Does this mean I go around not trusting anyone with their word? No. If someone says something, I usually try to take them at their word (unless its "Ive only had two beers occcifer!"), however its important to keep in the back of your mind that you DON'T know this person and this person may or may not be dangerous and/or lying. If you get to comfortable around someone thats when you'll get killed.


3- So because I'm "hanging out" somewhere, and you want to know who hangs out there, I'm required to let you know? Because hanging out is a crime?
Click to expand...
Hanging out isn't a crime. We don't deal specifically in on the spot crime detection. If criminal activity has been going on in an area and we don't have a suspect. We check to see who is just loitering around in an area. We identify people and toss their names around on the street to see who has been telling on themselves to their buddies and other people who are willing to talk to us.


4- I'm not talking about asking your identity, I'm talking about taking my ID and running a search on the database on my history. How is asking for my ID, my "papers", not a search? I understand the current legal standing, I just don't agree with it, because it gives more empowerment to a civil servant than I need given- for me and everyone else. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
So, how is it unreasonable again for an officer to check to see if you have any arrest warrants on file while he is already out talking to you on a stop of some sort? I don't see that unreasonable at all. Criminals don't have the right to hide their identity from law enforcement to evade having arrest warrants served on them.


5- I'm not arguing (if it seemed that way, I apologize) that there are no cases for warrantless searches. I think I made it clear in the other post, and then probably diluted my argument through tired writing. A consent search, I would assume, is when the individual gives you consent and thus obviously it is not covered by the fourth. The Exigent Circumstances...if you're referring to that link a few pages back, that only covers impounded or secured vehicles, as far as I can tell. There may be other legislation, but as I read it that link was pretty clear on that. My assumption is that the individual would be in custody at this point. Search away, the right is already violated.
Click to expand...
Actually that was just for the vehicle. Exigent circumstances can be defined as An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials. Searches made in "Good Faith" fall under these exigent circumstances. An example of a good faith search can be when an officer recieves a call from a family member out of town to check the welfare of an elderly man (their father/grandfather) who they have not heard from in a few weeks and isn't answering his phone. Officers show up and find a door that is unlocked and cracked open just slightly (1cm). Officers enter the home acting in good faith and find the old man laying dead in a chair in the living room.

My issue with your reading of the fourth is that you always skip the "right to be secure" and move directly to "unreasonable/reasonable". As I stated above, what is reasonable to the officer will always be what the officer wants, while the individual who has the right may see it differently. If it is objectively reasonable (red-handed), I'm not arguing, because I'm not about letting criminals go.
Click to expand...
No, unfortunately that whole comment of yours is off base. People think that police do what police want without any regard to what happens when these cases go before the court. Police weigh their actions based upon the constitution and the facts of the situation. If I stop a vehicle and I can tell the guy is a stoner and probably has drugs in the car, guess what? I can't just search and then state before the magistrate or judge at trial... "Sir, I searched 'cause he lookz like a stone-er!!" Sorry, it won't fly, and I'll get laughed out of court.


I'm no friend of criminals, believe me, but I've witnessed and heard second hand about some pretty flagrant violations by police officers, too. What bothers me is that when something like the video here happens, very little is done. He was suspended, but if there had been no camera, then what? To me, that guy was way out of line, and I don't want him rolling around my community licensed to carry a firearm and in uniform, because I see that as very dangerous to me- as dangerous as a criminal would be. It must be a very difficult job, but I've seen plenty of officers do it and still treat people (and the law) with respect. Those are the ones who have my respect as well. Just like any other profession.
Click to expand...
And its unfortunate that the few bad apples seem to characterize the entire group for some folks who can't seem to get over it.
There are hundreds of police officers that are killed each year trying to keep their areas a safe place to live and prosecute those who violate the law and threaten the safety of others, however some people can only focus on the few idiots who act out of line and those idiots that forget why they are doing this job in the first place.
 
Caine said:
And I can't imagine a time where asking someone to identify themselves is NOT REASONABLE can you?


And its unfortunate that the few bad apples seem to characterize the entire group for some folks who can't seem to get over it.
There are hundreds of police officers that are killed each year trying to keep their areas a safe place to live and prosecute those who violate the law and threaten the safety of others, however some people can only focus on the few idiots who act out of line and those idiots that forget why they are doing this job in the first place.
Click to expand...

I sure can. It's happened to me. I don't want to bore you with examples and get into why you think it may have been reasonable, and I'm not too bitter about it, really, but suffice to say there are situations where someone with a gun on their hip is bored and wants to find out who I am (I'm often out n about at night if this clarifies anything) where it is a more than minor inconvenience for me. I understand it is also an inconvenience for you to not know if I am that potential criminal, but if I am treated with courtesy in the asking I won't mind saying yes to an inquiry. It would be nice to have the courtesy of a why either before or after, but usually the courteous requests have that anyway. It's just the bored small town guys I'm really talking about, mostly, and perhaps your situation is quite different, but I've been taken on more than one power trip for no reason whatsoever and I do not like it.

Middle points- thanks for clarifying and informing(the latter in certain cases).

I try hard not to characterize all police officers (or people, for that matter) based on the actions of the worst. I understand that potentially getting killed qualifies as a tough psychological situation, and that it likely pays to project a tough image up front because you need to control a situation that might get dangerous. I only wish that more officers would understand that there is already a natural intimidation in the firearm for many, many citizens, and that verbal intimidation not only is not required, but is detrimental to the respect level given in the next encounter. Also, people are naturally apprehensive when confronted with an armed individual, and I wish more officers would take this into account when they feel they are getting "attitude", because that nervous energy may be all they're getting. Many are cool, but some others seem to get off on it.

Anyway, kudos for admitting that those idiots do exist, for not being one, and for allowing me to sharpen my admittedly dulled legal wit. My only beef was that when I see it (things like that video) I want it fully reprimanded. You have to defend your own, but you have to call em out when you see em too (in any job, even the tough ones). For my part, I'll take this conversation and paste it over one of those unpleasant memories...and chalk one up for mutual respect. Thanks for sparring, and stay safe out there, Caine.
 
This is a site for officers getting traffic tickets that ANY normal civilian could get a warning on, verbal or written. This is a site for cops, about cops, and designed by cops. Needless to say, we are fed up with hearing about this and think something should be done. There's always another ticket down the street. We are all family and maybe someday you may need one of us to get out of our car and save your sorry ***. But odds are you're the cop that doesn't do anything to begin with.
Cops Writing Cops - Where's the Professional Courtesy? Law Enforcement and Polcie Officers help each other.
 
foundit66 said:
This is a site for officers getting traffic tickets that ANY normal civilian could get a warning on, verbal or written. This is a site for cops, about cops, and designed by cops. Needless to say, we are fed up with hearing about this and think something should be done. There's always another ticket down the street. We are all family and maybe someday you may need one of us to get out of our car and save your sorry ***. But odds are you're the cop that doesn't do anything to begin with.
Cops Writing Cops - Where's the Professional Courtesy? Law Enforcement and Polcie Officers help each other.
Click to expand...
Ummm... okay.
 
Sadly, chances are a new chief wouldn't make a difference. The police (and politicians) in Chicago would be just as inept and corrupt as ever. Chicago has a serious problem with a culture of corruption and to a slightly lesser extent the entire state of Illinois does.

Remember Illinois is the state that half of the death row convicts exonerated before our former govenor (in probably the only decent thing he ever did) shut down the death penalty. Our police, our prosecutors, and our politicians are all corrupt and it applies to both parties.
 
Psychoclown said:
Sadly, chances are a new chief wouldn't make a difference. The police (and politicians) in Chicago would be just as inept and corrupt as ever. Chicago has a serious problem with a culture of corruption and to a slightly lesser extent the entire state of Illinois does.

Remember Illinois is the state that half of the death row convicts exonerated before our former govenor (in probably the only decent thing he ever did) shut down the death penalty. Our police, our prosecutors, and our politicians are all corrupt and it applies to both parties.
Click to expand...

Not surprising for the city that harbored Al Capone.
 
Caine said:
Not surprising for the city that harbored Al Capone.
Click to expand...

And helped throw the 1960 presidential election to Kennedy over Nixon, because people that were "housed" in the graveyard came to life that day.

Yeah, Chicago is about as corrupt of a city as they come. That's what happens when father and son are mayor for all but 13 of the last 55 years.
 
What astounds me in Daley's case is the guy keeps getting re-elected in landslides. At least we tossed George Ryan out of the govenor's mansion.
 
Voidwar said:
More video of Cops doing what they do best, bully and lie.

http://www.break.com/index/cop-lies-and-threatens-kid-for-nothing.html

I recall a thread about cops a while back, and I got censored / banned from the thread, because the cops were getting SMEARED in the argument.

In that thread, a major contention of mine was that "probable cause" is just a code word for a cop deciding to violate someone's rights. In this video, we can see the same bullshit. When a kid pulls over to park, he is instantly a "suspicious vehicle" and this cop feels he can do anything he wants to the kid. Sorry, cop dick, your "hard on" is NOT probable cause.
Click to expand...

OMG! This video is sooo ****ing annoying. Who the hell rides around and video tapes himself? This seems like they were really trying to set this cop up. Its really not that hard to set them up, but hey, I love those guys. Cop with the badge and the suit... :spin:

Okok, back on subject. Probable cause? High crime neighborhood? PArked in an empty lot? Could be selling drugs, or getting ready to? They dont know, but they can only assume. For all we know, that guy was getting ready to snipe someone, and video tape the whole thing. Who mouths off to a cop in the first place? G-d forbid a cop has probable cause, but damnit when somethng happens, they all say, where were the police? WHy didnt they do something about it? Gimme a cop any day (guy preferably) and let me feel safer.

You know, we can make a video like this! We can get sum rotating blue lights and a big flashlight to shine in the rearview mirror, and act out some taking!!!
 
My code word is "spread 'em." The ladies love it when I get my nightstick out...:mrgreen:
 
Cassandra the Insidious said:
Thats one of the stupidest things I have seen in awhile. Then again, Im still new here.
Click to expand...

Why??? Human beings as a whole would be more inclined to look the other way when it is their own friends and family. Not to mention from a position of power.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Why??? Human beings as a whole would be more inclined to look the other way when it is their own friends and family. Not to mention from a position of power.
Click to expand...

No, wait! Your right!

It is in my interests to live in a city that I feel is safe enough to raise my children in.

So, I guess I am "Protecting and Serving my Own Interests!"

:rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom