Blue Lies Matter: How cops are incentivized to lie — and why they get away with it.

[Andylusion]

[...]

The police as a group, see the illegal search and seizure laws, is immoral and unjust. So do I by the way. Maybe police officers should demoted, or suspended, or even fired, for illegal search and seizure... but no matter what, a criminal should not be released over it. If you find clear proof of crime, the criminal should be punished, no matter what the police did wrong.

[...]

If all or most Americans felt the way you do about the Fourth Amendment our democracy would have dissolved into something resembling East Germany during the USSR era. The illegal search and seizure laws exist for one very important purpose -- to safeguard your privacy and to protect you against carelessly harmful police practices. Discharge of convictable felons because of Fourth Amendment violations is a relatively rare occurrence.

I would argue it's not rare. It's common, because the laws are so strict, that police see people released that harm all of us again. This is why they lie. If they don't criminals would be running the country by now.

I personally, do not believe that the fourth Amendment was ever intended to be used to defend criminals, like the way it is today.

We can argue that, and it could go either way.

But regardless, today it's nothing more than a defense of criminals, that harm and ruin society. The amount of crime in our culture is ridiculous. And honestly, the only reason it exists, is because the cost of this crime is completely hidden from the public.

If you knew how much of the cost of the goods you buy, goes to paying for criminal activity, you'd freak out. If you knew how much money you are not being paid, because the company is paying for stealing and theft, you would freak out.

If all the costs of crime were tallied up in a monthly bill that you had to pay, all of you would stop b!tching about police and the 4th amendment, and you would be forming lynch mobs, and hanging these people.

But because you don't see it, and don't realize it, and live in myth that someone else, somewhere else is paying that cost... you can sit around whining about the 4th amendment and police that lie.

Part of the reason why crime is higher in poor areas, is because crime makes people and society, poor. You want to help the poor? First thing you need to do, is kill the criminals.

Andy, I know the costs of illegality. I know the mark up to cover for the loss to shoplifters. I also know the cost to ignoring things like the 4th Amendment.

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was searching public housing without warrants. They and the housing police claimed that the people who lived in the public housing had for all intents and purposes forfeited their rights to the protections of the Constitution by accepting public housing. They searched without warrants, and without probable cause, and without permission of the residents.

This was wrong. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even if you feel that the motivation was pure, to find and remove weapons, to find and remove drugs, the path required people to become second class citizens. Citizens without protection by the founding documents and principles.

I read an appeals court decision not long ago. One that is being appealed to the Supreme Court. It is not the case I would liked to fight but it's what we have. Part of the appeals decision was that the people who carry concealed must accept that availing themselves of the right to carry a gun means they sacrifice the other rights like the fourth.

I disagree with that argument. My freedom of speech should not and can not limit any other rights. Your second amendment rights do not mean you lose your fourth amendment rights.

If that case is upheld, then anyone who chooses to carry concealed is a second class citizen by law. I objected to the PATRIOT ACT because it weakened the civil rights. The idea that a Federal Agent could give me a letter and instantly I am without my fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment rights was just flat assed wrong.

As I said this case is a bad one to use fighting this battle, but letting it go is even worse. That's why the NRA is involved. Because gun owners across the country stand to have their civil rights waved away. I'm on the NRA's side on this one. I hope they win. Even if winning means a bad guy goes free.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I would support legislation to that effect.

Yes the path to hell is paved with good intentions... .and that's what I think of your views. Our nation is in a downward spiral, and it's because of the views your expressing right here. Every year, things are getting worse, and we've been following your plan to the letter. Every time the police do anything, there's a bunch of people like you attacking them. Are things better now? Or worse? Clearly worse, not better. Look at Chicago. That's your plan in action. Good job. You got the police officer. Well done. See how much better it is?

We're not on my plan our we? So you can't blame me for Chicago, can you?

Andy. One of the big differences between us is this. I would fight for your rights while you would fight to take mine.

Let's talk about Chicago. I'll give you credit, normally police supporters who try to downplay police abuses and misconduct use Chicago a simple an example of why it's all the Democrats fault. Their argument is that Republicans would not allow the misconduct and corruption.

Instead of giving you examples of where absolute police states failed, or waxing about the noble principles behind the Civil Rights. I'm going to make an offer to you.

I propose this compromise. The police will have the absolute power that would result from getting rid of the Civil Rights. Accused will be guilty until proven innocent. No problems with search warrants, the police will be free to search anyone and anything they want. They can set up checkpoints and quiz drivers and pedestrians to their hearts content.

That's what I'll give you. Here is what you have to give me in return. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime, they get one million dollars a day for every single day they were in prison. The police, prosecutors, and judges who found the person guilty, will be executed within 24 hours of the truth becoming known. If DNA evidence exonerates a convicted person, everyone who participated in the conviction is executed within 24 hours.

The old saying as true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a way to prevent that. Accountability. The convex of authority, is responsibility. A Sergeant has authority over the soldiers assigned to him. That authority means that the Sergeant is held to a higher standard, and is responsible for his actions, and the actions of the soldiers. An officer has even more authority, and thus even more responsibility. A crime that would see the soldier drummed out of the service will see an Officer Court Martialed.

The people who scream the loudest if this compromise looked to go into effect would not be the ACLU although they would certainly be screaming. It would be the Police, the Prosecutors, and the Judges. The Police have laws that prevent them from being held responsible. It's called the LEOBR. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. California which has some of the most egregious examples of Police Misconduct also has one of the strongest LEOBR on the books. You can't interview a cop without a lawyer present. He doesn't have to ask for one, if you do interview him without a lawyer then the case is pretty much automatically dismissed.

The police themselves would object to being held accountable for the absolute power that is proposed. They don't follow the rules now, and in the compromise I suggest they wouldn't have any except one. Only those guilty of the crime go to prison. If they care convicted of rape, or murder, and did not commit the rape, or murder, claiming that they were drug dealers later doesn't cut it. If they were sent to prison for Murder, and are exonerated later, the cops are executed the next day. No exceptions, no excuses.

This way, the guilty get punished, by whom I have no idea. Because none of the cops would take the job under those circumstances. Nobody will gamble their life on being right every time. We would devolve into chaos, because the one truth about the history of our world is this. The more power the police have, the less accountability they are subject to. No KGB officer was ever punished for sending an innocent man to the Gulag. No STASI agent was ever punished for lying about an East German citizen.

That is what is really wrong with our system. We aren't holding those with authority responsible for their actions. If they are caught breaking the rules, they escape any punishment in a vast majority of the cases. Sometimes they may resign and get a job doing the same thing at another department. Sometimes they lose a few days or hours of pay. Sometimes they get a letter that says they are a bad boy in a file sealed from discovery by the public or attorneys for the defense.

I offer absolute power, with absolute accountability. If you are willing to risk my life, you should ante your own up to keep the table stakes fair.

I find the examples of police state type tactics abhorrent. But I'm willing to go along, if the absolute power awarded, is met with absolute responsibility.

How many lies would the police tell then, assuming you could find someone dumb enough to take the job? How many times would the police plant evidence? Would the guilty escape punishment in this scenario? Would you be willing to live in such a society?

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

 

[SavannahMann]

If all or most Americans felt the way you do about the Fourth Amendment our democracy would have dissolved into something resembling East Germany during the USSR era. The illegal search and seizure laws exist for one very important purpose -- to safeguard your privacy and to protect you against carelessly harmful police practices. Discharge of convictable felons because of Fourth Amendment violations is a relatively rare occurrence.

I would argue it's not rare. It's common, because the laws are so strict, that police see people released that harm all of us again. This is why they lie. If they don't criminals would be running the country by now.

I personally, do not believe that the fourth Amendment was ever intended to be used to defend criminals, like the way it is today.

We can argue that, and it could go either way.

But regardless, today it's nothing more than a defense of criminals, that harm and ruin society. The amount of crime in our culture is ridiculous. And honestly, the only reason it exists, is because the cost of this crime is completely hidden from the public.

If you knew how much of the cost of the goods you buy, goes to paying for criminal activity, you'd freak out. If you knew how much money you are not being paid, because the company is paying for stealing and theft, you would freak out.

If all the costs of crime were tallied up in a monthly bill that you had to pay, all of you would stop b!tching about police and the 4th amendment, and you would be forming lynch mobs, and hanging these people.

But because you don't see it, and don't realize it, and live in myth that someone else, somewhere else is paying that cost... you can sit around whining about the 4th amendment and police that lie.

Part of the reason why crime is higher in poor areas, is because crime makes people and society, poor. You want to help the poor? First thing you need to do, is kill the criminals.

Andy, I know the costs of illegality. I know the mark up to cover for the loss to shoplifters. I also know the cost to ignoring things like the 4th Amendment.

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was searching public housing without warrants. They and the housing police claimed that the people who lived in the public housing had for all intents and purposes forfeited their rights to the protections of the Constitution by accepting public housing. They searched without warrants, and without probable cause, and without permission of the residents.

This was wrong. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even if you feel that the motivation was pure, to find and remove weapons, to find and remove drugs, the path required people to become second class citizens. Citizens without protection by the founding documents and principles.

I read an appeals court decision not long ago. One that is being appealed to the Supreme Court. It is not the case I would liked to fight but it's what we have. Part of the appeals decision was that the people who carry concealed must accept that availing themselves of the right to carry a gun means they sacrifice the other rights like the fourth.

I disagree with that argument. My freedom of speech should not and can not limit any other rights. Your second amendment rights do not mean you lose your fourth amendment rights.

If that case is upheld, then anyone who chooses to carry concealed is a second class citizen by law. I objected to the PATRIOT ACT because it weakened the civil rights. The idea that a Federal Agent could give me a letter and instantly I am without my fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment rights was just flat assed wrong.

As I said this case is a bad one to use fighting this battle, but letting it go is even worse. That's why the NRA is involved. Because gun owners across the country stand to have their civil rights waved away. I'm on the NRA's side on this one. I hope they win. Even if winning means a bad guy goes free.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I would support legislation to that effect.

Yes the path to hell is paved with good intentions... .and that's what I think of your views. Our nation is in a downward spiral, and it's because of the views your expressing right here. Every year, things are getting worse, and we've been following your plan to the letter. Every time the police do anything, there's a bunch of people like you attacking them. Are things better now? Or worse? Clearly worse, not better. Look at Chicago. That's your plan in action. Good job. You got the police officer. Well done. See how much better it is?

We're not on my plan our we? So you can't blame me for Chicago, can you?

Andy. One of the big differences between us is this. I would fight for your rights while you would fight to take mine.

Let's talk about Chicago. I'll give you credit, normally police supporters who try to downplay police abuses and misconduct use Chicago a simple an example of why it's all the Democrats fault. Their argument is that Republicans would not allow the misconduct and corruption.

Instead of giving you examples of where absolute police states failed, or waxing about the noble principles behind the Civil Rights. I'm going to make an offer to you.

I propose this compromise. The police will have the absolute power that would result from getting rid of the Civil Rights. Accused will be guilty until proven innocent. No problems with search warrants, the police will be free to search anyone and anything they want. They can set up checkpoints and quiz drivers and pedestrians to their hearts content.

That's what I'll give you. Here is what you have to give me in return. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime, they get one million dollars a day for every single day they were in prison. The police, prosecutors, and judges who found the person guilty, will be executed within 24 hours of the truth becoming known. If DNA evidence exonerates a convicted person, everyone who participated in the conviction is executed within 24 hours.

The old saying as true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a way to prevent that. Accountability. The convex of authority, is responsibility. A Sergeant has authority over the soldiers assigned to him. That authority means that the Sergeant is held to a higher standard, and is responsible for his actions, and the actions of the soldiers. An officer has even more authority, and thus even more responsibility. A crime that would see the soldier drummed out of the service will see an Officer Court Martialed.

The people who scream the loudest if this compromise looked to go into effect would not be the ACLU although they would certainly be screaming. It would be the Police, the Prosecutors, and the Judges. The Police have laws that prevent them from being held responsible. It's called the LEOBR. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. California which has some of the most egregious examples of Police Misconduct also has one of the strongest LEOBR on the books. You can't interview a cop without a lawyer present. He doesn't have to ask for one, if you do interview him without a lawyer then the case is pretty much automatically dismissed.

The police themselves would object to being held accountable for the absolute power that is proposed. They don't follow the rules now, and in the compromise I suggest they wouldn't have any except one. Only those guilty of the crime go to prison. If they care convicted of rape, or murder, and did not commit the rape, or murder, claiming that they were drug dealers later doesn't cut it. If they were sent to prison for Murder, and are exonerated later, the cops are executed the next day. No exceptions, no excuses.

This way, the guilty get punished, by whom I have no idea. Because none of the cops would take the job under those circumstances. Nobody will gamble their life on being right every time. We would devolve into chaos, because the one truth about the history of our world is this. The more power the police have, the less accountability they are subject to. No KGB officer was ever punished for sending an innocent man to the Gulag. No STASI agent was ever punished for lying about an East German citizen.

That is what is really wrong with our system. We aren't holding those with authority responsible for their actions. If they are caught breaking the rules, they escape any punishment in a vast majority of the cases. Sometimes they may resign and get a job doing the same thing at another department. Sometimes they lose a few days or hours of pay. Sometimes they get a letter that says they are a bad boy in a file sealed from discovery by the public or attorneys for the defense.

I offer absolute power, with absolute accountability. If you are willing to risk my life, you should ante your own up to keep the table stakes fair.

I find the examples of police state type tactics abhorrent. But I'm willing to go along, if the absolute power awarded, is met with absolute responsibility.

How many lies would the police tell then, assuming you could find someone dumb enough to take the job? How many times would the police plant evidence? Would the guilty escape punishment in this scenario? Would you be willing to live in such a society?

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

 

[Andylusion]

I would argue it's not rare. It's common, because the laws are so strict, that police see people released that harm all of us again. This is why they lie. If they don't criminals would be running the country by now.

I personally, do not believe that the fourth Amendment was ever intended to be used to defend criminals, like the way it is today.

We can argue that, and it could go either way.

But regardless, today it's nothing more than a defense of criminals, that harm and ruin society. The amount of crime in our culture is ridiculous. And honestly, the only reason it exists, is because the cost of this crime is completely hidden from the public.

If you knew how much of the cost of the goods you buy, goes to paying for criminal activity, you'd freak out. If you knew how much money you are not being paid, because the company is paying for stealing and theft, you would freak out.

If all the costs of crime were tallied up in a monthly bill that you had to pay, all of you would stop b!tching about police and the 4th amendment, and you would be forming lynch mobs, and hanging these people.

But because you don't see it, and don't realize it, and live in myth that someone else, somewhere else is paying that cost... you can sit around whining about the 4th amendment and police that lie.

Part of the reason why crime is higher in poor areas, is because crime makes people and society, poor. You want to help the poor? First thing you need to do, is kill the criminals.

Andy, I know the costs of illegality. I know the mark up to cover for the loss to shoplifters. I also know the cost to ignoring things like the 4th Amendment.

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was searching public housing without warrants. They and the housing police claimed that the people who lived in the public housing had for all intents and purposes forfeited their rights to the protections of the Constitution by accepting public housing. They searched without warrants, and without probable cause, and without permission of the residents.

This was wrong. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even if you feel that the motivation was pure, to find and remove weapons, to find and remove drugs, the path required people to become second class citizens. Citizens without protection by the founding documents and principles.

I read an appeals court decision not long ago. One that is being appealed to the Supreme Court. It is not the case I would liked to fight but it's what we have. Part of the appeals decision was that the people who carry concealed must accept that availing themselves of the right to carry a gun means they sacrifice the other rights like the fourth.

I disagree with that argument. My freedom of speech should not and can not limit any other rights. Your second amendment rights do not mean you lose your fourth amendment rights.

If that case is upheld, then anyone who chooses to carry concealed is a second class citizen by law. I objected to the PATRIOT ACT because it weakened the civil rights. The idea that a Federal Agent could give me a letter and instantly I am without my fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment rights was just flat assed wrong.

As I said this case is a bad one to use fighting this battle, but letting it go is even worse. That's why the NRA is involved. Because gun owners across the country stand to have their civil rights waved away. I'm on the NRA's side on this one. I hope they win. Even if winning means a bad guy goes free.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I would support legislation to that effect.

Yes the path to hell is paved with good intentions... .and that's what I think of your views. Our nation is in a downward spiral, and it's because of the views your expressing right here. Every year, things are getting worse, and we've been following your plan to the letter. Every time the police do anything, there's a bunch of people like you attacking them. Are things better now? Or worse? Clearly worse, not better. Look at Chicago. That's your plan in action. Good job. You got the police officer. Well done. See how much better it is?

We're not on my plan our we? So you can't blame me for Chicago, can you?

Andy. One of the big differences between us is this. I would fight for your rights while you would fight to take mine.

Let's talk about Chicago. I'll give you credit, normally police supporters who try to downplay police abuses and misconduct use Chicago a simple an example of why it's all the Democrats fault. Their argument is that Republicans would not allow the misconduct and corruption.

Instead of giving you examples of where absolute police states failed, or waxing about the noble principles behind the Civil Rights. I'm going to make an offer to you.

I propose this compromise. The police will have the absolute power that would result from getting rid of the Civil Rights. Accused will be guilty until proven innocent. No problems with search warrants, the police will be free to search anyone and anything they want. They can set up checkpoints and quiz drivers and pedestrians to their hearts content.

That's what I'll give you. Here is what you have to give me in return. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime, they get one million dollars a day for every single day they were in prison. The police, prosecutors, and judges who found the person guilty, will be executed within 24 hours of the truth becoming known. If DNA evidence exonerates a convicted person, everyone who participated in the conviction is executed within 24 hours.

The old saying as true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a way to prevent that. Accountability. The convex of authority, is responsibility. A Sergeant has authority over the soldiers assigned to him. That authority means that the Sergeant is held to a higher standard, and is responsible for his actions, and the actions of the soldiers. An officer has even more authority, and thus even more responsibility. A crime that would see the soldier drummed out of the service will see an Officer Court Martialed.

The people who scream the loudest if this compromise looked to go into effect would not be the ACLU although they would certainly be screaming. It would be the Police, the Prosecutors, and the Judges. The Police have laws that prevent them from being held responsible. It's called the LEOBR. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. California which has some of the most egregious examples of Police Misconduct also has one of the strongest LEOBR on the books. You can't interview a cop without a lawyer present. He doesn't have to ask for one, if you do interview him without a lawyer then the case is pretty much automatically dismissed.

The police themselves would object to being held accountable for the absolute power that is proposed. They don't follow the rules now, and in the compromise I suggest they wouldn't have any except one. Only those guilty of the crime go to prison. If they care convicted of rape, or murder, and did not commit the rape, or murder, claiming that they were drug dealers later doesn't cut it. If they were sent to prison for Murder, and are exonerated later, the cops are executed the next day. No exceptions, no excuses.

This way, the guilty get punished, by whom I have no idea. Because none of the cops would take the job under those circumstances. Nobody will gamble their life on being right every time. We would devolve into chaos, because the one truth about the history of our world is this. The more power the police have, the less accountability they are subject to. No KGB officer was ever punished for sending an innocent man to the Gulag. No STASI agent was ever punished for lying about an East German citizen.

That is what is really wrong with our system. We aren't holding those with authority responsible for their actions. If they are caught breaking the rules, they escape any punishment in a vast majority of the cases. Sometimes they may resign and get a job doing the same thing at another department. Sometimes they lose a few days or hours of pay. Sometimes they get a letter that says they are a bad boy in a file sealed from discovery by the public or attorneys for the defense.

I offer absolute power, with absolute accountability. If you are willing to risk my life, you should ante your own up to keep the table stakes fair.

I find the examples of police state type tactics abhorrent. But I'm willing to go along, if the absolute power awarded, is met with absolute responsibility.

How many lies would the police tell then, assuming you could find someone dumb enough to take the job? How many times would the police plant evidence? Would the guilty escape punishment in this scenario? Would you be willing to live in such a society?

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

 

[SavannahMann]

Andy, I know the costs of illegality. I know the mark up to cover for the loss to shoplifters. I also know the cost to ignoring things like the 4th Amendment.

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was searching public housing without warrants. They and the housing police claimed that the people who lived in the public housing had for all intents and purposes forfeited their rights to the protections of the Constitution by accepting public housing. They searched without warrants, and without probable cause, and without permission of the residents.

This was wrong. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even if you feel that the motivation was pure, to find and remove weapons, to find and remove drugs, the path required people to become second class citizens. Citizens without protection by the founding documents and principles.

I read an appeals court decision not long ago. One that is being appealed to the Supreme Court. It is not the case I would liked to fight but it's what we have. Part of the appeals decision was that the people who carry concealed must accept that availing themselves of the right to carry a gun means they sacrifice the other rights like the fourth.

I disagree with that argument. My freedom of speech should not and can not limit any other rights. Your second amendment rights do not mean you lose your fourth amendment rights.

If that case is upheld, then anyone who chooses to carry concealed is a second class citizen by law. I objected to the PATRIOT ACT because it weakened the civil rights. The idea that a Federal Agent could give me a letter and instantly I am without my fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment rights was just flat assed wrong.

As I said this case is a bad one to use fighting this battle, but letting it go is even worse. That's why the NRA is involved. Because gun owners across the country stand to have their civil rights waved away. I'm on the NRA's side on this one. I hope they win. Even if winning means a bad guy goes free.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I would support legislation to that effect.

Yes the path to hell is paved with good intentions... .and that's what I think of your views. Our nation is in a downward spiral, and it's because of the views your expressing right here. Every year, things are getting worse, and we've been following your plan to the letter. Every time the police do anything, there's a bunch of people like you attacking them. Are things better now? Or worse? Clearly worse, not better. Look at Chicago. That's your plan in action. Good job. You got the police officer. Well done. See how much better it is?

We're not on my plan our we? So you can't blame me for Chicago, can you?

Andy. One of the big differences between us is this. I would fight for your rights while you would fight to take mine.

Let's talk about Chicago. I'll give you credit, normally police supporters who try to downplay police abuses and misconduct use Chicago a simple an example of why it's all the Democrats fault. Their argument is that Republicans would not allow the misconduct and corruption.

Instead of giving you examples of where absolute police states failed, or waxing about the noble principles behind the Civil Rights. I'm going to make an offer to you.

I propose this compromise. The police will have the absolute power that would result from getting rid of the Civil Rights. Accused will be guilty until proven innocent. No problems with search warrants, the police will be free to search anyone and anything they want. They can set up checkpoints and quiz drivers and pedestrians to their hearts content.

That's what I'll give you. Here is what you have to give me in return. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime, they get one million dollars a day for every single day they were in prison. The police, prosecutors, and judges who found the person guilty, will be executed within 24 hours of the truth becoming known. If DNA evidence exonerates a convicted person, everyone who participated in the conviction is executed within 24 hours.

The old saying as true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a way to prevent that. Accountability. The convex of authority, is responsibility. A Sergeant has authority over the soldiers assigned to him. That authority means that the Sergeant is held to a higher standard, and is responsible for his actions, and the actions of the soldiers. An officer has even more authority, and thus even more responsibility. A crime that would see the soldier drummed out of the service will see an Officer Court Martialed.

The people who scream the loudest if this compromise looked to go into effect would not be the ACLU although they would certainly be screaming. It would be the Police, the Prosecutors, and the Judges. The Police have laws that prevent them from being held responsible. It's called the LEOBR. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. California which has some of the most egregious examples of Police Misconduct also has one of the strongest LEOBR on the books. You can't interview a cop without a lawyer present. He doesn't have to ask for one, if you do interview him without a lawyer then the case is pretty much automatically dismissed.

The police themselves would object to being held accountable for the absolute power that is proposed. They don't follow the rules now, and in the compromise I suggest they wouldn't have any except one. Only those guilty of the crime go to prison. If they care convicted of rape, or murder, and did not commit the rape, or murder, claiming that they were drug dealers later doesn't cut it. If they were sent to prison for Murder, and are exonerated later, the cops are executed the next day. No exceptions, no excuses.

This way, the guilty get punished, by whom I have no idea. Because none of the cops would take the job under those circumstances. Nobody will gamble their life on being right every time. We would devolve into chaos, because the one truth about the history of our world is this. The more power the police have, the less accountability they are subject to. No KGB officer was ever punished for sending an innocent man to the Gulag. No STASI agent was ever punished for lying about an East German citizen.

That is what is really wrong with our system. We aren't holding those with authority responsible for their actions. If they are caught breaking the rules, they escape any punishment in a vast majority of the cases. Sometimes they may resign and get a job doing the same thing at another department. Sometimes they lose a few days or hours of pay. Sometimes they get a letter that says they are a bad boy in a file sealed from discovery by the public or attorneys for the defense.

I offer absolute power, with absolute accountability. If you are willing to risk my life, you should ante your own up to keep the table stakes fair.

I find the examples of police state type tactics abhorrent. But I'm willing to go along, if the absolute power awarded, is met with absolute responsibility.

How many lies would the police tell then, assuming you could find someone dumb enough to take the job? How many times would the police plant evidence? Would the guilty escape punishment in this scenario? Would you be willing to live in such a society?

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

You said that people in public housing should forfeit their civil rights. You said you would support that.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I gave you that everywhere. I had to quote it because later you will swear you never said such a thing. Later being in three minutes. Andy. I'm Not surprised. Being a full bird colonel in the keyboard commandos threats are easy for you. But the truth is you are a blowhard. I would be surprised if you could lift a twig. So save your masturbation fantasies for another message board.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I would support legislation to that effect.

Yes the path to hell is paved with good intentions... .and that's what I think of your views. Our nation is in a downward spiral, and it's because of the views your expressing right here. Every year, things are getting worse, and we've been following your plan to the letter. Every time the police do anything, there's a bunch of people like you attacking them. Are things better now? Or worse? Clearly worse, not better. Look at Chicago. That's your plan in action. Good job. You got the police officer. Well done. See how much better it is?

We're not on my plan our we? So you can't blame me for Chicago, can you?

Andy. One of the big differences between us is this. I would fight for your rights while you would fight to take mine.

Let's talk about Chicago. I'll give you credit, normally police supporters who try to downplay police abuses and misconduct use Chicago a simple an example of why it's all the Democrats fault. Their argument is that Republicans would not allow the misconduct and corruption.

Instead of giving you examples of where absolute police states failed, or waxing about the noble principles behind the Civil Rights. I'm going to make an offer to you.

I propose this compromise. The police will have the absolute power that would result from getting rid of the Civil Rights. Accused will be guilty until proven innocent. No problems with search warrants, the police will be free to search anyone and anything they want. They can set up checkpoints and quiz drivers and pedestrians to their hearts content.

That's what I'll give you. Here is what you have to give me in return. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime, they get one million dollars a day for every single day they were in prison. The police, prosecutors, and judges who found the person guilty, will be executed within 24 hours of the truth becoming known. If DNA evidence exonerates a convicted person, everyone who participated in the conviction is executed within 24 hours.

The old saying as true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a way to prevent that. Accountability. The convex of authority, is responsibility. A Sergeant has authority over the soldiers assigned to him. That authority means that the Sergeant is held to a higher standard, and is responsible for his actions, and the actions of the soldiers. An officer has even more authority, and thus even more responsibility. A crime that would see the soldier drummed out of the service will see an Officer Court Martialed.

The people who scream the loudest if this compromise looked to go into effect would not be the ACLU although they would certainly be screaming. It would be the Police, the Prosecutors, and the Judges. The Police have laws that prevent them from being held responsible. It's called the LEOBR. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. California which has some of the most egregious examples of Police Misconduct also has one of the strongest LEOBR on the books. You can't interview a cop without a lawyer present. He doesn't have to ask for one, if you do interview him without a lawyer then the case is pretty much automatically dismissed.

The police themselves would object to being held accountable for the absolute power that is proposed. They don't follow the rules now, and in the compromise I suggest they wouldn't have any except one. Only those guilty of the crime go to prison. If they care convicted of rape, or murder, and did not commit the rape, or murder, claiming that they were drug dealers later doesn't cut it. If they were sent to prison for Murder, and are exonerated later, the cops are executed the next day. No exceptions, no excuses.

This way, the guilty get punished, by whom I have no idea. Because none of the cops would take the job under those circumstances. Nobody will gamble their life on being right every time. We would devolve into chaos, because the one truth about the history of our world is this. The more power the police have, the less accountability they are subject to. No KGB officer was ever punished for sending an innocent man to the Gulag. No STASI agent was ever punished for lying about an East German citizen.

That is what is really wrong with our system. We aren't holding those with authority responsible for their actions. If they are caught breaking the rules, they escape any punishment in a vast majority of the cases. Sometimes they may resign and get a job doing the same thing at another department. Sometimes they lose a few days or hours of pay. Sometimes they get a letter that says they are a bad boy in a file sealed from discovery by the public or attorneys for the defense.

I offer absolute power, with absolute accountability. If you are willing to risk my life, you should ante your own up to keep the table stakes fair.

I find the examples of police state type tactics abhorrent. But I'm willing to go along, if the absolute power awarded, is met with absolute responsibility.

How many lies would the police tell then, assuming you could find someone dumb enough to take the job? How many times would the police plant evidence? Would the guilty escape punishment in this scenario? Would you be willing to live in such a society?

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

You said that people in public housing should forfeit their civil rights. You said you would support that.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I gave you that everywhere. I had to quote it because later you will swear you never said such a thing. Later being in three minutes. Andy. I'm Not surprised. Being a full bird colonel in the keyboard commandos threats are easy for you. But the truth is you are a blowhard. I would be surprised if you could lift a twig. So save your masturbation fantasies for another message board.

Ugh. Keep switching the topic of this discussion. The primary discussion of this thread, is the OP, and in the context of the video where a guy was found with a gun by the police, while committing an illegal act.

Back to the housing deal..... You don't own that housing. That is public housing. That house is not yours, you don't own it. The public owns that house.

If you borrow my car.... can I search *MY* car? Yes I can. It's my car. I own it. You have no 'right' to some mythical privacy in a car you don't own. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from searching MY car.

That house is public housing. The public has a right to search it's housing to see you are not using it for illegal purposes. When you buy your own house, ok. The police can't just walk on YOUR property and start rummaging through your stuff. I get that.

We're not talking about that. You don't own jack. So I fully support the police going through public property whenever they feel the need. Don't like that? Buy your own place.

Better yet, stop committing crime, and then let the police search your stuff all they want.

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house. Your rights to your property, are not there if it's not your property. Public housing is not your property. You don't have any 'rights' to prevent police form searching something you don't own.

 

[SavannahMann]

Andy. One of the big differences between us is this. I would fight for your rights while you would fight to take mine.

Let's talk about Chicago. I'll give you credit, normally police supporters who try to downplay police abuses and misconduct use Chicago a simple an example of why it's all the Democrats fault. Their argument is that Republicans would not allow the misconduct and corruption.

Instead of giving you examples of where absolute police states failed, or waxing about the noble principles behind the Civil Rights. I'm going to make an offer to you.

I propose this compromise. The police will have the absolute power that would result from getting rid of the Civil Rights. Accused will be guilty until proven innocent. No problems with search warrants, the police will be free to search anyone and anything they want. They can set up checkpoints and quiz drivers and pedestrians to their hearts content.

That's what I'll give you. Here is what you have to give me in return. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime, they get one million dollars a day for every single day they were in prison. The police, prosecutors, and judges who found the person guilty, will be executed within 24 hours of the truth becoming known. If DNA evidence exonerates a convicted person, everyone who participated in the conviction is executed within 24 hours.

The old saying as true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a way to prevent that. Accountability. The convex of authority, is responsibility. A Sergeant has authority over the soldiers assigned to him. That authority means that the Sergeant is held to a higher standard, and is responsible for his actions, and the actions of the soldiers. An officer has even more authority, and thus even more responsibility. A crime that would see the soldier drummed out of the service will see an Officer Court Martialed.

The people who scream the loudest if this compromise looked to go into effect would not be the ACLU although they would certainly be screaming. It would be the Police, the Prosecutors, and the Judges. The Police have laws that prevent them from being held responsible. It's called the LEOBR. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. California which has some of the most egregious examples of Police Misconduct also has one of the strongest LEOBR on the books. You can't interview a cop without a lawyer present. He doesn't have to ask for one, if you do interview him without a lawyer then the case is pretty much automatically dismissed.

The police themselves would object to being held accountable for the absolute power that is proposed. They don't follow the rules now, and in the compromise I suggest they wouldn't have any except one. Only those guilty of the crime go to prison. If they care convicted of rape, or murder, and did not commit the rape, or murder, claiming that they were drug dealers later doesn't cut it. If they were sent to prison for Murder, and are exonerated later, the cops are executed the next day. No exceptions, no excuses.

This way, the guilty get punished, by whom I have no idea. Because none of the cops would take the job under those circumstances. Nobody will gamble their life on being right every time. We would devolve into chaos, because the one truth about the history of our world is this. The more power the police have, the less accountability they are subject to. No KGB officer was ever punished for sending an innocent man to the Gulag. No STASI agent was ever punished for lying about an East German citizen.

That is what is really wrong with our system. We aren't holding those with authority responsible for their actions. If they are caught breaking the rules, they escape any punishment in a vast majority of the cases. Sometimes they may resign and get a job doing the same thing at another department. Sometimes they lose a few days or hours of pay. Sometimes they get a letter that says they are a bad boy in a file sealed from discovery by the public or attorneys for the defense.

I offer absolute power, with absolute accountability. If you are willing to risk my life, you should ante your own up to keep the table stakes fair.

I find the examples of police state type tactics abhorrent. But I'm willing to go along, if the absolute power awarded, is met with absolute responsibility.

How many lies would the police tell then, assuming you could find someone dumb enough to take the job? How many times would the police plant evidence? Would the guilty escape punishment in this scenario? Would you be willing to live in such a society?

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

You said that people in public housing should forfeit their civil rights. You said you would support that.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I gave you that everywhere. I had to quote it because later you will swear you never said such a thing. Later being in three minutes. Andy. I'm Not surprised. Being a full bird colonel in the keyboard commandos threats are easy for you. But the truth is you are a blowhard. I would be surprised if you could lift a twig. So save your masturbation fantasies for another message board.

Ugh. Keep switching the topic of this discussion. The primary discussion of this thread, is the OP, and in the context of the video where a guy was found with a gun by the police, while committing an illegal act.

Back to the housing deal..... You don't own that housing. That is public housing. That house is not yours, you don't own it. The public owns that house.

If you borrow my car.... can I search *MY* car? Yes I can. It's my car. I own it. You have no 'right' to some mythical privacy in a car you don't own. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from searching MY car.

That house is public housing. The public has a right to search it's housing to see you are not using it for illegal purposes. When you buy your own house, ok. The police can't just walk on YOUR property and start rummaging through your stuff. I get that.

We're not talking about that. You don't own jack. So I fully support the police going through public property whenever they feel the need. Don't like that? Buy your own place.

Better yet, stop committing crime, and then let the police search your stuff all they want.

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house. Your rights to your property, are not there if it's not your property. Public housing is not your property. You don't have any 'rights' to prevent police form searching something you don't own.

Awww. I'm disappointed. No threat to beat me, nor fantasy to have the cops nail me to the wall. Did you run out of lotion?

Let's face facts. You are an authoritarian who must have flunked even basic Civics. You are utterly ignorant of any history much less the thoughts of the founders. I doubt you have ever seen the Federalist Papers, much less read even the cliffs notes.

So go back to watching NCIS or America's roughest cops and wait for your Amazon delivery of more lotion. Perhaps you could iron your keyboard commando uniform, I bet you have medals across the chest, over the shoulder, and down the back.

 

[MikeK]

Does “armed” automatically equal “dangerous” in a court of law? - Hot Air

It is a terrible case to decide the issue on.

Thanks for the link.

What specious, convoluted nonsense these privileged boobs are capable of conjuring. So many judges it seems are in serious need of a brief refresher on Original Intent to nudge them back onto the straight, narrow and sensible.

What a shame it is we are at the mercy of such empowered nitwits. Just for the casual hell of it I would like to hear Donald Trump's opinion of this decision.

 

[SavannahMann]

Does “armed” automatically equal “dangerous” in a court of law? - Hot Air

It is a terrible case to decide the issue on.

Thanks for the link.

What specious, convoluted nonsense these privileged boobs are capable of conjuring. So many judges it seems are in serious need of a brief refresher on Original Intent to nudge them back onto the straight, narrow and sensible.

What a shame it is we are at the mercy of such empowered nitwits. Just for the casual hell of it I would like to hear Donald Trump's opinion of this decision.

I mentioned a couple times. I don't like the case. But I'm not willing to sacrifice the legal gun owners rights to get one more baddie off the street.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

If you borrow my car.... can I search *MY* car? Yes I can. It's my car. I own it. You have no 'right' to some mythical privacy in a car you don't own. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from searching MY car.

[...]

That is not a valid analogy because of the vast difference between the rules pertaining to domicile and such possessions as automobiles.

Where the power of law-enforcement is concerned, the Castle Doctrine imparts a special significance to the place which one calls home, whether it be owned, rented or assigned by some charitable arrangement. While I don't know what part of the Nation you are referring to I can tell you that in New York City, where public housing projects are patrolled by a specially designated and fully empowered police force, those police do not have the authority to search at will.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house.

[...]

What part of America are you talking about? In New York, New Jersey, and in every other part of the U.S. I'm aware of, so long as the rent is paid up to date a landlord has no such rights. In fact, in New York, even if the rent is overdue a landlord must obtain permission from a court to forcibly enter his own property, which could take months.

 

[SavannahMann]

[...]

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house.

[...]

What part of America are you talking about? In New York, New Jersey, and in every other part of the U.S. I'm aware of, so long as the rent is paid up to date a landlord has no such rights. In fact, in New York, even if the rent is overdue a landlord must obtain permission from a court to forcibly enter his own property, which could take months.

Easy. Andy will next swear he never said any such thing. If the mealy mouthed people of the world don't agree with his worldview he wants them to be punished. Andy is so authoritarian the Kaiser would have told him to chill a bit.

In short, Andy has issues.

 

[MikeK]

Easy. Andy will next swear he never said any such thing. If the mealy mouthed people of the world don't agree with his worldview he wants them to be punished. Andy is so authoritarian the Kaiser would have told him to chill a bit.

In short, Andy has issues.

He sees the world the way he wants it to be. The way it really is does not matter. His pseudonym refers to his psychic condition, which is delusional.

If Andy isn't a cop he has missed his calling and sublime happiness awaits him at the nearest civil service employment center.

 

[MikeK]

I remember reading about why police lie, years ago. Nothing has changed. The problem is, you have to put yourself in the place of a police officer, to understand. From the outside, a brainless person would conclude all police are evil. That's not true.

[...]

I fully agree that all police are not evil. But there are some really bad ones who manage to survive in the job because of the blue wall of silence and whose inclination for misconduct tends to promote development of bad habits by other cops.

 

[Andylusion]

No, you would not fight for my rights. You have admitted as much.

If a man raped and murdered my daughter, and then shot me and left me paralyzed for life.... if the police found the guy, found the knife, and found the gun, and found DNA evidence on both... but failed to get some warrant..... or made a mistake in handling the evidence, or lied on a police report about something irrelevant.... you would fight tooth an nail to deny me justice, and my daughter justice, and you would fight to bitter end to protect the criminal.

You would never fight for my rights. You would fight to deny my rights to justice. You have admitted this a dozen times in this thread. Unlike you, I don't have to make up stuff you didn't say. I cite your own posts as proof of my accusation against you.

You left-wingers sit around claiming to be for the people, while doing everything you can to harm the people. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly with me buddy.

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

You said that people in public housing should forfeit their civil rights. You said you would support that.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I gave you that everywhere. I had to quote it because later you will swear you never said such a thing. Later being in three minutes. Andy. I'm Not surprised. Being a full bird colonel in the keyboard commandos threats are easy for you. But the truth is you are a blowhard. I would be surprised if you could lift a twig. So save your masturbation fantasies for another message board.

Ugh. Keep switching the topic of this discussion. The primary discussion of this thread, is the OP, and in the context of the video where a guy was found with a gun by the police, while committing an illegal act.

Back to the housing deal..... You don't own that housing. That is public housing. That house is not yours, you don't own it. The public owns that house.

If you borrow my car.... can I search *MY* car? Yes I can. It's my car. I own it. You have no 'right' to some mythical privacy in a car you don't own. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from searching MY car.

That house is public housing. The public has a right to search it's housing to see you are not using it for illegal purposes. When you buy your own house, ok. The police can't just walk on YOUR property and start rummaging through your stuff. I get that.

We're not talking about that. You don't own jack. So I fully support the police going through public property whenever they feel the need. Don't like that? Buy your own place.

Better yet, stop committing crime, and then let the police search your stuff all they want.

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house. Your rights to your property, are not there if it's not your property. Public housing is not your property. You don't have any 'rights' to prevent police form searching something you don't own.

Awww. I'm disappointed. No threat to beat me, nor fantasy to have the cops nail me to the wall. Did you run out of lotion?

Let's face facts. You are an authoritarian who must have flunked even basic Civics. You are utterly ignorant of any history much less the thoughts of the founders. I doubt you have ever seen the Federalist Papers, much less read even the cliffs notes.

So go back to watching NCIS or America's roughest cops and wait for your Amazon delivery of more lotion. Perhaps you could iron your keyboard commando uniform, I bet you have medals across the chest, over the shoulder, and down the back.

One difference between us is that you have completely fulfilled every expectation I had of you. Lame attempts at insults. Lacking in every attempt at an argument. Failed multiple tries at changing the topic, and of course the straw man "make up what the other person said" style of debating I fully expected from you.

 

[SavannahMann]

So that would be a no on the compromise offer.

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

You said that people in public housing should forfeit their civil rights. You said you would support that.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I gave you that everywhere. I had to quote it because later you will swear you never said such a thing. Later being in three minutes. Andy. I'm Not surprised. Being a full bird colonel in the keyboard commandos threats are easy for you. But the truth is you are a blowhard. I would be surprised if you could lift a twig. So save your masturbation fantasies for another message board.

Ugh. Keep switching the topic of this discussion. The primary discussion of this thread, is the OP, and in the context of the video where a guy was found with a gun by the police, while committing an illegal act.

Back to the housing deal..... You don't own that housing. That is public housing. That house is not yours, you don't own it. The public owns that house.

If you borrow my car.... can I search *MY* car? Yes I can. It's my car. I own it. You have no 'right' to some mythical privacy in a car you don't own. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from searching MY car.

That house is public housing. The public has a right to search it's housing to see you are not using it for illegal purposes. When you buy your own house, ok. The police can't just walk on YOUR property and start rummaging through your stuff. I get that.

We're not talking about that. You don't own jack. So I fully support the police going through public property whenever they feel the need. Don't like that? Buy your own place.

Better yet, stop committing crime, and then let the police search your stuff all they want.

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house. Your rights to your property, are not there if it's not your property. Public housing is not your property. You don't have any 'rights' to prevent police form searching something you don't own.

Awww. I'm disappointed. No threat to beat me, nor fantasy to have the cops nail me to the wall. Did you run out of lotion?

Let's face facts. You are an authoritarian who must have flunked even basic Civics. You are utterly ignorant of any history much less the thoughts of the founders. I doubt you have ever seen the Federalist Papers, much less read even the cliffs notes.

So go back to watching NCIS or America's roughest cops and wait for your Amazon delivery of more lotion. Perhaps you could iron your keyboard commando uniform, I bet you have medals across the chest, over the shoulder, and down the back.

One difference between us is that you have completely fulfilled every expectation I had of you. Lame attempts at insults. Lacking in every attempt at an argument. Failed multiple tries at changing the topic, and of course the straw man "make up what the other person said" style of debating I fully expected from you.

Andy, you are still here? Astonishing. And for a change no threats about nailing me to the wall or beating and robbing me to teach me a lesson. I guess you finally figured out how impotent you sounded that way.

The other thing you do is swear that I put words in your mouth. Nonsense. I took what you wrote. A long and passionate defense of police lying which you said was necessary to get around the rules which protect the evil from the good and just. I said you supported criminals since you defend Perjury. You then insisted you didn't defend it. Andy. By any chance do you suffer from multiple personality disorder? If not then you are pathological your self. By any chance have you modeled yourself after the SNL character Tommy P. Flenagan President of the pathological liars association?

You claimed that I would deny you justice if you and your family were attacked. You wanted me removed from society with violence because I don't worship the police. Then you call me scum.

Andy, you are a pathetic example of the classic keyboard commando. A message board ninja who is just about tougher than Rambo and Superman combined as long as you are safe behind the keyboard. I guess you are desperate to get revenge on everyone who laughed when someone picked on you in school. Or perhaps you were deeply affected by a bully who took your lunch money. I don't know. I don't care.

So go on back to jerking off to your Judge Dredd comic books and leave the debating to people who are smart enough to remember what they wrote and understand what it means.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The problem is, there is a tolerance for crooked cops. If a cop is found to be crooked, just losing the badge isn't enough. There should be an automatic life sentence for any cop breaking a law. If you are law enforcement and you break a law (a felony law, not running a red light) and you are convicted in a court of law and you are a LEO, automatic life sentence.

Such a simple and guaranteed sentence for crooked cops might, just might, keep them from going rogue. If it doesn't and they are caught, they will be dealt with swiftly in prison as cops are only hated in prison less than pedophiles.

When you have the power to ruin someones life by placing them in handcuffs you are sworn to up hold the law. There is no excuse for criminal behavior as a cop. Punishment should be much more than for an average citizen with no right to arrest.

Give me an example.

I don't work for you. Go find your own examples. I don't know what example you want anyway.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem is, there is a tolerance for crooked cops. If a cop is found to be crooked, just losing the badge isn't enough. There should be an automatic life sentence for any cop breaking a law. If you are law enforcement and you break a law (a felony law, not running a red light) and you are convicted in a court of law and you are a LEO, automatic life sentence.

Such a simple and guaranteed sentence for crooked cops might, just might, keep them from going rogue. If it doesn't and they are caught, they will be dealt with swiftly in prison as cops are only hated in prison less than pedophiles.

When you have the power to ruin someones life by placing them in handcuffs you are sworn to up hold the law. There is no excuse for criminal behavior as a cop. Punishment should be much more than for an average citizen with no right to arrest.

Give me an example.

I don't work for you. Go find your own examples. I don't know what example you want anyway.

Well the cops I know which have committed these felonies are in fact in prison.

Ex-Cops Who Ended Up in Prison

Now, I don't know off hand if they are in prison for life, since you specifically said that. But the fact remains, when police are caught doing like a felony, they do go to prison.

The way you presented your post, you acted as if that doesn't happen. So can you give me such a case, where a police officer committed a felony, and was.... I don't know, given a month leave, or something equally lame?

What exactly are you talking about?

 

[Andylusion]

That wasn't an offer. You 'offered' a bunch of stuff I don't want, in return for a bunch of stuff I don't want. That's a compromise? That's why I ignored it.

Tell you what, I'll make a counter-"compromise". How about I beat you with a stick as long as you want, and in exchange I'll take your wallet. There, I'm meeting you half way.

You said that people in public housing should forfeit their civil rights. You said you would support that.

Actually I would agree with that. When YOU earn the money to buy YOUR property, that's one thing. When you are living there at my expense, yeah, I have no problem with the police searching your property every single month.

I gave you that everywhere. I had to quote it because later you will swear you never said such a thing. Later being in three minutes. Andy. I'm Not surprised. Being a full bird colonel in the keyboard commandos threats are easy for you. But the truth is you are a blowhard. I would be surprised if you could lift a twig. So save your masturbation fantasies for another message board.

Ugh. Keep switching the topic of this discussion. The primary discussion of this thread, is the OP, and in the context of the video where a guy was found with a gun by the police, while committing an illegal act.

Back to the housing deal..... You don't own that housing. That is public housing. That house is not yours, you don't own it. The public owns that house.

If you borrow my car.... can I search *MY* car? Yes I can. It's my car. I own it. You have no 'right' to some mythical privacy in a car you don't own. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from searching MY car.

That house is public housing. The public has a right to search it's housing to see you are not using it for illegal purposes. When you buy your own house, ok. The police can't just walk on YOUR property and start rummaging through your stuff. I get that.

We're not talking about that. You don't own jack. So I fully support the police going through public property whenever they feel the need. Don't like that? Buy your own place.

Better yet, stop committing crime, and then let the police search your stuff all they want.

It's like a rental. If you rent my house that I own, I legally have the right to walk through the house. In fact I know a land lord that does exactly that every 3 months like clock work. He's owns it. It's his house. Every three months he walks through the house. Your rights to your property, are not there if it's not your property. Public housing is not your property. You don't have any 'rights' to prevent police form searching something you don't own.

Awww. I'm disappointed. No threat to beat me, nor fantasy to have the cops nail me to the wall. Did you run out of lotion?

Let's face facts. You are an authoritarian who must have flunked even basic Civics. You are utterly ignorant of any history much less the thoughts of the founders. I doubt you have ever seen the Federalist Papers, much less read even the cliffs notes.

So go back to watching NCIS or America's roughest cops and wait for your Amazon delivery of more lotion. Perhaps you could iron your keyboard commando uniform, I bet you have medals across the chest, over the shoulder, and down the back.

One difference between us is that you have completely fulfilled every expectation I had of you. Lame attempts at insults. Lacking in every attempt at an argument. Failed multiple tries at changing the topic, and of course the straw man "make up what the other person said" style of debating I fully expected from you.

Andy, you are still here? Astonishing. And for a change no threats about nailing me to the wall or beating and robbing me to teach me a lesson. I guess you finally figured out how impotent you sounded that way.

The other thing you do is swear that I put words in your mouth. Nonsense. I took what you wrote. A long and passionate defense of police lying which you said was necessary to get around the rules which protect the evil from the good and just. I said you supported criminals since you defend Perjury. You then insisted you didn't defend it. Andy. By any chance do you suffer from multiple personality disorder? If not then you are pathological your self. By any chance have you modeled yourself after the SNL character Tommy P. Flenagan President of the pathological liars association?

You claimed that I would deny you justice if you and your family were attacked. You wanted me removed from society with violence because I don't worship the police. Then you call me scum.

Andy, you are a pathetic example of the classic keyboard commando. A message board ninja who is just about tougher than Rambo and Superman combined as long as you are safe behind the keyboard. I guess you are desperate to get revenge on everyone who laughed when someone picked on you in school. Or perhaps you were deeply affected by a bully who took your lunch money. I don't know. I don't care.

So go on back to jerking off to your Judge Dredd comic books and leave the debating to people who are smart enough to remember what they wrote and understand what it means.

I'm kind of busy talking to the more mature people on this thread. I'll catch you later.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Well the cops I know which have committed these felonies are in fact in prison.

Ex-Cops Who Ended Up in Prison

Now, I don't know off hand if they are in prison for life, since you specifically said that. But the fact remains, when police are caught doing like a felony, they do go to prison.

The way you presented your post, you acted as if that doesn't happen. So can you give me such a case, where a police officer committed a felony, and was.... I don't know, given a month leave, or something equally lame?

What exactly are you talking about?

According to Google, this took .000000036 seconds:

Ex-Newark police officer convicted of corruption, but may avoid jail time

 

[Andylusion]

Well the cops I know which have committed these felonies are in fact in prison.

Ex-Cops Who Ended Up in Prison

Now, I don't know off hand if they are in prison for life, since you specifically said that. But the fact remains, when police are caught doing like a felony, they do go to prison.

The way you presented your post, you acted as if that doesn't happen. So can you give me such a case, where a police officer committed a felony, and was.... I don't know, given a month leave, or something equally lame?

What exactly are you talking about?

According to Google, this took .000000036 seconds:

Ex-Newark police officer convicted of corruption, but may avoid jail time

First off.... "may avoid" is not the same as "police get away with felonies all the time".

Second "amount he took was less than $200"

You said in the prior post....

"f you are law enforcement and you break a law (a felony law, not running a red light) and you are convicted in a court of law and you are a LEO, automatic life sentence."

Felony. Right?

Is theft a felony? - FelonyGuide

For example, in some states, you cannot be charged with felony theft unless the value of the item(s) stolen exceeds $400, $500, or some other prescribed monetary limit. If the value of the property stolen is less than $200, for example, you may be charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.​

So according to your own link, the officer did not commit a felony. Under $200 is not a felony.

Do you really think US citizens should be given a life sentence for stealing under $200?