Bad Cop, No Donut

[Andylusion]

No, we do not have to comply

Let me share a little video that we watch in the squad room. It will have us all in stitches every time.



It's about people just like you who THOUGHT they knew the law ... hilarious.

Cool, thugs with badges assaulting people and murdering some with impunity.

You sure do make a good case that the public should respect you gang banging fucks.

You deserve it. You refuse to obey the law, I don't really give a crap what happens to you.

I've had dozens of run ins with police. Never been harmed yet, because I completely cooperating, and respect authority.

You can mock that all you want, but in the end, you get your face smashed in, and rightly so, and I... don't. So which one works? Your plan, or mine?

 

[SavannahMann]

We prosecute military members to the fullest extent of the law, so why are police members let free?

Service members are subject to the UCMJ, while Police are subject to civil and criminal law, with a much stricter standard of proof than the UCMJ.

Police, when found guilty of a crime, are convicted as frequently as other members of the public. However, police are often tried by the press or by public opinion well before any court even convenes and when they are ultimately acquitted or receive a less than harsh sentence there will be public outcry.

We are often bombarded with anecdotal 'evidence' that police just walk free all the time but I could just as easily show stories of recidivist criminals who frequently don't receive convictions or receive lighter than we might like sentences because that's the way our system works. Most people arrested for crimes never see the inside of a prison. Many frequently don't even go to court.

Where police are held to a higher standard is in our off-duty conduct. A DUI conviction would not affect most people's careers. It would end most cops careers. I must explain to my SGT if I even receive a speeding ticket and the SGT will decide if I can keep my qualification to drive a police vehicle. Even accusation of family violence will result in my losing my OST qualification (and being unable to carry a firearm) which means I am only capable of administrative duties until the accusation is heard and dismissed. A conviction of family violence will often end a policeman's career. In most careers your boss wouldn't even know about your domestic issues.

And that's how it should be. Police should be and are held to a higher standard of public conduct that civilians.

Pfui.

Absolute nonsense.

The truth is that the police are protected. The reason is that you know your coworkers. It isn't somebody you are meeting right now. It is someone you know and have trusted with your life. Good old Bob. I know Bob. He was there when we broke up that bar fight. Bob saved my life when that bastard tried to clock me from behind with the pool stick. So Bob roughed up a crook, so what? The crook was a bad guy and deserved it. So Bob stole some money from the drug house we raided. So what the money was going to the police anyway. Or more likely it will be that good old Bob would never do that.

News stories abound with evidence of this. So claiming it is a perception problem is laughable. In California the police threw a beating on a horse thief on camera. What charges did they face? A few faced Assault charges.

The defense for several was they thought that the baddie was being combative.

California Deputies Charged With Assault After Beating Horse Thief on Camera

Why would they think that? Because they heard the other cops shouting "stop resisting" as they beat the man who had finally surrendered. The police are trained to keep shouting that. We've seen plenty of video where that has happened. What we don't know is how often it happens where there is no video.

Held to a higher standard. Pfui.

 

[fncceo]

Good old Bob. I know Bob

I don't work with anyone named Bob -- we have more than a few Singhs.

 

[Buck111]

"Sexual abuse among law enforcement is the number 2 most popular complaint, second only to brutality." Reread that sentence. Cops are NOT your friends. They will beat you and rape and your family members with no remorse.


Courtroom Erupts in Applause as Man Admits to Stabbing Cop Who Molested Him as a Child

Fredericks said that Pegg, a “respected law enforcement officer,” threatened to kill him if he “told anyone about our secret.”


Newton, NJ — A Newton courtroom erupted in “thunderous applause” Wednesday after Clark Fredericks pleaded guilty to stabbing a retired cop who molested him as a young boy.



Fredericks pleaded guilty to passion provocation manslaughter in the brutal slaying of retired correction officer Dennis Pegg three years ago.


Read more at Courtroom Erupts in Applause as Man Admits to Stabbing Cop Who Molested Him as a Child

Read more at Courtroom Erupts in Applause as Man Admits to Stabbing Cop Who Molested Him as a Child

 

[Buck111]

No, we do not have to comply

Let me share a little video that we watch in the squad room. It will have us all in stitches every time.



It's about people just like you who THOUGHT they knew the law ... hilarious.

Cool, thugs with badges assaulting people and murdering some with impunity.

You sure do make a good case that the public should respect you gang banging fucks.

You deserve it. You refuse to obey the law, I don't really give a crap what happens to you.

I've had dozens of run ins with police. Never been harmed yet, because I completely cooperating, and respect authority.

You can mock that all you want, but in the end, you get your face smashed in, and rightly so, and I... don't. So which one works? Your plan, or mine?

My question is simple so there is no reason to dance around it or sidetrack to something else:

Who gives the police "authority" and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?

 

[fncceo]

Who gives the police "authority"

Simple answer, you do. By chosing to live in a lawful society, you chose to have a body with the authority to endorse those laws.

If you choose to enjoy the protection and benefits of a lawful society, you must accept there is a body that enforces that law.

Some people see themselves comfortable living in total anarchy. But, Total anarchy only appeals to those who see themselves able to use it to oppress the weak. In other words, bullies.

Many of those who see police as sanctioned bullies are only angry that the police prevent them from being unsanctioned bullies.

 

[Buck111]

Who gives the police "authority"

Simple answer, you do. By chosing to live in a lawful society, you chose to have a body with the authority to endorse those laws.

If you choose to enjoy the protection and benefits of a lawful society, you must accept there is a body that enforces that law.

Some people see themselves comfortable living in total anarchy. But, Total anarchy only appeals to those who see themselves able to use it to oppress the weak. In other words, bullies.

Many of those who see police as sanctioned bullies are only angry that the police prevent them from being unsanctioned bullies.

First off, cop, I wasn't talking to you.
Second - just like a cop will do - you took part of the question and focused on that, (creating the illusion that you are actually answering the question, when, in reality, you are not).

 

[Andylusion]

Who gives the police "authority"

Simple answer, you do. By chosing to live in a lawful society, you chose to have a body with the authority to endorse those laws.

If you choose to enjoy the protection and benefits of a lawful society, you must accept there is a body that enforces that law.

Some people see themselves comfortable living in total anarchy. But, Total anarchy only appeals to those who see themselves able to use it to oppress the weak. In other words, bullies.

Many of those who see police as sanctioned bullies are only angry that the police prevent them from being unsanctioned bullies.

It's like arguing with a 5-year-old why he can't just have lollipops for breakfast lunch and dinner, isn't it.

It's so obvious to all of us... and like Yiddish to all these people.

About 5 years ago, I was talking to some black guy on this forum I think. I told him if the BLM people ever actually achieve anything, it will result in thousands on thousands of black people dying.

Chicago's murders per year is over 700, most of which are black, and the poor. Yet even now, they still argue with me that their lollipop diet will work, even with the clear cut proof of everything I predicted spelled out like a tape outline on the pavement.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who gives the police "authority"

Simple answer, you do. By chosing to live in a lawful society, you chose to have a body with the authority to endorse those laws.

If you choose to enjoy the protection and benefits of a lawful society, you must accept there is a body that enforces that law.

Some people see themselves comfortable living in total anarchy. But, Total anarchy only appeals to those who see themselves able to use it to oppress the weak. In other words, bullies.

Many of those who see police as sanctioned bullies are only angry that the police prevent them from being unsanctioned bullies.

The Police, like the Mafia are a protection racket. What most people need protection from is the police.

For the first 200 years of this nation, the police were the eyes and ears of the populace at large. The police did not have the power or ability to subdue threats on their own. When their was a threat, the police formed a POSSE from the available citizenry. The police SURE THE HELL were not better armed than the population at large. The police could ONLY act as part of the community, without the force of arms and men from the community, the police had no way to subdue anyone. This system ensured that the police worked FOR the people of the community.

Now we have a military occupying force. The police are not part of the community, they sure the fuck don't "serve" anyone but themselves. They have machine guns, body armor, grenades, and tanks which they use against the public at large with virtually no restraint at all. The main purpose of the police is armed robbery. Asset forfeiture is nothing else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Good old Bob. I know Bob

I don't work with anyone named Bob -- we have more than a few Singhs.

How many Guido's?

 

[esthermoon]

No, we do not have to comply

Let me share a little video that we watch in the squad room. It will have us all in stitches every time.



It's about people just like you who THOUGHT they knew the law ... hilarious.

Cool, thugs with badges assaulting people and murdering some with impunity.

You sure do make a good case that the public should respect you gang banging fucks.

You deserve it. You refuse to obey the law, I don't really give a crap what happens to you.

I've had dozens of run ins with police. Never been harmed yet, because I completely cooperating, and respect authority.

You can mock that all you want, but in the end, you get your face smashed in, and rightly so, and I... don't. So which one works? Your plan, or mine?

My question is simple so there is no reason to dance around it or sidetrack to something else:

Who gives the police "authority" and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?

Well Buck111 all countries in the world need laws and since they have laws they need somebody who protect and uphold these laws
That's why police is everywhere.
You asked "who gives the police authority and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?"
The government gives the police that authority and the government can do this because the Constitution and the other laws give him this power
It's just my view but I think it's pretty correct

 

[Buck111]

No, we do not have to comply

Let me share a little video that we watch in the squad room. It will have us all in stitches every time.



It's about people just like you who THOUGHT they knew the law ... hilarious.

Cool, thugs with badges assaulting people and murdering some with impunity.

You sure do make a good case that the public should respect you gang banging fucks.

You deserve it. You refuse to obey the law, I don't really give a crap what happens to you.

I've had dozens of run ins with police. Never been harmed yet, because I completely cooperating, and respect authority.

You can mock that all you want, but in the end, you get your face smashed in, and rightly so, and I... don't. So which one works? Your plan, or mine?

My question is simple so there is no reason to dance around it or sidetrack to something else:

Who gives the police "authority" and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?

Well Buck111 all countries in the world need laws and since they have laws they need somebody who protect and uphold these laws
That's why police is everywhere.
You asked "who gives the police authority and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?"
The government gives the police that authority and the government can do this because the Constitution and the other laws give him this power
It's just my view but I think it's pretty correct

Thank you, esthermoon, for your contribution. I appreciate your ability to give an opinion without also attacking the person(s) you are addressing.

According to the CONstitution the government derives its powers from the "consent of the governed [people]". "Consent of the governed" would imply that only those who wish to consent will be governed. Unrighteously, if the people do not consent willingly, the government forces their consent through violence or threats of violence. The will of the people, or consent of the governed,does not exist in a police state such as the U.S.A.

"who gives the police authority and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?"
This article/video will answer that question:

Can Individuals Delegate a Right They Don’t Have to the Government? -Video



Jan: Can you properly delegate a right you do not have?

Sen. Inoue: You cannot tax your neighbor, but you can authorize me as a senator to vote for programs that will tax your neighbor…

Jan: Then you think that you can actually delegate a right you do not have? …It is interesting to me how the agent can have more power than the principle. If the principles are the people, and the source [of power] comes from the people, the individuals do not have the right to initiate force against others-

Sen. Inoue: As individuals-

Jan: Well, if they get together then all of the sudden they have the right?

Sen. Inoue: If they authorize the government to do so, yes. If they authorize the government to enter into a war and kill people, that’s a right.

Jan: Where does this right come from if it doesn’t come from the people?

Sen. Inoue: The people through the Constitution.

Jan: The Constitution was made by the people right? So then the people are the source of all legitimate power, so if the people did not have the right to initiate physical force against anybody, then the government cannot have- It seems like there’s a contradiction there as far as if you say that all legitimate governmental power is derived from the people, and you agree that the individual citizens do not have the right to initiate force against other citizens, then it would seem clear that they cannot delegate that right to the government.

Sen. Inoue: Why don’t we just leave it this way, we disagree.


What Jan Helfeld is saying is that if a citizen does not have the right to do something as an individual (like rob their neighbor), then what gives the government the right to rob his neighbor on the citizen’s behalf? If the government derives its power from the people, where does this extra power come from, that the people can never exercise as individuals?

What is so magic about government, that suddenly they can act on an individual’s behalf in a way that the individual could never act on his own? What is so magic about a group of individuals that allows them to rob their neighbor, or initiate force, when said force would always be illegitimate as an individual?

There’s nothing magic about it. It is wrong to initiate force as an individual, and it is also wrong to initiate force as a group, even with approval of the majority. The only legitimate way to take someone’s money (time, labor, wealth) is for them to voluntarily hand it over to you. Otherwise it is theft, even if the government is the robber.

Charity versus taxation is the difference between sex and rape.

Video is in this link:
Can Individuals Delegate a Right They Don’t Have to the Government? -Video

 

[MikeK]

My question is simple so there is no reason to dance around it or sidetrack to something else:

Who gives the police "authority" and how do the givers have the power to give to somebody else something they themselves do not have?

You've asked a good and important question.

The simple answer is some cops do not have lawful authority to do some of the things they do. Some of them know it and some of them don't. The latter category remains in the dark about their limitations until they are taken for a spin by a sharp trial lawyer and made to look stupid on the witness stand.

Responsibility for some cops being misinformed about the limits of their authority often rests with the training they receive, some of which is admirably structured and some of which seems intentionally or carelessly and unintentionally designed by the "givers" to facilitate abuse. But the most common cause of misunderstood and/or ignored authority limitations, as well as the ways and means of circumventing those limitations, is casually referred to as "donut-shop legislation," in which cops who are inclined toward and experienced at manipulating the rules and/or the Law pass on their methods and personal philosophy to receptive rookies.

 

[Buck111]

I have no right to take from one person and give to another. That is theft. Since I do not have that right I cannot give it to somebody else. I cannot give government the power/right to take from you and give to me. That is still theft, therefore it is still wrong and immoral.

I do not have the right to make a person give me money for walking across a street wherever they choose to (jay walking). Therefore I cannot give that right to government, via consent or other means. If it is not mine to give, I cannot give it and government cannot have it.

I cannot give authority to other men (police) to enforce the two examples above, which means I cannot give such powers to government, who allegedly exist solely upon "consent of the governed/people". If I cannot give authority to other men to do harm to others then government can't either.

 

[Buck111]

The CONstitution is a contract which does not bear my signature, making me no party to it.

 

[Buck111]

You can't alter reality by renaming it. Murder is still murder even if you call it an execution. Kidnapping is still kidnapping even if you call it an arrest. Theft is still theft even if you call it a tax. And self-defense against these actions is still self-defense even if you call it a crime.

 

[Buck111]

I do not consent, nor grant authority, to these animals in costumes brutalizing a man that has been subdued and is not resisting. Even if I did agree to it, I would not have the right to delegate consent to the government or the thugs doing the beating.


WATCH: Cop Allegedly Tasers Herself, Then 6 Cops ‘Rodney King’ a Man Lying Down
Read more at WATCH: Cop Allegedly Tasers Herself, Then 6 Cops 'Rodney King' a Man Lying Down

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I cannot give authority to other men (police) to enforce the two examples above, which means I cannot give such powers to government, who allegedly exist solely upon "consent of the governed/people". If I cannot give authority to other men to do harm to others then government can't either.

The fundamental premise of a democracy is rule by majority. If the majority in a democratic society agree to be governed by rules which are subject to the Common Law, and the majority agree that a system of taxation is necessary, unless the Common Law prohibits taxation, then a tax may be imposed based on rules which are approved by the majority.

 

[Buck111]

[...]

I cannot give authority to other men (police) to enforce the two examples above, which means I cannot give such powers to government, who allegedly exist solely upon "consent of the governed/people". If I cannot give authority to other men to do harm to others then government can't either.

The fundamental premise of a democracy is rule by majority. If the majority in a democratic society agree to be governed by rules which are subject to the Common Law, and the majority agree that a system of taxation is necessary, unless the Common Law prohibits taxation, then a tax may be imposed based on rules which are approved by the majority.

The U.S. was allegedly founded as a CONstitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Either way, neither is good. In a democracy, 51% of the people can tell the other 49% how to live; in a republic a few "guardians" tell everybody how to live.

"If the majority in a democratic society agree to be governed by rules..."
I have never agreed to any such theft of my rights to live as a free human being. Nor have you unless you signed a contract or made a binding agreement to give up your powers to a select few to rule over you.

 

[Muhammed]

Just a few bad apples?
30 Cops Arrested Over Weekend For Rape, Child-Molestation, Child-Pornography and Domestic Violence - Counter Current News

Sound like a rotten barrel to me.




Frank Serpico - Wikipedia