If Blacks started voting Republican, would the Dems finally focus on their actual problems?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which are fairy book stories. Police cannot search anything unless they get permission from the person they are searching, have reasonable suspicion, or have a court order.

That is hilarious. You actually believe that.



The cops lie and say the search was consensual. They lie and say the evidence dropped out of the baddies pocket. And people like you are silly enough to believe them.

Rare 'Perry Mason' moment in court wins dismissal for defendant, desk duty for 5 police officers

How did five cops from two different departments manage to tell the same lie?

The story didn't end there:

Two cleared, one convicted in police perjury case

You ignored the question. How did five officers all tell the same lie? Not one wrote a report that was backed by video. How did that happen?

Then how did the judge find at least two of the officers not guilty of perjury? If you read the article, it tells you that those two officers arrived after the suspect was handcuffed, so no, they did not have that in their report.

As for the officer that did lie, so what? He knew this guy was a drug dealer by the investigation of the drug agency. These officers are working to get guys like this off the street and you're worried about some red tape?

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

 

[SavannahMann]

That is hilarious. You actually believe that.



The cops lie and say the search was consensual. They lie and say the evidence dropped out of the baddies pocket. And people like you are silly enough to believe them.

Rare 'Perry Mason' moment in court wins dismissal for defendant, desk duty for 5 police officers

How did five cops from two different departments manage to tell the same lie?

The story didn't end there:

Two cleared, one convicted in police perjury case

You ignored the question. How did five officers all tell the same lie? Not one wrote a report that was backed by video. How did that happen?

Then how did the judge find at least two of the officers not guilty of perjury? If you read the article, it tells you that those two officers arrived after the suspect was handcuffed, so no, they did not have that in their report.

As for the officer that did lie, so what? He knew this guy was a drug dealer by the investigation of the drug agency. These officers are working to get guys like this off the street and you're worried about some red tape?

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

The cops did not lie by your standards because they were found not guilty he. He was not a drug dealer or user because he was also found not guilty. You don’t get to have it both ways.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The story didn't end there:

Two cleared, one convicted in police perjury case

You ignored the question. How did five officers all tell the same lie? Not one wrote a report that was backed by video. How did that happen?

Then how did the judge find at least two of the officers not guilty of perjury? If you read the article, it tells you that those two officers arrived after the suspect was handcuffed, so no, they did not have that in their report.

As for the officer that did lie, so what? He knew this guy was a drug dealer by the investigation of the drug agency. These officers are working to get guys like this off the street and you're worried about some red tape?

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

The cops did not lie by your standards because they were found not guilty he. He was not a drug dealer or user because he was also found not guilty. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Sure you do. If the search was ruled by the court as illegal, it doesn't matter what he had in that car. But it doesn't discount the fact that he had it. And my standards are what the court ruled whether I like it or not. The one officer did purger himself and was sentenced for it. The suspect got away on some red tape. I know people that smoke weed. Hell, I smoked my share of it myself back in the day, but nobody I ever knew bought a pound of weed for personal consumption. He had that weed to package and resell it. Plus the fact that he was on the drug enforcements radar tells me he was no innocent bystander.

 

[SavannahMann]

You ignored the question. How did five officers all tell the same lie? Not one wrote a report that was backed by video. How did that happen?

Then how did the judge find at least two of the officers not guilty of perjury? If you read the article, it tells you that those two officers arrived after the suspect was handcuffed, so no, they did not have that in their report.

As for the officer that did lie, so what? He knew this guy was a drug dealer by the investigation of the drug agency. These officers are working to get guys like this off the street and you're worried about some red tape?

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

The cops did not lie by your standards because they were found not guilty he. He was not a drug dealer or user because he was also found not guilty. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Sure you do. If the search was ruled by the court as illegal, it doesn't matter what he had in that car. But it doesn't discount the fact that he had it. And my standards are what the court ruled whether I like it or not. The one officer did purger himself and was sentenced for it. The suspect got away on some red tape. I know people that smoke weed. Hell, I smoked my share of it myself back in the day, but nobody I ever knew bought a pound of weed for personal consumption. He had that weed to package and resell it. Plus the fact that he was on the drug enforcements radar tells me he was no innocent bystander.

I think I see. The dealer got off because of a technicality. The technicality in question was that the cops lied and the judge threw out the evidence. The cops were innocent because they were found not guilty. Granted their lies were the technicality that got the first guy off. But totally innocent. Or something.

It’s a very odd world you live in. I’m glad that I am not in that particular world.

 

[Markle]

How is it that anyone, including police, gets ingrained about young black males their attitudes?

Think it might have anything to do with their dress, speech, music, TV hero's, people whom they admire?

What happened in the cases of a wrong shooting by the police?

Doesn't excuse killing unarmed innocent people

Juries excuse killing unarmed people. Our laws excuse killing unarmed people. Why is the left so obsessed with unarmed people when being unarmed has nothing to do with our laws?

Being unarmed has to do with the actual threat you pose to a police officer

Police Officers have a difficult job to do and their judgement is critical to both their own survival and the survival of suspects

Unarmed people can be very dangerous.

You knew that right?

Generally not when going up against someone who is armed

Not very well informed are you? Do you know the 21-foot rule?

 

[Markle]

Just wondering what your opinions are on this hypothetical that wont happen.

What is the GOP's focus on problems faced by black Americans?

That's easy.

Stay in school and graduate.
Don't have children until you are married and can afford them.
If possible, go to college or trade school and learn a career.
Stay out of trouble with the law.
Don't get involved with recreational narcotics.

Hey! Wait a minute! That's the key to most anybody's problems. You see unlike Democrats that treat minorities like a herd of cattle, the solutions to their problems are the same as anybody else. They are not different people, the Democrats just try to make them different people.

Even when you do that as a Black you get to endure more searches, more harassment, and let’s not forget the cops planting drugs to seize the cars of the blacks.

Which are fairy book stories. Police cannot search anything unless they get permission from the person they are searching, have reasonable suspicion, or have a court order.

That is hilarious. You actually believe that.



The cops lie and say the search was consensual. They lie and say the evidence dropped out of the baddies pocket. And people like you are silly enough to believe them.

Rare 'Perry Mason' moment in court wins dismissal for defendant, desk duty for 5 police officers

How did five cops from two different departments manage to tell the same lie?

 

[Markle]

That's easy.

Stay in school and graduate.
Don't have children until you are married and can afford them.
If possible, go to college or trade school and learn a career.
Stay out of trouble with the law.
Don't get involved with recreational narcotics.

Hey! Wait a minute! That's the key to most anybody's problems. You see unlike Democrats that treat minorities like a herd of cattle, the solutions to their problems are the same as anybody else. They are not different people, the Democrats just try to make them different people.

Even when you do that as a Black you get to endure more searches, more harassment, and let’s not forget the cops planting drugs to seize the cars of the blacks.

Which are fairy book stories. Police cannot search anything unless they get permission from the person they are searching, have reasonable suspicion, or have a court order.

That is hilarious. You actually believe that.



The cops lie and say the search was consensual. They lie and say the evidence dropped out of the baddies pocket. And people like you are silly enough to believe them.

Rare 'Perry Mason' moment in court wins dismissal for defendant, desk duty for 5 police officers

How did five cops from two different departments manage to tell the same lie?

The story didn't end there:

Two cleared, one convicted in police perjury case

You ignored the question. How did five officers all tell the same lie? Not one wrote a report that was backed by video. How did that happen?

So you're desperately trying to make a country-wide daily problem out of one incident. How many million stops were made that 24 hour period?

 

[Markle]

Then how did the judge find at least two of the officers not guilty of perjury? If you read the article, it tells you that those two officers arrived after the suspect was handcuffed, so no, they did not have that in their report.

As for the officer that did lie, so what? He knew this guy was a drug dealer by the investigation of the drug agency. These officers are working to get guys like this off the street and you're worried about some red tape?

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

The cops did not lie by your standards because they were found not guilty he. He was not a drug dealer or user because he was also found not guilty. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Sure you do. If the search was ruled by the court as illegal, it doesn't matter what he had in that car. But it doesn't discount the fact that he had it. And my standards are what the court ruled whether I like it or not. The one officer did purger himself and was sentenced for it. The suspect got away on some red tape. I know people that smoke weed. Hell, I smoked my share of it myself back in the day, but nobody I ever knew bought a pound of weed for personal consumption. He had that weed to package and resell it. Plus the fact that he was on the drug enforcements radar tells me he was no innocent bystander.

I think I see. The dealer got off because of a technicality. The technicality in question was that the cops lied and the judge threw out the evidence. The cops were innocent because they were found not guilty. Granted their lies were the technicality that got the first guy off. But totally innocent. Or something.

It’s a very odd world you live in. I’m glad that I am not in that particular world.

So everything worked out. What's the problem?

 

[SavannahMann]

Even when you do that as a Black you get to endure more searches, more harassment, and let’s not forget the cops planting drugs to seize the cars of the blacks.

Which are fairy book stories. Police cannot search anything unless they get permission from the person they are searching, have reasonable suspicion, or have a court order.

That is hilarious. You actually believe that.



The cops lie and say the search was consensual. They lie and say the evidence dropped out of the baddies pocket. And people like you are silly enough to believe them.

Rare 'Perry Mason' moment in court wins dismissal for defendant, desk duty for 5 police officers

How did five cops from two different departments manage to tell the same lie?

The story didn't end there:

Two cleared, one convicted in police perjury case

You ignored the question. How did five officers all tell the same lie? Not one wrote a report that was backed by video. How did that happen?

So you're desperately trying to make a country-wide daily problem out of one incident. How many million stops were made that 24 hour period?

It’s called a routine lie. Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys when polled said they believed that the police were lying in 1/5th of the cases. 20% of the cases have a lie involved somewhere by the police.

The Chiefs of both the NYPD and the SFPD admitted that “Testilying” was a widespread problem.

Now if the Judges, Lawyers, and Cops admit it is happening and is routine do you really think the tired old most aren’t doing it is gonna fly? Police perjury: It's called 'testilying'

Why is it when someone robs a bank the thousands of banks they didn’t rob aren’t a factor? A Rapist isn’t given credit for the women he didn’t rape. But the cops are supposed to be forgiven because they don’t lie all the time. So a few innocent people go to prison. Hey. The cops knew he was guilty even if the DNA says otherwise.

Or perhaps you are an advocate of the idea that the accused must be guilty of something in a wild application of Franz Kafka.

Like in the case I linked to. If the cops know the search was bad, they’ll lie to get the evidence admitted. The best you can argue is that the ends justify the means. But what about when there is nothing to seize? Just plant some so the baddie goes away.



In this one. When Sheriff Joe was still Sheriff. A deputy steals documents from an attorney. The penalty? He was told he would have to apologize. This penalty was too much to be borne and the deputy refused.



On and on it goes. Every day. The court cases that will be heard Monday. One out of five will have a lie by a cop.

Now. A lie is not a mistake. If I write 3:00 when I meant to write 13:00 that is a mistake. An oops. I believe in forgiving honest mistakes. I always have. A lie is when I know it is 13:00 and I intentionally write 3:00. A lie is saying you found it when you planted it. A lie is saying that the accused consented to a search when no consent was given.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What have Democrats originated that has benefited Blacks? End Slavery? Voting Rights? Nope. Those were Republican originated.

What have Democrats done?

Shut the F Up.

Today's Confederate Republicans cheer when unarmed blacks are shot.

Provide empirical data to back that up.

 

[Correll]

Even when you do that as a Black you get to endure more searches, more harassment, and let’s not forget the cops planting drugs to seize the cars of the blacks.

Which are fairy book stories. Police cannot search anything unless they get permission from the person they are searching, have reasonable suspicion, or have a court order.

I always love that on Cops
The cop asks permission to search the car and finds a gun or drugs
If you have guns or drugs why would you give permission for a search?
How stupid is that?

Did you ever watch the show C.O.P.S.? When the police suspect something is up, they ask the suspect for permission to search. If the suspect refuses, the police inform him (her) that they will radio in for a court search warrant, but it may take a few hours to get. The suspect feels their best chance at catching a break is allow the police to search as if nothing is wrong, and when they find something, refuse to admit it was theirs.

If you know police officers, you know they don't want to arrest anybody unless they have to. After the arrest, the officer has to make out a report. Then the officer is summoned to court when the suspects case is heard. And of course, he or she has to review their own arrest report to make sure they have their story straight for the defense lawyers.

It's not just throwing somebody in jail and heading out the door for more fun.

I had a cop buddy tell me about a house he went to search. The kid was naturally being raised by his grandmother, and all his older brothers has already been in trouble with the law.


The grandmother was very, very upset. She didn't want to let them search his room.


I asked what would have happened. He said that they would have put a car out front to watch for them trying to move evidence.


She eventually let them search his room, and they found evidence linking him to a robbery.

If a cop does it, then it’s perfectly legal. If anyone else tried it, that would be a crime. Coercion at the bare minimum.

Telling her that they would get a search warrant and come back or they could just search now, is a crime?

 

[Correll]

What have Democrats originated that has benefited Blacks? End Slavery? Voting Rights? Nope. Those were Republican originated.

What have Democrats done?

Shut the F Up.

Today's Confederate Republicans cheer when unarmed blacks are shot.

Provide empirical data to back that up.

He won't. He can't. Libs just say shit. THey don't mean nothing by it.

 

[TNHarley]

Just wondering what your opinions are on this hypothetical that wont happen.

What is the GOP's focus on problems faced by black Americans?

Like what

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then how did the judge find at least two of the officers not guilty of perjury? If you read the article, it tells you that those two officers arrived after the suspect was handcuffed, so no, they did not have that in their report.

As for the officer that did lie, so what? He knew this guy was a drug dealer by the investigation of the drug agency. These officers are working to get guys like this off the street and you're worried about some red tape?

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

The cops did not lie by your standards because they were found not guilty he. He was not a drug dealer or user because he was also found not guilty. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Sure you do. If the search was ruled by the court as illegal, it doesn't matter what he had in that car. But it doesn't discount the fact that he had it. And my standards are what the court ruled whether I like it or not. The one officer did purger himself and was sentenced for it. The suspect got away on some red tape. I know people that smoke weed. Hell, I smoked my share of it myself back in the day, but nobody I ever knew bought a pound of weed for personal consumption. He had that weed to package and resell it. Plus the fact that he was on the drug enforcements radar tells me he was no innocent bystander.

I think I see. The dealer got off because of a technicality. The technicality in question was that the cops lied and the judge threw out the evidence. The cops were innocent because they were found not guilty. Granted their lies were the technicality that got the first guy off. But totally innocent. Or something.

It’s a very odd world you live in. I’m glad that I am not in that particular world.

If they would have done things in order, that guy would have went to prison for possession with intent to sell. The cops took a short cut and lied about it. So what? They were trying to keep this dope off of the streets. What they should have done is get his permission to search the vehicle, and if he refused, have a warrant sent to them. Then they would have searched the vehicle and able to use the evidence they found. Would you be happy then, or is it the idea that the cops busted the guy in the first place?

 

[SavannahMann]

He wasn’t a drug user or dealer. He was found not guilty. Game. Set. Match.

Did you read your own article? It was stated right there he had a pound of weed in his car.

The cops did not lie by your standards because they were found not guilty he. He was not a drug dealer or user because he was also found not guilty. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Sure you do. If the search was ruled by the court as illegal, it doesn't matter what he had in that car. But it doesn't discount the fact that he had it. And my standards are what the court ruled whether I like it or not. The one officer did purger himself and was sentenced for it. The suspect got away on some red tape. I know people that smoke weed. Hell, I smoked my share of it myself back in the day, but nobody I ever knew bought a pound of weed for personal consumption. He had that weed to package and resell it. Plus the fact that he was on the drug enforcements radar tells me he was no innocent bystander.

I think I see. The dealer got off because of a technicality. The technicality in question was that the cops lied and the judge threw out the evidence. The cops were innocent because they were found not guilty. Granted their lies were the technicality that got the first guy off. But totally innocent. Or something.

It’s a very odd world you live in. I’m glad that I am not in that particular world.

If they would have done things in order, that guy would have went to prison for possession with intent to sell. The cops took a short cut and lied about it. So what? They were trying to keep this dope off of the streets. What they should have done is get his permission to search the vehicle, and if he refused, have a warrant sent to them. Then they would have searched the vehicle and able to use the evidence they found. Would you be happy then, or is it the idea that the cops busted the guy in the first place?

In March of 1988 I swore this oath. Oath of Enlistment - Army Values

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Not just the parts I liked. Not the parts I agreed with. All of the Constitution. I swore that I would uphold it.

There are a number of Amendments that cover how we will allow our Government to behave. A lot of those have some regard about the Criminal Justice system. Those were clarified by dozens, hundreds of court cases that clarified what the rights of the individual was. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments are the most relevant here.

Sadly, you hit the nail on the head, and you don’t even realize it. The police could have gotten the evidence legally. They could have followed the rules, and gotten it fine and dandy. They could have done the job right. But instead, they decided that the Constitution, and those pesky Liberals, made their job more difficult. They didn’t want to do it right. They wanted to cut corners. They wanted to take the easy way out.

Because the British did not follow those rules when dealing with the Colonists, animosity, anger, and a desire to revolt percolated among the Americans. We wanted to make sure that the Government was limited in it’s power. We wanted to make sure that the rights of the individual was protected. People fought a war to make sure those rights, among others, would never be trampled upon again.

When the British Military broke into houses searching for guns, powder, or papers that might link the individual to the rebellion. What is the difference from the authorities doing the same thing today? Why should we be any less outraged when it’s an American doing it?

Or would you be one of those later described as collaborators? People who thought that the British were just doing what as necessary, doing what they had to in order to protect us? They weren’t abusing us, they weren’t violating our rights, they were just doing a job to protect us.

The cops knew what they were supposed to do, and violated that. Don’t ask me to believe it was the first time any of them ever dreamed of doing it. It was just the first time they got caught. They knew what the rules were and decided to ignore those rules. What other rules were the cops breaking?

The idea behind our system is that it is very hard to take the freedom, property, or life from someone. The idea that it is better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be sent to prison is one of a number of things we kept from the British when we revolted. That is partly why we have such restrictions on law enforcement, and prosecution. It’s why we have the standard of conviction as a Reasonable Doubt.

Those rules that are just annoying red tape to people like you, and the police, are in place to make it hard to take away a mans life, liberty, or property. They are part of a system that is designed to prevent a single innocent man from going to prison. Because there can be no greater crime than sending a single innocent person to prison.

We blame the pilot if he does not follow the checklist and make sure every single thing is done prior to take off. We blame a ship captain who does not follow every single rule in running his ship and collides with another. We blame builders who do not follow every single standard in constructing a building. The food you eat from a restaurant is safe because the restaurant owners and managers are mandated to follow every single rule in cleanliness, and food handling standards.

Why should we hold the police who have the power to take away that freedom, and commit a far greater crime against society than the restaurant owner can, to a lower expectation?

Do the job the right way. If you are a builder, follow the damned rules and build a safe structure. If you are a pilot, follow the ******* rules and fly the damned plane. If you are sailing on a boat, follow the rules, and navigate the boat safely. We have standards for everything, not just the police. The hard hats and steel toed shoes and silly brightly colored vests may just be nonsense to you, but they are the standard for a reason, to protect people from unnecessary injuries.

Those pesky standards that are the rules the cops must follow should not be ignored either. Why treat a builder more harshly who cuts corners than we do a cop who just cuts corners as you intimate. Just cutting a few silly rules out of the picture, saving time.

Do the ******* job right. That’s what we’re paying you for. If the Contractor can’t or won’t build to the standards in place, he loses his license, and possibly his freedom. A pilot who doesn’t do it right loses his license. All the other activities we have are regulated to a standard, but it’s just wrong to expect cops to follow those same rules, and you know, tell the truth when the swear to tell the truth.