It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
Please forgive me for not having taken the time to learn to use the 'guote' funtions yet.
I notice you have your mood as "Support Troops" . Remember your law enforcement officers are your first line of defense against the ills of society.
You said "all of the officers" you've run into have been "combative". As a civilian, I come into contact with an average of one officer every couple of years. What exactly are you doing to invite your contacts with so many?
Also, were you assaulted? Your use of the word "combative" would indicate that.
Your last comment:
"And let's be honest, there aren't a lot of good cops so we have to hope we get one of the minority out there who won't abuse their position. I haven't ran into any yet but I'll let you know if I do run into a good one."
In 2004 there were over 800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S. I would be absolutely humbled if you have met the "majority" of them. Remember, generalizations work both ways.
Random vehicle searches have produced a large quantity of contraband seizures around the country that would not have been detected without the search.
The Supreme Court has held that random vehicle stops are unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Police officers must have probable cause to stop vehicles or a reasonable suspicion that a driver is violating some law or traffic code. Police therefore cannot randomly stop vehicles simply to make checks of drivers licenses or to view drivers and passengers unless there is a reason to suspect them of some kind of wrongdoing. If a police officer does make a random stop of a vehicle, any evidence found in the car or on the passengers can be suppressed.
Do any of you cops realize how much contraband is in people's houses? Shouldn't we just let you all randomly search our houses too just to be on the safe side?
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by jfj123
Generally speaking, LEO see people at their worst. So, are they to assume this is the condition of all civilians? No. And neither should they be subjected to this kind of ridiculous generalization.
Overall, the people in law enforcement are a cross section of society. The bad ones, though in the minority, always stick out in our minds.
Originally posted by treemanx
Are you kidding me??? Where is your back bone? Do you know how many people have fought and died for your freedom that you so willingly give up? You can keep your common sense, because it is definately not my sense.
Originally posted by treemanx
You want to just hide in a corner and hope the gov dosent take away any more of your freedoms if you dare to stand up for what rights are yours? THAT is the problem with this country today, spineless whiners who are afraid to stand up and call BS if theyre rights are being infringed upon.
Originally posted by treemanx
I dont know this guy at all, but I appreciate what he did in the video, and MAYBE that will bring some CHANGE.
Originally posted by treemanx
You need to wake up bud, and smell the coffee. Im glad there are people like him out there, becasue if we all had your opinion, we'd be living in Russia right now.
But let's ask everyone else here.
Has ANYONE here had a positive experience with a law enforcement official????
Are my experiences outside the norm?????
Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
Cooperating with peace officers is actually "supporting freedom", because they are protecting all of us, so that we can be free.
The real problem with this country is that common sense is not common anymore. Actually the other problem is the average I.Q. of each American.
Listen closely, I already know my rights.
I know I can pull up to a border patrol and do exactly what the pastor did (whine with a spine). That doesn't mean I am going to do it just to prove a point, because I have a high enough I.Q. to understand that their job is based around walking on that very thin line called the freedom border. They have to decide which side of the line they are going to walk, with each person they encounter.
If you cooperate, they will gladly walk on the freedom side of the line.
Freedom to do their job correctly, and freedom for you to pass through to enjoy more freedom.
If you don't cooperate, and you take away their freedom to do their job correctly, guess what, they are going to walk with you on the not so free side of the freedom border until they feel safe, and are assured that you are capable of handling freedom along side with them.
"Terrorist", or anyone who wants to harm anyone inside the U.S. are not capable of handling freedom.
They abuse it, and take advantage of it, to do illegal things, and harm people (taking away their freedom from terror).
Being "free" does not include "freedom to do illegal things", and the peace officers are enforcing that.
The only thing this pastor will change by making this video, is the laws. I certainly don't want some terrorist doing what the pastor did. Actually, this video most probably will give potential terrorists ideas on how to get past the border patrol.
Using some not-so-common common sense, all this pastor was successful at doing is showing the world that the peace officers, and their higher ups, gave in, caved in, folded, and failed at their job.
Originally posted by jfj123
""Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety""
Originally posted by jfj123
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
- pastor Martin Niemoller -
[edit on 18-4-2009 by jfj123]
Originally posted by imd12c4funn
I have heard that if an applicant for law enforcement is tested with an IQ above a certain, and fairly low result, they are determined unqualified.
I wonder if this applies to the border patrol as well.
If this is the case, I would not qualify.
Just one more reason I would never apply for such a position.
Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
reply to post by jfj123
Now let me tell you my thought;
The border patrol has 3 main things to do in their job.
1: Look for suspicious acting persons, and out of the ordinary reactions.
2: Look for hidden persons trying to sneak past the border.
3: Look for weapons, drugs, and anything illegal that may be hidden.
THEY FAILED ALL THREE IN THE VIDEO! I don't feel safe now...
Do you get it?
Originally posted by Griff
It amazes me the level of responders here:
"Just turn over and take it and they will let you go. Your ass might hurt, but you'll still be free to go."
Again: Pathetic IMO.
Originally posted by imd12c4funn
I have heard that if an applicant for law enforcement is tested with an IQ above a certain, and fairly low result, they are determined unqualified.
I wonder if this applies to the border patrol as well.
If this is the case, I would not qualify.
Just one more reason I would never apply for such a position.
Now thats just a little ridiculous, don't you think?
In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
The New York Times