One fear under Trump is coming to pass, as expected.

[SavannahMann]

I mentioned earlier that I had reasons to vote for, and against Hillary. One reason I had to vote for her, and I might add the only reason I had to vote for her, was the Department of Justice practice of policing the police.

During the Obama years the Department of Justice has aggressively investigated the police and identified many violations of Civil Rights, and strove to end those practices under what are called "Consent Decrees". These are little more than contracts signed by both parties, the government body overseeing the police, and the Department of Justice. These agreements say that the police will stop doing whatever it is that they are doing that is unconstitutional, and the DOJ won't prosecute anyone or fine the Police Departments that are engaged in these violations.

It's little more than a promise to respect Civil Rights, that would be the rights you and I have guaranteed to us under the Constitution. Now I expected that they would taper off, perhaps even end under a Trump administration. One of the issues I believe that the Republicans are generally speaking absolutely wrong about is their respect/support for authority in just about every case. Sure enough, Senator Sessions who is soon to be the Attorney General says that there won't be any more of those.

Activist use of ‘consent decrees’ to police law enforcement likely to end under Trump, Sessions

So what kind of activities were investigated and were so onerous that Senator Sessions soon to be Attorney General Sessions finds unreasonable burdens on our police? Well, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was found to have one hundred policies, practices, and procedures that were unconstitutional. These included violations of the 4th Amendment regarding unconstitutional search and seizures of low income housing. In other words, the police would just enter the homes searching for any evidence they wanted to look for without a warrant or permission. The Sheriff's Department also planted evidence on individuals who were visiting relatives and friends in jail. The investigation into that led to several police officers including the Chief Deputy Sheriff to go to jail because they ordered a cover up. The Sheriff himself has been implicated, and reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a lower charge, but the Judge refused to allow the lessened jail sentence that had been agreed to, and the Sheriff withdrew his guilty plea.

So Attorney General Sessions believes that the cops are doing a great job, breaking into homes, and planting evidence on people the Deputies throw a beating on.

In Ferguson, the police were found to be violating civil rights regularly. One example of that pattern of misconduct was a man who was pulled over, and misidentified as a criminal wanted by the police. They beat the man, and even when his identity had been confirmed as an innocent guy, he was still charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property. The uniforms of the police were ruined when he bled on the cops. Seriously, I sincerely wish I was making that up.

The nonexistent war on police may well become real in the near future. The people are tired of being abused, of having their rights trampled, and the Justice Department investigations were a small salve to their dignity and cooled their fury. Most of the time, the cops didn't go to jail, the policies of the departments were changed to reflect the Constitutional policing that should have been happening all the time. Now, that small salve is likely to be taken away, and the raw wounds will be left to fester.

No, I do not regret my vote for Trump. I believe this issue is important, but it was still not worth voting for Hillary. When people ask me what Obama did that I agreed with this always jumped to the front of my mind. Protecting the Civil Liberties of my fellow citizens, and by extension myself, is always right in my mind. Forcing compliance by the police departments to protect the citizenry is to my way of thinking, the bare minimum that should be done.

So one of my concerns about a Trump Presidency is coming to pass, and it will almost certainly add to the anger of police by many. Because now complaints filed with the Department of Justice for unconstitutional practices by police will come in by mail, and be dropped into the trash unread. The tens of thousands who experience unconstitutional violations by police are again left alone to endure, and with no recourse the anger towards police, and the willingness to act on that anger, increases.

There is no war on police right now. There will likely be one soon. When people demand that I speak out, or act to support the police, I will do as the Justice Department does for the victims of unconstitutional behavior by police. I will do nothing. I'll keep my membership in the ACLU active, since private organizations filing lawsuits to bankrupt cities, counties, and states who refuse to reign in corrupt police practices will be our last available peaceful action.

If only the Democrats had nominated someone worthy of our votes, someone who would do the right thing on trade, immigration, and protecting American workers. Someone who wasn't corrupt. I wouldn't be in this position, and I could feel confident that the Department of Justice was working towards Justice for the citizenry.

You voted for Hillary?

No, and as I said I don't regret my voting against her, even with this.

 

[owebo]

I mentioned earlier that I had reasons to vote for, and against Hillary. One reason I had to vote for her, and I might add the only reason I had to vote for her, was the Department of Justice practice of policing the police.

During the Obama years the Department of Justice has aggressively investigated the police and identified many violations of Civil Rights, and strove to end those practices under what are called "Consent Decrees". These are little more than contracts signed by both parties, the government body overseeing the police, and the Department of Justice. These agreements say that the police will stop doing whatever it is that they are doing that is unconstitutional, and the DOJ won't prosecute anyone or fine the Police Departments that are engaged in these violations.

It's little more than a promise to respect Civil Rights, that would be the rights you and I have guaranteed to us under the Constitution. Now I expected that they would taper off, perhaps even end under a Trump administration. One of the issues I believe that the Republicans are generally speaking absolutely wrong about is their respect/support for authority in just about every case. Sure enough, Senator Sessions who is soon to be the Attorney General says that there won't be any more of those.

Activist use of ‘consent decrees’ to police law enforcement likely to end under Trump, Sessions

So what kind of activities were investigated and were so onerous that Senator Sessions soon to be Attorney General Sessions finds unreasonable burdens on our police? Well, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was found to have one hundred policies, practices, and procedures that were unconstitutional. These included violations of the 4th Amendment regarding unconstitutional search and seizures of low income housing. In other words, the police would just enter the homes searching for any evidence they wanted to look for without a warrant or permission. The Sheriff's Department also planted evidence on individuals who were visiting relatives and friends in jail. The investigation into that led to several police officers including the Chief Deputy Sheriff to go to jail because they ordered a cover up. The Sheriff himself has been implicated, and reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a lower charge, but the Judge refused to allow the lessened jail sentence that had been agreed to, and the Sheriff withdrew his guilty plea.

So Attorney General Sessions believes that the cops are doing a great job, breaking into homes, and planting evidence on people the Deputies throw a beating on.

In Ferguson, the police were found to be violating civil rights regularly. One example of that pattern of misconduct was a man who was pulled over, and misidentified as a criminal wanted by the police. They beat the man, and even when his identity had been confirmed as an innocent guy, he was still charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property. The uniforms of the police were ruined when he bled on the cops. Seriously, I sincerely wish I was making that up.

The nonexistent war on police may well become real in the near future. The people are tired of being abused, of having their rights trampled, and the Justice Department investigations were a small salve to their dignity and cooled their fury. Most of the time, the cops didn't go to jail, the policies of the departments were changed to reflect the Constitutional policing that should have been happening all the time. Now, that small salve is likely to be taken away, and the raw wounds will be left to fester.

No, I do not regret my vote for Trump. I believe this issue is important, but it was still not worth voting for Hillary. When people ask me what Obama did that I agreed with this always jumped to the front of my mind. Protecting the Civil Liberties of my fellow citizens, and by extension myself, is always right in my mind. Forcing compliance by the police departments to protect the citizenry is to my way of thinking, the bare minimum that should be done.

So one of my concerns about a Trump Presidency is coming to pass, and it will almost certainly add to the anger of police by many. Because now complaints filed with the Department of Justice for unconstitutional practices by police will come in by mail, and be dropped into the trash unread. The tens of thousands who experience unconstitutional violations by police are again left alone to endure, and with no recourse the anger towards police, and the willingness to act on that anger, increases.

There is no war on police right now. There will likely be one soon. When people demand that I speak out, or act to support the police, I will do as the Justice Department does for the victims of unconstitutional behavior by police. I will do nothing. I'll keep my membership in the ACLU active, since private organizations filing lawsuits to bankrupt cities, counties, and states who refuse to reign in corrupt police practices will be our last available peaceful action.

If only the Democrats had nominated someone worthy of our votes, someone who would do the right thing on trade, immigration, and protecting American workers. Someone who wasn't corrupt. I wouldn't be in this position, and I could feel confident that the Department of Justice was working towards Justice for the citizenry.

You voted for Hillary?

No, and as I said I don't regret my voting against her, even with this.

I like your posts and that one I commented on was confusing, so I wanted to give you the benedit of the doubt and ask......

 

[frigidweirdo]

As long as you stay out of trouble you have no reason to fear the police.

You think? Try going to Mozambique and telling me that....

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Must say I didn't read the entire OP in detail . . .

When you do, come back and have something worthwhile to day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes we all remember the Obama-Holder shakedowns of our law enforcement. They would investigate a PD with the intent of finding racism or a constitutional breach and then make the PD pay for training given by the federal government. And we've seen them doing the same to banks. Ah, the legal shakedowns by government.

What a silly comment. More Fake Propaganda.

 

[Meathead]

What a silly comment. More Fake Propaganda.

Yeah, like "Hands up! Don't shoot!".

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a silly comment. More Fake Propaganda.

Yeah, like "Hands up! Don't shoot!".

No, that was not propaganda. That is what the idiot in MO was doing when he was closing in on Officer Wilson. I would have killed the attacker without hesitation in that suggestion.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's always interesting to see how the media uses statistics to give credence to a story line that they are pushing. In this case 11 out of the 33 people who were shot and killed by the Police while being "unarmed" according to the media were said to be armed with a motor vehicle by the Police. The authors of your story however have decided that those armed with a voter vehicle (that one assumes was being driven AT Police?) does not count as armed even though our laws clearly establish that someone driving a vehicle AT Police are attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon. That's fully a third of the number of "unarmed" people shot.

I have to admit I see almost no reason to shoot at a vehicle. I doubt if they were intent on running over a cop that shooting them would make much of a difference. I certainly would not stand in front shooting hoping it would stop the vehicle in time.

When I was on council and was interviewing police applicants that is one question I would ask, when they would use their weapon. We had one officer shoot at a car that he said tried to run him over. This was after a traffic stop so the person was known there was no reason to shoot at the car.

One thing I learned, was a person needs to be real careful whom they give the power too. the police have a lot of power and giving it to a 20 year old can have unwanted consequences.

Every year Police officers are killed in the line of duty by people driving motor vehicles. As recent terror attacks obviously show...a car or truck can kill. You've totally lost me with your example of a traffic stop not being a reason to shoot at someone who tries to run over an officer. Yes, Police are given a lot of power. They are given that power because they are also given a lot of responsibility. They have to confront people who break the law. Here's a novel concept! When the Police pull you over...don't try to run them over with your car! Duh?

 

[Freewill]

It's always interesting to see how the media uses statistics to give credence to a story line that they are pushing. In this case 11 out of the 33 people who were shot and killed by the Police while being "unarmed" according to the media were said to be armed with a motor vehicle by the Police. The authors of your story however have decided that those armed with a voter vehicle (that one assumes was being driven AT Police?) does not count as armed even though our laws clearly establish that someone driving a vehicle AT Police are attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon. That's fully a third of the number of "unarmed" people shot.

I have to admit I see almost no reason to shoot at a vehicle. I doubt if they were intent on running over a cop that shooting them would make much of a difference. I certainly would not stand in front shooting hoping it would stop the vehicle in time.

When I was on council and was interviewing police applicants that is one question I would ask, when they would use their weapon. We had one officer shoot at a car that he said tried to run him over. This was after a traffic stop so the person was known there was no reason to shoot at the car.

One thing I learned, was a person needs to be real careful whom they give the power too. the police have a lot of power and giving it to a 20 year old can have unwanted consequences.

Every year Police officers are killed in the line of duty by people driving motor vehicles. As recent terror attacks obviously show...a car or truck can kill. You've totally lost me with your example of a traffic stop not being a reason to shoot at someone who tries to run over an officer. Yes, Police are given a lot of power. They are given that power because they are also given a lot of responsibility. They have to confront people who break the law. Here's a novel concept! When the Police pull you over...don't try to run them over with your car! Duh?

How is shooting at a vehicle going to stop that vehicle from running you over? The weapon that the police are given to DEFEND themselves or others. Shooting a vehicle is not defending yourself. Maybe it is justified in trying to stop a felon by shooting at THEM as they drive away. But a routine traffic stop resulting in a shooting, I don't think so.

 

[dannyboys]

I mentioned earlier that I had reasons to vote for, and against Hillary. One reason I had to vote for her, and I might add the only reason I had to vote for her, was the Department of Justice practice of policing the police.

During the Obama years the Department of Justice has aggressively investigated the police and identified many violations of Civil Rights, and strove to end those practices under what are called "Consent Decrees". These are little more than contracts signed by both parties, the government body overseeing the police, and the Department of Justice. These agreements say that the police will stop doing whatever it is that they are doing that is unconstitutional, and the DOJ won't prosecute anyone or fine the Police Departments that are engaged in these violations.

It's little more than a promise to respect Civil Rights, that would be the rights you and I have guaranteed to us under the Constitution. Now I expected that they would taper off, perhaps even end under a Trump administration. One of the issues I believe that the Republicans are generally speaking absolutely wrong about is their respect/support for authority in just about every case. Sure enough, Senator Sessions who is soon to be the Attorney General says that there won't be any more of those.

Activist use of ‘consent decrees’ to police law enforcement likely to end under Trump, Sessions

So what kind of activities were investigated and were so onerous that Senator Sessions soon to be Attorney General Sessions finds unreasonable burdens on our police? Well, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was found to have one hundred policies, practices, and procedures that were unconstitutional. These included violations of the 4th Amendment regarding unconstitutional search and seizures of low income housing. In other words, the police would just enter the homes searching for any evidence they wanted to look for without a warrant or permission. The Sheriff's Department also planted evidence on individuals who were visiting relatives and friends in jail. The investigation into that led to several police officers including the Chief Deputy Sheriff to go to jail because they ordered a cover up. The Sheriff himself has been implicated, and reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a lower charge, but the Judge refused to allow the lessened jail sentence that had been agreed to, and the Sheriff withdrew his guilty plea.

So Attorney General Sessions believes that the cops are doing a great job, breaking into homes, and planting evidence on people the Deputies throw a beating on.

In Ferguson, the police were found to be violating civil rights regularly. One example of that pattern of misconduct was a man who was pulled over, and misidentified as a criminal wanted by the police. They beat the man, and even when his identity had been confirmed as an innocent guy, he was still charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property. The uniforms of the police were ruined when he bled on the cops. Seriously, I sincerely wish I was making that up.

The nonexistent war on police may well become real in the near future. The people are tired of being abused, of having their rights trampled, and the Justice Department investigations were a small salve to their dignity and cooled their fury. Most of the time, the cops didn't go to jail, the policies of the departments were changed to reflect the Constitutional policing that should have been happening all the time. Now, that small salve is likely to be taken away, and the raw wounds will be left to fester.

No, I do not regret my vote for Trump. I believe this issue is important, but it was still not worth voting for Hillary. When people ask me what Obama did that I agreed with this always jumped to the front of my mind. Protecting the Civil Liberties of my fellow citizens, and by extension myself, is always right in my mind. Forcing compliance by the police departments to protect the citizenry is to my way of thinking, the bare minimum that should be done.

So one of my concerns about a Trump Presidency is coming to pass, and it will almost certainly add to the anger of police by many. Because now complaints filed with the Department of Justice for unconstitutional practices by police will come in by mail, and be dropped into the trash unread. The tens of thousands who experience unconstitutional violations by police are again left alone to endure, and with no recourse the anger towards police, and the willingness to act on that anger, increases.

There is no war on police right now. There will likely be one soon. When people demand that I speak out, or act to support the police, I will do as the Justice Department does for the victims of unconstitutional behavior by police. I will do nothing. I'll keep my membership in the ACLU active, since private organizations filing lawsuits to bankrupt cities, counties, and states who refuse to reign in corrupt police practices will be our last available peaceful action.

If only the Democrats had nominated someone worthy of our votes, someone who would do the right thing on trade, immigration, and protecting American workers. Someone who wasn't corrupt. I wouldn't be in this position, and I could feel confident that the Department of Justice was working towards Justice for the citizenry.

Must say I didn't read the entire OP in detail. But what I did read is interesting. The examples you site were in spite of what Obama was doing. The examples you site were in bastions of liberal ideology. Funny how that works.

Ah yes, the idea that police in conservative areas don't violate the Constitution or break the law. One of my favorites.

In Georgia, a solidly red state, half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed at the time of their deaths.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

So how is it Liberal ideology that exonerated the police in those shootings in the midst of solid secure red state Georgia?

The State Police investigated those shootings, State Police run by the Republican Governor, State Attorney General. Odd isn't it, that the Republicans being in charge didn't seem to prevent this highly questionable set of circumstances where half the people killed by police were shot in the back, and or unarmed at the time of their deaths. How afraid for your life can you be if the baddie is running away?

Well, I'm sure they were guilty of something and deserved to die. A cop in Georgia was just convicted of Murder, and sentenced to life in prison. He used his Taser like a cattle prod and the baddie died.

One of 2 ex-police officers found guilty of felony murder in Taser death of man

Those of us in Georgia are astonished. To say it is rare, that is an understatement.

When were you released for prison this last time?
What if the "baddie" is running towards a house full of soon to be hostages?
You ought to know by now, but you obviously don't that when a LEO gives you a command you obey their command.
If you are 'innocent' you can take it up with a judge later.
ONLY criminals 'run' from LEOs.

 

[dannyboys]

It's always interesting to see how the media uses statistics to give credence to a story line that they are pushing. In this case 11 out of the 33 people who were shot and killed by the Police while being "unarmed" according to the media were said to be armed with a motor vehicle by the Police. The authors of your story however have decided that those armed with a voter vehicle (that one assumes was being driven AT Police?) does not count as armed even though our laws clearly establish that someone driving a vehicle AT Police are attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon. That's fully a third of the number of "unarmed" people shot.

I have to admit I see almost no reason to shoot at a vehicle. I doubt if they were intent on running over a cop that shooting them would make much of a difference. I certainly would not stand in front shooting hoping it would stop the vehicle in time.

When I was on council and was interviewing police applicants that is one question I would ask, when they would use their weapon. We had one officer shoot at a car that he said tried to run him over. This was after a traffic stop so the person was known there was no reason to shoot at the car.

One thing I learned, was a person needs to be real careful whom they give the power too. the police have a lot of power and giving it to a 20 year old can have unwanted consequences.

Every year Police officers are killed in the line of duty by people driving motor vehicles. As recent terror attacks obviously show...a car or truck can kill. You've totally lost me with your example of a traffic stop not being a reason to shoot at someone who tries to run over an officer. Yes, Police are given a lot of power. They are given that power because they are also given a lot of responsibility. They have to confront people who break the law. Here's a novel concept! When the Police pull you over...don't try to run them over with your car! Duh?

How is shooting at a vehicle going to stop that vehicle from running you over? The weapon that the police are given to DEFEND themselves or others. Shooting a vehicle is not defending yourself. Maybe it is justified in trying to stop a felon by shooting at THEM as they drive away. But a routine traffic stop resulting in a shooting, I don't think so.

Every LEO in the WORLD is trained NEVER to walk in front of a vehicle or behind any vehicle with a driver inside during a routine traffic stop.......EVER!
First secure the scene THEN conduct the stop according to the training manual. NEVER any exceptions.
The ONLY time LEOs get into trouble during routine traffic stops is when they do not follow their training.
Assume EVERY driver is armed and waiting for an opportunity to shoot you.
That means taking the driver's keys. Having the driver step out of the vehicle.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The consent decrees have been used to end the culture of law enforcement and remove the concept of policing from individual officers.

If Jeff Sessions is going to get rid of these anti police witch hunts he has gone up a notch or two.

 

[Freewill]

It's always interesting to see how the media uses statistics to give credence to a story line that they are pushing. In this case 11 out of the 33 people who were shot and killed by the Police while being "unarmed" according to the media were said to be armed with a motor vehicle by the Police. The authors of your story however have decided that those armed with a voter vehicle (that one assumes was being driven AT Police?) does not count as armed even though our laws clearly establish that someone driving a vehicle AT Police are attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon. That's fully a third of the number of "unarmed" people shot.

I have to admit I see almost no reason to shoot at a vehicle. I doubt if they were intent on running over a cop that shooting them would make much of a difference. I certainly would not stand in front shooting hoping it would stop the vehicle in time.

When I was on council and was interviewing police applicants that is one question I would ask, when they would use their weapon. We had one officer shoot at a car that he said tried to run him over. This was after a traffic stop so the person was known there was no reason to shoot at the car.

One thing I learned, was a person needs to be real careful whom they give the power too. the police have a lot of power and giving it to a 20 year old can have unwanted consequences.

Every year Police officers are killed in the line of duty by people driving motor vehicles. As recent terror attacks obviously show...a car or truck can kill. You've totally lost me with your example of a traffic stop not being a reason to shoot at someone who tries to run over an officer. Yes, Police are given a lot of power. They are given that power because they are also given a lot of responsibility. They have to confront people who break the law. Here's a novel concept! When the Police pull you over...don't try to run them over with your car! Duh?

How is shooting at a vehicle going to stop that vehicle from running you over? The weapon that the police are given to DEFEND themselves or others. Shooting a vehicle is not defending yourself. Maybe it is justified in trying to stop a felon by shooting at THEM as they drive away. But a routine traffic stop resulting in a shooting, I don't think so.

Every LEO in the WORLD is trained NEVER to walk in front of a vehicle or behind any vehicle with a driver inside during a routine traffic stop.......EVER!
First secure the scene THEN conduct the stop according to the training manual. NEVER any exceptions.
The ONLY time LEOs get into trouble during routine traffic stops is when they do not follow their training.
Assume EVERY driver is armed and waiting for an opportunity to shoot you.
That means taking the driver's keys. Having the driver step out of the vehicle.

AGREED! I doubt that shooting at a moving car is in their training, not sure.

 

[dannyboys]

It's always interesting to see how the media uses statistics to give credence to a story line that they are pushing. In this case 11 out of the 33 people who were shot and killed by the Police while being "unarmed" according to the media were said to be armed with a motor vehicle by the Police. The authors of your story however have decided that those armed with a voter vehicle (that one assumes was being driven AT Police?) does not count as armed even though our laws clearly establish that someone driving a vehicle AT Police are attempting to assault them with a deadly weapon. That's fully a third of the number of "unarmed" people shot.

I have to admit I see almost no reason to shoot at a vehicle. I doubt if they were intent on running over a cop that shooting them would make much of a difference. I certainly would not stand in front shooting hoping it would stop the vehicle in time.

When I was on council and was interviewing police applicants that is one question I would ask, when they would use their weapon. We had one officer shoot at a car that he said tried to run him over. This was after a traffic stop so the person was known there was no reason to shoot at the car.

One thing I learned, was a person needs to be real careful whom they give the power too. the police have a lot of power and giving it to a 20 year old can have unwanted consequences.

Every year Police officers are killed in the line of duty by people driving motor vehicles. As recent terror attacks obviously show...a car or truck can kill. You've totally lost me with your example of a traffic stop not being a reason to shoot at someone who tries to run over an officer. Yes, Police are given a lot of power. They are given that power because they are also given a lot of responsibility. They have to confront people who break the law. Here's a novel concept! When the Police pull you over...don't try to run them over with your car! Duh?

How is shooting at a vehicle going to stop that vehicle from running you over? The weapon that the police are given to DEFEND themselves or others. Shooting a vehicle is not defending yourself. Maybe it is justified in trying to stop a felon by shooting at THEM as they drive away. But a routine traffic stop resulting in a shooting, I don't think so.

Every LEO in the WORLD is trained NEVER to walk in front of a vehicle or behind any vehicle with a driver inside during a routine traffic stop.......EVER!
First secure the scene THEN conduct the stop according to the training manual. NEVER any exceptions.
The ONLY time LEOs get into trouble during routine traffic stops is when they do not follow their training.
Assume EVERY driver is armed and waiting for an opportunity to shoot you.
That means taking the driver's keys. Having the driver step out of the vehicle.

AGREED! I doubt that shooting at a moving car is in their training, not sure.

Shooting at a moving car is a very subjective phrase.
The car could be moving at one mile an hour or at 100 MPH.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As long as you stay out of trouble you have no reason to fear the police.

The reverse is true. As long as the police don't violate the Constitutional protections the citizens are guaranteed, they have nothing to fear from an investigation by the DOJ.

Police departments have internal affairs divisions for recourse by the public.
Witch hunts by a racist DOJ are unwarranted and have produced nil for the money they spent.

 

[Disir]

{{meta.pageTitle}}

 

[WillowTree]

Libtards are acting as their own department of justice, calling police out to ambush and murder them, find them in their patrol cars and then murder them, riot, pillage, plunder, loot, throw rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, burn police cars that taxpayers have to pay for. Yes! And where is the department of justice? Huh? A cop cannot even go to a restaurant for a meal because of murdering libtards and obummer's dept of injustice!

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

You misspelled truth. Get an education.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

As long as you stay out of trouble you have no reason to fear the police.

I'd say that is 99.9% accurate, but the reality is there are rogue racist cops who will go out of their way to express their bigotry as cops towards minorities.

 

[Theowl32]

I mentioned earlier that I had reasons to vote for, and against Hillary. One reason I had to vote for her, and I might add the only reason I had to vote for her, was the Department of Justice practice of policing the police.

During the Obama years the Department of Justice has aggressively investigated the police and identified many violations of Civil Rights, and strove to end those practices under what are called "Consent Decrees". These are little more than contracts signed by both parties, the government body overseeing the police, and the Department of Justice. These agreements say that the police will stop doing whatever it is that they are doing that is unconstitutional, and the DOJ won't prosecute anyone or fine the Police Departments that are engaged in these violations.

It's little more than a promise to respect Civil Rights, that would be the rights you and I have guaranteed to us under the Constitution. Now I expected that they would taper off, perhaps even end under a Trump administration. One of the issues I believe that the Republicans are generally speaking absolutely wrong about is their respect/support for authority in just about every case. Sure enough, Senator Sessions who is soon to be the Attorney General says that there won't be any more of those.

Activist use of ‘consent decrees’ to police law enforcement likely to end under Trump, Sessions

So what kind of activities were investigated and were so onerous that Senator Sessions soon to be Attorney General Sessions finds unreasonable burdens on our police? Well, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was found to have one hundred policies, practices, and procedures that were unconstitutional. These included violations of the 4th Amendment regarding unconstitutional search and seizures of low income housing. In other words, the police would just enter the homes searching for any evidence they wanted to look for without a warrant or permission. The Sheriff's Department also planted evidence on individuals who were visiting relatives and friends in jail. The investigation into that led to several police officers including the Chief Deputy Sheriff to go to jail because they ordered a cover up. The Sheriff himself has been implicated, and reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a lower charge, but the Judge refused to allow the lessened jail sentence that had been agreed to, and the Sheriff withdrew his guilty plea.

So Attorney General Sessions believes that the cops are doing a great job, breaking into homes, and planting evidence on people the Deputies throw a beating on.

In Ferguson, the police were found to be violating civil rights regularly. One example of that pattern of misconduct was a man who was pulled over, and misidentified as a criminal wanted by the police. They beat the man, and even when his identity had been confirmed as an innocent guy, he was still charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property. The uniforms of the police were ruined when he bled on the cops. Seriously, I sincerely wish I was making that up.

The nonexistent war on police may well become real in the near future. The people are tired of being abused, of having their rights trampled, and the Justice Department investigations were a small salve to their dignity and cooled their fury. Most of the time, the cops didn't go to jail, the policies of the departments were changed to reflect the Constitutional policing that should have been happening all the time. Now, that small salve is likely to be taken away, and the raw wounds will be left to fester.

No, I do not regret my vote for Trump. I believe this issue is important, but it was still not worth voting for Hillary. When people ask me what Obama did that I agreed with this always jumped to the front of my mind. Protecting the Civil Liberties of my fellow citizens, and by extension myself, is always right in my mind. Forcing compliance by the police departments to protect the citizenry is to my way of thinking, the bare minimum that should be done.

So one of my concerns about a Trump Presidency is coming to pass, and it will almost certainly add to the anger of police by many. Because now complaints filed with the Department of Justice for unconstitutional practices by police will come in by mail, and be dropped into the trash unread. The tens of thousands who experience unconstitutional violations by police are again left alone to endure, and with no recourse the anger towards police, and the willingness to act on that anger, increases.

There is no war on police right now. There will likely be one soon. When people demand that I speak out, or act to support the police, I will do as the Justice Department does for the victims of unconstitutional behavior by police. I will do nothing. I'll keep my membership in the ACLU active, since private organizations filing lawsuits to bankrupt cities, counties, and states who refuse to reign in corrupt police practices will be our last available peaceful action.

If only the Democrats had nominated someone worthy of our votes, someone who would do the right thing on trade, immigration, and protecting American workers. Someone who wasn't corrupt. I wouldn't be in this position, and I could feel confident that the Department of Justice was working towards Justice for the citizenry.

The nonexistent war on police?

 

[SavannahMann]

I mentioned earlier that I had reasons to vote for, and against Hillary. One reason I had to vote for her, and I might add the only reason I had to vote for her, was the Department of Justice practice of policing the police.

During the Obama years the Department of Justice has aggressively investigated the police and identified many violations of Civil Rights, and strove to end those practices under what are called "Consent Decrees". These are little more than contracts signed by both parties, the government body overseeing the police, and the Department of Justice. These agreements say that the police will stop doing whatever it is that they are doing that is unconstitutional, and the DOJ won't prosecute anyone or fine the Police Departments that are engaged in these violations.

It's little more than a promise to respect Civil Rights, that would be the rights you and I have guaranteed to us under the Constitution. Now I expected that they would taper off, perhaps even end under a Trump administration. One of the issues I believe that the Republicans are generally speaking absolutely wrong about is their respect/support for authority in just about every case. Sure enough, Senator Sessions who is soon to be the Attorney General says that there won't be any more of those.

Activist use of ‘consent decrees’ to police law enforcement likely to end under Trump, Sessions

So what kind of activities were investigated and were so onerous that Senator Sessions soon to be Attorney General Sessions finds unreasonable burdens on our police? Well, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was found to have one hundred policies, practices, and procedures that were unconstitutional. These included violations of the 4th Amendment regarding unconstitutional search and seizures of low income housing. In other words, the police would just enter the homes searching for any evidence they wanted to look for without a warrant or permission. The Sheriff's Department also planted evidence on individuals who were visiting relatives and friends in jail. The investigation into that led to several police officers including the Chief Deputy Sheriff to go to jail because they ordered a cover up. The Sheriff himself has been implicated, and reached a plea deal to plead guilty to a lower charge, but the Judge refused to allow the lessened jail sentence that had been agreed to, and the Sheriff withdrew his guilty plea.

So Attorney General Sessions believes that the cops are doing a great job, breaking into homes, and planting evidence on people the Deputies throw a beating on.

In Ferguson, the police were found to be violating civil rights regularly. One example of that pattern of misconduct was a man who was pulled over, and misidentified as a criminal wanted by the police. They beat the man, and even when his identity had been confirmed as an innocent guy, he was still charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property. The uniforms of the police were ruined when he bled on the cops. Seriously, I sincerely wish I was making that up.

The nonexistent war on police may well become real in the near future. The people are tired of being abused, of having their rights trampled, and the Justice Department investigations were a small salve to their dignity and cooled their fury. Most of the time, the cops didn't go to jail, the policies of the departments were changed to reflect the Constitutional policing that should have been happening all the time. Now, that small salve is likely to be taken away, and the raw wounds will be left to fester.

No, I do not regret my vote for Trump. I believe this issue is important, but it was still not worth voting for Hillary. When people ask me what Obama did that I agreed with this always jumped to the front of my mind. Protecting the Civil Liberties of my fellow citizens, and by extension myself, is always right in my mind. Forcing compliance by the police departments to protect the citizenry is to my way of thinking, the bare minimum that should be done.

So one of my concerns about a Trump Presidency is coming to pass, and it will almost certainly add to the anger of police by many. Because now complaints filed with the Department of Justice for unconstitutional practices by police will come in by mail, and be dropped into the trash unread. The tens of thousands who experience unconstitutional violations by police are again left alone to endure, and with no recourse the anger towards police, and the willingness to act on that anger, increases.

There is no war on police right now. There will likely be one soon. When people demand that I speak out, or act to support the police, I will do as the Justice Department does for the victims of unconstitutional behavior by police. I will do nothing. I'll keep my membership in the ACLU active, since private organizations filing lawsuits to bankrupt cities, counties, and states who refuse to reign in corrupt police practices will be our last available peaceful action.

If only the Democrats had nominated someone worthy of our votes, someone who would do the right thing on trade, immigration, and protecting American workers. Someone who wasn't corrupt. I wouldn't be in this position, and I could feel confident that the Department of Justice was working towards Justice for the citizenry.

Must say I didn't read the entire OP in detail. But what I did read is interesting. The examples you site were in spite of what Obama was doing. The examples you site were in bastions of liberal ideology. Funny how that works.

Ah yes, the idea that police in conservative areas don't violate the Constitution or break the law. One of my favorites.

In Georgia, a solidly red state, half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed at the time of their deaths.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

So how is it Liberal ideology that exonerated the police in those shootings in the midst of solid secure red state Georgia?

The State Police investigated those shootings, State Police run by the Republican Governor, State Attorney General. Odd isn't it, that the Republicans being in charge didn't seem to prevent this highly questionable set of circumstances where half the people killed by police were shot in the back, and or unarmed at the time of their deaths. How afraid for your life can you be if the baddie is running away?

Well, I'm sure they were guilty of something and deserved to die. A cop in Georgia was just convicted of Murder, and sentenced to life in prison. He used his Taser like a cattle prod and the baddie died.

One of 2 ex-police officers found guilty of felony murder in Taser death of man

Those of us in Georgia are astonished. To say it is rare, that is an understatement.

When were you released for prison this last time?
What if the "baddie" is running towards a house full of soon to be hostages?
You ought to know by now, but you obviously don't that when a LEO gives you a command you obey their command.
If you are 'innocent' you can take it up with a judge later.
ONLY criminals 'run' from LEOs.

Sorry to disappoint but I've never been arrested much less convicted. I know you assume that anyone who doesn't drop to their knees and worship at the illusion of the police as valiant defenders or whatever is a crook. But sadly no in this case. I'm just an average guy who eschews injustice.

Taking up with the judge might work, if police didn't lie in about one case out of five. At least that is the results of the survey of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. They believe the police lie in 20% of the cases.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com