|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 28, 2006 0:34:51 GMT -5
PHILADELPHIA — A Philadelphia family said they are outraged over the arrest of one of their family members.
The family of Neftaly Cruz said police had no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera. They told their story to Harry Hairston and the NBC 10 Investigators.
"I was humiliated. I was embarrassed, you know," Cruz said.
Cruz, 21, told the NBC 10 Investigators that police arrested him last Wednesday for taking a picture of police activity with his cell phone.
Police at the 35th district said they were in Cruz's neighborhood that night arresting a drug dealer.
Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene.
"I opened (the phone) and took a shot," Cruz said.
Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.
"He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.
Cruz said the officer threw him onto a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail.
A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw.
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, 'You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'" said Gerrell Martin.
Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.
"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. … They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.
Cruz's parents, who got him out of jail, said police told them the same thing.
"He said he was taking pictures with his cell phone and that was obstructing an investigation," said Aracelis Cruz, Neftaly Cruz's mother.
The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.
"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."
Frankel said Cruz's civil rights might have been violated.
"He was unlawfully seized, which is a violation of the 4th amendment the last time we checked," Frankel said.
Cruz, a Penn State University senior, said that after about an hour police told him he was lucky because there was no supervisor on duty, so they released him.
"They said if the supervisor was there I wouldn't be a free man and that he is letting me go because he felt that I was a good person," Cruz said.
Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's famly said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's Internal Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 28, 2006 0:34:51 GMT -5
PHILADELPHIA — A Philadelphia family said they are outraged over the arrest of one of their family members.
The family of Neftaly Cruz said police had no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera. They told their story to Harry Hairston and the NBC 10 Investigators.
"I was humiliated. I was embarrassed, you know," Cruz said.
Cruz, 21, told the NBC 10 Investigators that police arrested him last Wednesday for taking a picture of police activity with his cell phone.
Police at the 35th district said they were in Cruz's neighborhood that night arresting a drug dealer.
Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene.
"I opened (the phone) and took a shot," Cruz said.
Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.
"He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.
Cruz said the officer threw him onto a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail.
A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw.
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, 'You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'" said Gerrell Martin.
Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.
"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. … They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.
Cruz's parents, who got him out of jail, said police told them the same thing.
"He said he was taking pictures with his cell phone and that was obstructing an investigation," said Aracelis Cruz, Neftaly Cruz's mother.
The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.
"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."
Frankel said Cruz's civil rights might have been violated.
"He was unlawfully seized, which is a violation of the 4th amendment the last time we checked," Frankel said.
Cruz, a Penn State University senior, said that after about an hour police told him he was lucky because there was no supervisor on duty, so they released him.
"They said if the supervisor was there I wouldn't be a free man and that he is letting me go because he felt that I was a good person," Cruz said.
Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's famly said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's Internal Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 24, 2006 8:52:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 24, 2006 8:52:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Dec 1, 2006 2:54:14 GMT -5
Here Is A Web Site That I Currently Don't Have The Time To Check Out Although It Sounds Promising. I'll Pass It On. Feel Free To Post Anything You Find Of Value.shuftinwhosarat.com/Police Decry Web Site on Informants Nov 30, 8:28 PM (ET) By MATT APUZZO WASHINGTON (AP) - Police and prosecutors are worried that a Web site claiming to identify more than 4,000 informants and undercover agents will cripple investigations and hang targets on witnesses. The Web site, WhosaRat.com, first caught the attention of authorities after a Massachusetts man put it online and named a few dozen people as turncoats in 2004. Since then, it has grown into a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers and rumors. Federal prosecutors say the site was set up to encourage violence, and federal judges around the country were recently warned that witnesses in their courtrooms may be profiled online. "My concern is making sure cooperators are adequately protected from retaliation," said Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, who alerted other judges in Washington's federal courthouse. He said he learned about the site from a federal judge in Maine. The Web site is the latest unabashedly public effort to identify witnesses or discourage helping police. "Stop Snitching" T-shirts have been sold in cities around the country and popular hip-hop lyrics disparage or threaten people who help police. In 2004, NBA star Carmelo Anthony appeared in an underground Baltimore DVD that warned people they could be killed for cooperating with police. Anthony has said he was not aware of the DVD's message. Such threats hinder criminal investigations, said Ronald Teachman, police chief in New Bedford, Mass., where murder cases have been stymied by witness silence and "Stop Snitching" T-shirts were recently for sale. "Every shooting we have to treat like homicide. The victim's alive but he's not cooperative," Teachman said. "These kids have the idea that the worst offense they can commit is to cooperate with the police." Sean Bucci, a former Boston-area disc jockey, set up WhosaRat.com after federal prosecutors charged him with selling marijuana in bulk from his house. Bucci is under house arrest awaiting trial and could not be reached, but a WhosaRat spokesman identifying himself as Anthony Capone said the site is a resource for criminal defendants and does not condone violence. "If people got hurt or killed, it's kind of on them. They knew the dangers of becoming an informant," Capone said. "We'd feel bad, don't get me wrong, but things happen to people. If they decide to become an informant, with or without the Web site, that's a possibility." The site offers biographical information about people whom users identify as witnesses or undercover agents. Users can post court documents, comments and pictures. Some of those listed are well known, such as former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, who served 10 months in prison before testifying in a public corruption case. But many never made headlines and were identified as having helped investigators in drug cases. For two years, anyone with an Internet connection could search the site. On Thursday, a day after it was discussed at a courthouse conference in Washington, the site became a subscription-only service. The site has also disabled the ability to post photos of undercover agents, Capone said, because administrators of the Web site do not want officers to be hurt. Authorities disagree. In documents filed in Bucci's court case last month, federal prosecutors said they have information that Bucci set up the Web site to help intimidate and harm witnesses. "Such information not only compromises pending or future government investigations, but places informants and undercover agents in potentially grave danger," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter K. Levitt wrote. While prosecutors haven't pointed to a case where a witness or officer was harmed because of the Web site, it has been used to shatter an undercover agent's anonymity. After Hawaiian doctor Kachun Yeung was charged with distributing narcotic painkillers this spring, a surveillance picture of an undercover Drug Enforcement Agent was posted on the site. Federal prosecutors said they traced the posting to the University of Hawaii newspaper's photo department, where the doctor's son was a photo editor. The posting identified the names of three agents and described one as "a known liar and a dirty agent. He is an absolute disgrace to the American justice system." Prosecutors in Boston have discussed whether WhosaRat is protected as free speech but have not moved to shut it down. In 2004, an Alabama federal judge ruled that a defendant had the right to run a Web site that included witness information in the form of "wanted" posters. Earlier this month, federal judges from Minnesota and Utah urged their colleagues to be careful about how much information about witnesses is released in public files, noting that they could end up on WhosaRat. Steve Bunnell, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said the rules of evidence already require authorities to identity witnesses to the people most likely to harm them: the defendants. Most of the documents labeled "top secret" on the site are really public court records or information copied from other Web sites, he said. His concern is that the site disparages the reputation of people who come forward to help solve crimes. "We don't make those high-level gang and drug organization cases without somebody on the inside telling us what's going on," Bunnell said.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Dec 1, 2006 2:54:14 GMT -5
Here Is A Web Site That I Currently Don't Have The Time To Check Out Although It Sounds Promising. I'll Pass It On. Feel Free To Post Anything You Find Of Value.shuftinwhosarat.com/Police Decry Web Site on Informants Nov 30, 8:28 PM (ET) By MATT APUZZO WASHINGTON (AP) - Police and prosecutors are worried that a Web site claiming to identify more than 4,000 informants and undercover agents will cripple investigations and hang targets on witnesses. The Web site, WhosaRat.com, first caught the attention of authorities after a Massachusetts man put it online and named a few dozen people as turncoats in 2004. Since then, it has grown into a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers and rumors. Federal prosecutors say the site was set up to encourage violence, and federal judges around the country were recently warned that witnesses in their courtrooms may be profiled online. "My concern is making sure cooperators are adequately protected from retaliation," said Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, who alerted other judges in Washington's federal courthouse. He said he learned about the site from a federal judge in Maine. The Web site is the latest unabashedly public effort to identify witnesses or discourage helping police. "Stop Snitching" T-shirts have been sold in cities around the country and popular hip-hop lyrics disparage or threaten people who help police. In 2004, NBA star Carmelo Anthony appeared in an underground Baltimore DVD that warned people they could be killed for cooperating with police. Anthony has said he was not aware of the DVD's message. Such threats hinder criminal investigations, said Ronald Teachman, police chief in New Bedford, Mass., where murder cases have been stymied by witness silence and "Stop Snitching" T-shirts were recently for sale. "Every shooting we have to treat like homicide. The victim's alive but he's not cooperative," Teachman said. "These kids have the idea that the worst offense they can commit is to cooperate with the police." Sean Bucci, a former Boston-area disc jockey, set up WhosaRat.com after federal prosecutors charged him with selling marijuana in bulk from his house. Bucci is under house arrest awaiting trial and could not be reached, but a WhosaRat spokesman identifying himself as Anthony Capone said the site is a resource for criminal defendants and does not condone violence. "If people got hurt or killed, it's kind of on them. They knew the dangers of becoming an informant," Capone said. "We'd feel bad, don't get me wrong, but things happen to people. If they decide to become an informant, with or without the Web site, that's a possibility." The site offers biographical information about people whom users identify as witnesses or undercover agents. Users can post court documents, comments and pictures. Some of those listed are well known, such as former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, who served 10 months in prison before testifying in a public corruption case. But many never made headlines and were identified as having helped investigators in drug cases. For two years, anyone with an Internet connection could search the site. On Thursday, a day after it was discussed at a courthouse conference in Washington, the site became a subscription-only service. The site has also disabled the ability to post photos of undercover agents, Capone said, because administrators of the Web site do not want officers to be hurt. Authorities disagree. In documents filed in Bucci's court case last month, federal prosecutors said they have information that Bucci set up the Web site to help intimidate and harm witnesses. "Such information not only compromises pending or future government investigations, but places informants and undercover agents in potentially grave danger," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter K. Levitt wrote. While prosecutors haven't pointed to a case where a witness or officer was harmed because of the Web site, it has been used to shatter an undercover agent's anonymity. After Hawaiian doctor Kachun Yeung was charged with distributing narcotic painkillers this spring, a surveillance picture of an undercover Drug Enforcement Agent was posted on the site. Federal prosecutors said they traced the posting to the University of Hawaii newspaper's photo department, where the doctor's son was a photo editor. The posting identified the names of three agents and described one as "a known liar and a dirty agent. He is an absolute disgrace to the American justice system." Prosecutors in Boston have discussed whether WhosaRat is protected as free speech but have not moved to shut it down. In 2004, an Alabama federal judge ruled that a defendant had the right to run a Web site that included witness information in the form of "wanted" posters. Earlier this month, federal judges from Minnesota and Utah urged their colleagues to be careful about how much information about witnesses is released in public files, noting that they could end up on WhosaRat. Steve Bunnell, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said the rules of evidence already require authorities to identity witnesses to the people most likely to harm them: the defendants. Most of the documents labeled "top secret" on the site are really public court records or information copied from other Web sites, he said. His concern is that the site disparages the reputation of people who come forward to help solve crimes. "We don't make those high-level gang and drug organization cases without somebody on the inside telling us what's going on," Bunnell said.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 20, 2007 10:26:57 GMT -5
I have a Bachelors degree in Languages and Linguistics, and speak three languages in addition to my Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. It is pretty funny when people make incriminating statements right in front of me because they assume that an Irish kid from Boston can't understand Spanish. spd49 Truth be told. I can turn a murder/mystery into a comedy with my English spelling. Thank God for spell check. My mother was an English major in college. I was going to become a professional football coach when I grew up. Nouns and verbs have nothing to with broken noses and chipped teeth so I set my feet in concrete and refused to waste my time learning English grammar. In actuality I am better versed in my second language, German, than I am in English. It's embarrassing when my German friends write to me in English and they are better at my own language than I am. I always have to hit spell check before I reply to them. I am better at spelling German that I am in English. Maybe because I learned German latter in life. At 6' 3" and 230 lbs. I still resent the fact that I never made it into the Pro's.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 19, 2007 12:38:12 GMT -5
The "Former" theme is a recurring, and tiring, argument on this web site. Yes sometimes or many times this may be true, I'll give you that. Most times in the actual reading of the article itself there is a discrepancy between the date of the infraction/crime itself and the date of the charge, indictment, verdict, guilty plea, or sentencing. Most times officers are fired, terminated, suspended, quit, or resigned before they have their day in court. Thus "Former" is in true usage at the time/date that the article is written. During the actual commission of the infraction/crime itself most officers were still on the payroll and were currently caring a badge. In any event here is a comment I posted on this very topic some time back. This is purely devils' advocate. policecrime.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=talk1&action=display&thread=1154063483#1154063483
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 11, 2007 4:02:49 GMT -5
Shuftin, Say it ain't so, you've degenerated to donut jokes! I have come to expect more from you. I'll put my level of physical fitness up against the vast majority of 37 yo men. Sorry, sore topic because it is so ridiculous. Why do think he pulled you over? Just to mess with you? Do you think you are being targeted because of this site? You say rude and obnoxious. Could you be more specific? Did he yell, swear or act unprofessionally? I ask these questions not to defend or make excuses. I'm truly interested at your perceptions of why he did what he did and said what he said. Sorry for the dognuts joke. My Grandfather had a bull that never sired as a result of my constant bee bee gun practice. Why did the Deputy pull me over? I didn't ask why and he didn't say why. There was a "closed" Burger King restaurant [for the night] swarming with County Sheriff cars. I assume it was a knee-jerk reaction for them to pull over anything that moved and I was moving. The local hillbillies around here don't know a legal stop from an unlawful stop anyways. From my observations of what was going on I don't believe that he pull me over "just to mess with me". The local Deputies are just hillbillies with badges. The number of people who can associate me with this web site I can count on the fingers of one hand so this wasn't it. Rude and obnoxious = loud, belligerent, bulling, suspicious, insulting, and intimidating. They failed miserably as I'm too old for this and I'm not from "here" anyways. The Deputy did not swear at me nor did he act unprofessionally. Actually the Deputy looked scared because I wasn't reacting to him as though I was terrified of him. NOTE: I grew up in a city of 500,000 Plus people. My extended family are all uneducated retards from Arkansas and now I live in Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 11, 2007 2:53:35 GMT -5
No the discussion is not entirely over. Sorry for the absence. I was hoping that you would enjoy the rest of the forum for a time. I've been over here policecrime.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=judges&action=display&thread=1171049203In my own profession my biggest weakness is that I will tweak and tweak and tweak until I break it. I can't quite seem to get this article the way I want it. Some people call me a perfectionist and others call me asinine. Hopefully this article will answer most questions put to me. I still have a sequel to compile and format dealing strictly with the Court system itself, by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 20, 2007 10:26:57 GMT -5
I have a Bachelors degree in Languages and Linguistics, and speak three languages in addition to my Masters in Criminal Justice Administration. It is pretty funny when people make incriminating statements right in front of me because they assume that an Irish kid from Boston can't understand Spanish. spd49 Truth be told. I can turn a murder/mystery into a comedy with my English spelling. Thank God for spell check. My mother was an English major in college. I was going to become a professional football coach when I grew up. Nouns and verbs have nothing to with broken noses and chipped teeth so I set my feet in concrete and refused to waste my time learning English grammar. In actuality I am better versed in my second language, German, than I am in English. It's embarrassing when my German friends write to me in English and they are better at my own language than I am. I always have to hit spell check before I reply to them. I am better at spelling German that I am in English. Maybe because I learned German latter in life. At 6' 3" and 230 lbs. I still resent the fact that I never made it into the Pro's.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 19, 2007 12:38:12 GMT -5
The "Former" theme is a recurring, and tiring, argument on this web site. Yes sometimes or many times this may be true, I'll give you that. Most times in the actual reading of the article itself there is a discrepancy between the date of the infraction/crime itself and the date of the charge, indictment, verdict, guilty plea, or sentencing. Most times officers are fired, terminated, suspended, quit, or resigned before they have their day in court. Thus "Former" is in true usage at the time/date that the article is written. During the actual commission of the infraction/crime itself most officers were still on the payroll and were currently caring a badge. In any event here is a comment I posted on this very topic some time back. This is purely devils' advocate. policecrime.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=talk1&action=display&thread=1154063483#1154063483
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 3, 2007 4:08:11 GMT -5
Actually the police officer was rude and obnoxious. He informed me numerous times that if I was lying to him he was going to take me to jail. I came up clean as I always do and then he became nice and let me go. He did give me a warning for not using my blinkers when I pulled right onto the shoulder of the road. He even advised me that I didn’t have to sign the ticket as it was only a warning.
As to why he pulled me over, he never said and I didn’t ask. Like I said earlier, a person in my neck of the woods expects to be pulled over. I must admit however that there was a lot of police activity around a “closed” Burger King. At first I thought that they [the police] were Jonesing for doughnuts but then I remembered that Burger King does not sell doughnuts so therefore something had to be going down.
Three months ago, when it was warmer, I walked to the same corner store. [Gas prices]. Again on my return trip to my house an oncoming deputy stopped me. He said “where are you going?” I said “home”. He informed me that a walker had been struck by a vehicle on this very road the previous week and then he went on his merry way. This police officer was polite and professional.
Maybe I should stop going home. I’ll just keep going. The last three times that I have been stopped have been in route “Home” on this same stretch of road. Do I feel safer? NO. Needled needlessly? YES. I moved into the County in order to get away from City politics and City police. By the way did I mention City police?
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 11, 2007 4:02:49 GMT -5
Shuftin, Say it ain't so, you've degenerated to donut jokes! I have come to expect more from you. I'll put my level of physical fitness up against the vast majority of 37 yo men. Sorry, sore topic because it is so ridiculous. Why do think he pulled you over? Just to mess with you? Do you think you are being targeted because of this site? You say rude and obnoxious. Could you be more specific? Did he yell, swear or act unprofessionally? I ask these questions not to defend or make excuses. I'm truly interested at your perceptions of why he did what he did and said what he said. Sorry for the dognuts joke. My Grandfather had a bull that never sired as a result of my constant bee bee gun practice. Why did the Deputy pull me over? I didn't ask why and he didn't say why. There was a "closed" Burger King restaurant [for the night] swarming with County Sheriff cars. I assume it was a knee-jerk reaction for them to pull over anything that moved and I was moving. The local hillbillies around here don't know a legal stop from an unlawful stop anyways. From my observations of what was going on I don't believe that he pull me over "just to mess with me". The local Deputies are just hillbillies with badges. The number of people who can associate me with this web site I can count on the fingers of one hand so this wasn't it. Rude and obnoxious = loud, belligerent, bulling, suspicious, insulting, and intimidating. They failed miserably as I'm too old for this and I'm not from "here" anyways. The Deputy did not swear at me nor did he act unprofessionally. Actually the Deputy looked scared because I wasn't reacting to him as though I was terrified of him. NOTE: I grew up in a city of 500,000 Plus people. My extended family are all uneducated retards from Arkansas and now I live in Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 11, 2007 2:53:35 GMT -5
No the discussion is not entirely over. Sorry for the absence. I was hoping that you would enjoy the rest of the forum for a time. I've been over here policecrime.proboards28.com/index.cgi?board=judges&action=display&thread=1171049203In my own profession my biggest weakness is that I will tweak and tweak and tweak until I break it. I can't quite seem to get this article the way I want it. Some people call me a perfectionist and others call me asinine. Hopefully this article will answer most questions put to me. I still have a sequel to compile and format dealing strictly with the Court system itself, by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 2, 2007 18:35:36 GMT -5
Side note: For what it's worth. Last night while writing my post at approximately 2:00 am I left the house to drive .6 miles to a local corner store to buy a pact of cigarettes. This is a 1.2 mile round trip for me. I encountered seven sheriff's patrol cars during my excurision. In fact I was pulled over on my return trip. The deputy did a u-turn in the middle of the road in order to pull me over.
Macon Georgia is the nearist City with a population of about 120,000 people. I live seven miles outside of City limits and in the County. Granted the County is built up and looks like a City. Macon is drooling at the prospect of incorperating us into the City. More/lost taxes in all.
What was the result of me being pulled over? Nothing! I'm still here. My point is that in my neck of the woods this is considered to be normal. Drive one mile and expect to be pulled over. It is to be expected when you leave your house to be pulled over by County sheriffs and/or City police.
My thoughts on the matter are "when you give up rights in exchange for security you deserve neither".
Either way I encountered a police officer dead center of my last post on this topic. Did I cover this over well enough?
I bet you that you thought that I wrote all that at one time
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 2, 2007 2:21:49 GMT -5
Money is the root of all evil. The State gives the Federal Government money. The Federal Government charges a handling fee and then returns the money back to the State and calls it a grant. Think about this!!! A Grant?? We [the Federal Government] grant you [the State] the privilege of having your own money returned to you but only if you kiss our ass. The State salivates at the thought of having their own money returned to them. The public has no legal consideration in this transaction. The State wants their money returned and they will work against the will of the people [their constituents] in order to get it. The Federal Government dictates and the State will kiss their ass. Speed limits, seat belt laws, drivers insurance, etc., etc. As a police officer you know far more about this than I do. Now the State has their money. Guess what? Now it’s between the State and the County. Then it’s between the County and the City. Basically shit rolls down hill. Those who are at the bottom of the shit pile are “We the people” and we have no say in the matter. We the people do not do not receive our own money back in the form of a “Grant” so we the people are not bribed into compliance. Therefore we the people can only be Enforced and through this Enforcement even more money is to be gained. The Enforcers of the Federal Government dictates are LE [Law Enforcement]. What we have is a Socialist Dictator of a Federal Government and LE is on the payroll of the Government and low man in the food chain. Now to answer your question “What would you do to change it if you had the power? What would the role of the police be in society today?” DECENTRALIZATION. DECENTRALIZATION. DECENTRALIZATION. Cut the string between the Federal Government, State Government, City Government and we the people. The Federal Government is a control freak and laws are designed to force Government control on the people. Money is used as a bribe for local authorities [LE] to Enforce Governmental control on the people. Sheep led to slaughter. For sake of argument let’s go back 200 years. There was the Town people, the Town Mayor, and the Town sheriff. What ever was said or done was by a mutual meeting and agreeing of the minds. The police worked under the Mayor and both worked for the people. The people had a say and there was no outside Dictator with bribe money in hand. Was it a life of milk and honey back then? No, of course not but I believe there was a stronger bond between the police and the people. Police were the good guys, the crime fighters. If trouble brewed police officers were the peace keepers. Yes there was the black/white thing and the [newer] Jim Crow laws. If I lived 200 years ago I would be bitching about the black/white thing and the [newer] Jim Crow laws. It is in my nature to bitch/fight. By the way have you ever read Nicoli Machiavelli “The Prince” or any of his other works? It is an easier read than Kant. If not here is the complete book “The Prince” by Nicoli Machiavelli online and free. www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htmThis is required reading for some college degrees. Danger, danger, Will Robertson, danger. After you read it you will never see life in the same way again. I see Machiavellism everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 3, 2007 4:08:11 GMT -5
Actually the police officer was rude and obnoxious. He informed me numerous times that if I was lying to him he was going to take me to jail. I came up clean as I always do and then he became nice and let me go. He did give me a warning for not using my blinkers when I pulled right onto the shoulder of the road. He even advised me that I didn’t have to sign the ticket as it was only a warning.
As to why he pulled me over, he never said and I didn’t ask. Like I said earlier, a person in my neck of the woods expects to be pulled over. I must admit however that there was a lot of police activity around a “closed” Burger King. At first I thought that they [the police] were Jonesing for doughnuts but then I remembered that Burger King does not sell doughnuts so therefore something had to be going down.
Three months ago, when it was warmer, I walked to the same corner store. [Gas prices]. Again on my return trip to my house an oncoming deputy stopped me. He said “where are you going?” I said “home”. He informed me that a walker had been struck by a vehicle on this very road the previous week and then he went on his merry way. This police officer was polite and professional.
Maybe I should stop going home. I’ll just keep going. The last three times that I have been stopped have been in route “Home” on this same stretch of road. Do I feel safer? NO. Needled needlessly? YES. I moved into the County in order to get away from City politics and City police. By the way did I mention City police?
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Feb 2, 2007 18:35:36 GMT -5
Side note: For what it's worth. Last night while writing my post at approximately 2:00 am I left the house to drive .6 miles to a local corner store to buy a pact of cigarettes. This is a 1.2 mile round trip for me. I encountered seven sheriff's patrol cars during my excurision. In fact I was pulled over on my return trip. The deputy did a u-turn in the middle of the road in order to pull me over.
Macon Georgia is the nearist City with a population of about 120,000 people. I live seven miles outside of City limits and in the County. Granted the County is built up and looks like a City. Macon is drooling at the prospect of incorperating us into the City. More/lost taxes in all.
What was the result of me being pulled over? Nothing! I'm still here. My point is that in my neck of the woods this is considered to be normal. Drive one mile and expect to be pulled over. It is to be expected when you leave your house to be pulled over by County sheriffs and/or City police.
My thoughts on the matter are "when you give up rights in exchange for security you deserve neither".
Either way I encountered a police officer dead center of my last post on this topic. Did I cover this over well enough?
I bet you that you thought that I wrote all that at one time
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 30, 2007 1:36:59 GMT -5
Okay I'm back or so I think. Sorry for the delay. I damned near cashed a check that my body couldn't cover. This is odd as I consider myself to be a vibrant young man. Oh well, work is work.
I used to have to have the body of a Greek God. Now I just have the body of a Greek. Is it possible for muscles to bruise themselves simply from overworking? My body is in pain.
spd49
I don't really get your reply. What does your military service have to do with police misconduct or government corruption? Because something in the military was classified means that it was wrong or corrupt?
No, no of course not. A military GI is obliged to obey orders and not to think. Individuality and free thinking is forbidden. There is a distinct culture and a cultism attitude similar to that of gang mentality. Google "The Nuremberg Defense".
Police officers are hired gunmen of the Government, by the Government, and for the Government. Police officers are on the payroll of the Government. Police officers conduct Government business, in the interest of the Government, and for the betterment of the Government.
As a former Governmental hired gunman (Military GI) I've been there, done it, and did it. What am I to think when I see a Governmental hired gunman in uniform?
You and I have worked in different departments, and in different times. Our uniforms may be different but our payroll master is still the same. All I'm saying is that possibly I have seen more than you have.
worried;
Thanks for the complement and the invite. Let me crawl there. No sudden moves okay.
|
|