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.

 

Does Police protocol encourage police to kill anyone brandishing a "weapon?"

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
So again, how are these things unconstitutional?
edit on 24-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Uhm ok.. Care to show me how the preamble to the constitution fits in to the body of the document and how its law?


Originally posted by RRokkyy
When you stop believing in the inalienable rights of the people you cease to be human.
This country was founded on that principle of inalienable rights and the idea of freedom.
If you dont have the basic freedom of your own body then you are a slave.


Clearly there seems to be a misinterpretation of what our founding fathers were going for. If this is so true, please explain to me why blacks were counted as 3/5 of a person? Then explain to me why if the above is true, women were not allowed to vote?

Clearly the Constitution had issues, and parts of it run contrary to the preamble to the Constitution. We had subsequent amendments to correct those 2 injustices, along with other.


Originally posted by RRokkyy
The collecting of taxes to fund Unconstitutional Undeclared Wars of Aggression like the Vietnam
Conflict in which 5,000,000 ( five million is no misprint) southeast Asians were murdered makes those taxes illegal.


Because in article 2 section 2 of the Constitution says the PResident is Commander in Cheif, or because Article 1 section 1 of the Constitution says Congress has the power to enact taxes?

You really need to learn to seperate personal feelings from political arguments when that personal opinion is based on something non existant. A CAUF is just as valid as a declaration of war. The last time the US Congress declard war was world war II. Since then they have used CAUF, or Congressioanl Authorizations for the Use of Force, which by the way is completely within their perview. The Constitution does not stipulate that war must be declared, and in what manner it is and wording used.

All it states is that power resides with Congress.


Originally posted by RRokkyy
Of course you are only following the orders of those in power.


I do take my orders from the people in power, which is to say I take orders from the people of the municipality I work in. At the State and local level, we are a direct democracy, and the FEderal level, we are a REpresentative REpublic. HUGE difference between the 2.


Originally posted by RRokkyy

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's the 9th Amendment, this lays out that whole idea of rights existing apart from the Constitution. And then we have: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's the 10th Amendment and that has to do with delegation of powers and the idea of limited government.


www.druglibrary.org...




and?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

edit on 24-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Haven't read all the thread soory...

In Australlia there is a safety margin of about 20 feet or so after which anyone approaching an officer with anything remotely considered a weapon can be and most likely will be shot. Even though officers are trained in hand to hand combat, in non-lethal methods to apprehend someone, they are not taught to injure with a firearm as the clearer target will always be the Torso... which leads to deadly results usually.

Never bring a golf club to a gun fight!!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   




all your doing is twisting my words around (which you cops are known to do), im not going to argue about this anymore. as stated before i have respect for Peace Officers- those that maintain the peace while NOT enforcing arbitrary statutes. LEOs enforce statutory code (hence, Law Enforcement).

let me make a few points here,

as i understand miranda rights- The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial. (wikipedia)
so yes you are correct, you dont have to read me my mirandas, but if you gain incriminating evidence of me comitting a crime; it cant be used against me in court.- learned something new


im just asking you to realize, 3/4 of the laws these days are completely unnecessary and malevolant to the american people. they are there for two reasons- CONTROL AND MONEY. You should realize you are working for the most corrupt organization on the face of the planet. THAT, is why i have a problem with LEOs.

what i was saying is, if i walk away from you and you are saying stop (im not doing anything illegal), whats the fine line of "police investigation"?maybe you were investigating that shady looking guy walking down the street? you can act on "reasonable suspicion" cant you? what is "reasonable"? it would be your word against mine.

the 4th amendment applies to the people as a safeguard from governement- so your point is invalid.
dont even bring race into this.

And honestly, id rather not deal with internal affairs... ever, ive heard they are bigger assholes than you guys. i would also like to say, i would never reach for a cops gun, that was stupid to even say.
edit on 24-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WJjeeper
 


sp what your really trying to say is you hate cops



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
reply to post by WJjeeper
 


sp what your really trying to say is you hate cops


no, i dont really hate anyone unless they are attempting to harm me or my loved ones. i will treat anybody with respect until i am forced into a position that i cant. i just dont have respect for Law Enforcement Officers or the statutes they enforce. as long as im not causing harm, attempting to cause harm, or showing potential to cause harm to another individual, why should i even be screwed with? all these other laws are unnecessary. a true Peace Officer would realize this, and treat EACH AND EVERY case individually.enforcing only what is necessary to keep individuals from harm, or the impeding of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. more of a mediator than a "cop".



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FrancoUn-American
 


hey that's not nice,
you should be thanking him for the instructional video, before a drawn gun or at 10ft you now know that should throw the knife cause unless you're 6ft or less you can't close in on time, you also know what the odds are from 5ft or less a real confidence builder IMO



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


No man the cops do as they please, as soon as they step out of the car at a traffic stop, they have their hand on there weapon. They stop and talk to u on the street they put a hand on their weapon.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The "police" will soon meet there fate at the hands of citizens intent on restoring law to this country. The smart ones will quit now and the dumb ones will continue to carry out the illegal orders of the powers that be, And then they will be killed for treason.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


WTF!!!

are you paranoid? do they actually teach you this at the academy?

OOOOHHHH!!!!!!! better watch out for those little old ladies now, those hairpins are lethal weapons in the hands of the average octogenarian.

is this how you chosen to live your life dude? in a state of constant fear

look out that guys got a shoegun!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WJjeeper
all your doing is twisting my words around (which you cops are known to do), im not going to argue about this anymore. as stated before i have respect for Peace Officers- those that maintain the peace while NOT enforcing arbitrary statutes. LEOs enforce statutory code (hence, Law Enforcement).


We will agree to disagree on this point, since I dont see your argument. Its your view though, so I will respect that. As far as the comment about twisting words, I dont believe I have. I was simply pointing out the misconception. I could have done a better job with my communication, so I appologize.


Originally posted by WJjeeper
let me make a few points here,

as i understand miranda rights- The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial. (wikipedia)
so yes you are correct, you dont have to read me my mirandas, but if you gain incriminating evidence of me comitting a crime; it cant be used against me in court.- learned something new


Learning something new makes it a good day. Miranda is only required when custody + asking guilt seeking questions. Failure to mirandize before questioning = fruit of the poisounous tree = evidence is out. However, if you want to learn a little more (not trying to be snooty here), there is a term called inevitable discovery, and is an exception to that rule (fruit of the poisonous tree).


Originally posted by WJjeeper
im just asking you to realize, 3/4 of the laws these days are completely unnecessary and malevolant to the american people. they are there for two reasons- CONTROL AND MONEY. You should realize you are working for the most corrupt organization on the face of the planet. THAT, is why i have a problem with LEOs.


Well, again Police dont impose fines, the courts do. I work for the executive branch, not judicial or legislative. In my state there are only 2 things I am required to enforce, no discretion, and that is a valid arrest warrant, and issuing a citation for no proof of insurance - everything else is officer discretion.

My view when doing my job is to communicate first, and issue a citation only if needed. I am a firm believer that explaining a law or action to the person im dealing with sometimes goes a lot farther than issuing a citation. I use this technique the most when dealing with younger adults / teenagers.

As I stated before, I work for the people of our municipality, so I dont agree with the working for the most corrupt organization comment.


Originally posted by WJjeeper
what i was saying is, if i walk away from you and you are saying stop (im not doing anything illegal), whats the fine line of "police investigation"?maybe you were investigating that shady looking guy walking down the street? you can act on "reasonable suspicion" cant you? what is "reasonable"? it would be your word against mine.


If I have a legitimate reason for making contact (investigating a crime, you matching a description of a suspect etc), then I can detain you until its determined your not involved. Usually in these cases the reason for the detention is provided up front. I have had akward instances where I ahve detained for another agency with no additional info (stop and hold on other agencies authority), and I explain the issue, but it doesnt always calm people down.

Just because a person "looks" shady does not give me a reason to stop and harass the person. Its not against the law to look shady, nor walk down a street. If the area is undergoing a spike in one type of crime (car break ins, burglaries, vandalism, etc) we would make a note on the "shady" looking person. We can conduct a field interview with the person, but again its voluntry and the person is not required to comply.

If its nothing but voluntary contact, and you decide to walk away, I have absolutely no reason or grounds to stop you. Its perfectly legal to tell me where to put my questins and walk off. The comment about "making something up" is again the exception and not the rule. There are crooked cops out there, every profession has them and it annoys the piss out of me because it makes all of us look bad.

This is one of the reasons I am vocal in threads like these. I try to put forth what the thought process is on this side of the fence.


Originally posted by WJjeeper
the 4th amendment applies to the people as a safeguard from governement- so your point is invalid.
dont even bring race into this.


The 4th amendment applies to the Government, not the individual. Your argument in your last post was the 4th amendment was being violated by officers, which was based on a plain text / black and white reading of the amendment. My argument was, and still is, if we use a plain text reading of the constitution and bill of rights, then black people would be counted as 3/5 of a person, and women could not vote.

The reason for pointing that out is to reinforce the idea that the Constitution did not always protect all of the people as people claim. You pointed out the preamble to the constitution, life, lierty, pursuit of happinness etc, and went on to state that by not allowing those items, a person was in essence a slave to the system. I was pointing out that the preamble did not apply to everyone, as is evident in what I pointed out. It took amendments, legislation and court cases to fix the problem.

Accepting the fact that legislation and courts were required to fix the problem, then it should also be accepted as valid when dealing with statutory law.


Originally posted by WJjeeper
And honestly, id rather not deal with internal affairs... ever, ive heard they are bigger assholes than you guys. i would also like to say, i would never reach for a cops gun, that was stupid to even say.


Its a forum for the free exchange of ideas, opinions and personal thoughts. You can say you would go for a cops gun, and my response to that would be its not a good idea. You are entitled to your opinion so no harm no foul.

IA is not liked because of what they do. Its always unpleasent when you ahve to investigate a person who by rights should be held to a higher standard. I have had to conduct IA investigations and hated every minute of it, however it did not prevent me from doing what was required.

The comment I see the most is who polices' the police, and its a valid comment. The problem is people have preconceived notions about law enforcement, and view IA in the context that it would be like having the SS investigate auschwitz.

It is up to the citizens to police the police, as it should be. The hardest part of that though is understanding what law enforcement is allowed / not allowed to do. To an untrained observer, most actions taken by law enforcement appear to be illegal.

Also, people use the term Peace Officer and Police Officer in a manner that suggests they are different, when in reality they are one in the same.

If you can do me a favor, please explain to me what you think the difference is between the 2.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
reply to post by paraphi
 


No man the cops do as they please, as soon as they step out of the car at a traffic stop, they have their hand on there weapon. They stop and talk to u on the street they put a hand on their weapon.


As far as a traffic stop goes try to see it from our side.

A person is driving down the road and is pulled over. That person immediately goes for their license and insurance, since they know its going to be asked for. The driver starts going back, trying to think of what they did wrong to be pulled over. The mind then goes to am I going to get a ticket, how much is the fine, maybe I can talk the officer intogiving a warning.

The Officer on the other hand knows why they stopped the vehicle - say for speeding. Aside from that, we have no idea who we stopped. Is the person drunk, on drugs, mentally unstable, escaped convict, just got done murdering people, drug mule, etc etc etc. This is one of the reasons we have our hands on our duty weapons.

The other reason we have our hands on our duty weapons when dealing with people in close qurarters is for safety. We are taught weapons retention in the academy, and that goes hand in hand with something called a reactionary gap, which is about 6-8 feet. We deal with people who are close talkers, which means they are within that zone. It becomes akward to tell a person to please back away, since it insinuates we dont trust the person we are talking to.

Its easier, safer and less confrontational to talk to a person while protecting our duty weapon.

If you ask an officer which they would rather do, a traffic stop or work a domestic, most will say domestic.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Constant fear? Not at all...

Situational awareness - always.

All it takes is complacency and a split second to be killed. What would you suggest we do?

There was an incident that ocured in Michigan about 10 years ago where a State Police Officer made a "routine" traffic stop on the highway. The driver of the vehicle stopped was an 84 year old lady who was driving erratically. The officer never told dispatch of his location because, in his mind, it was a quick check and a warning and then sending her on her way.

When he returned to the vehicle to give her the license back, she shot and killed the officer and fled. What the officer did not know was that she went mental and shot and killed her husband about 30 minutes prior to being stopped.

She thought the officer found out about the killing.

So yes, even the elderly can be dangerous. Contrary to tv and popular belief, crime is not restricted to a certain age group.


edit on 25-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by WJjeeper
Also, people use the term Peace Officer and Police Officer in a manner that suggests they are different, when in reality they are one in the same.

If you can do me a favor, please explain to me what you think the difference is between the 2.

Thanks





well this is the best definition ive found for a law enforcement officer-

Law-enforcement officers have the result of generating revenue for the political machinery,and this generation of revenue focus; often means that they actually disturb the peace (ie. causing violence and anarchy by arresting peaceful users of marijuana, prostitutes, etc)

a Peace officer is one who is trained to keep the peace, and does not enforce arbitrary statutory law. a peace officer adheres to the enforcement of the common law.


edit on 25-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
i would also like to say, last time i was pulled over i thought it was a CHP i knew. so i just stopped and jumped out of my rig. he got out (oops different CHP, i DO live in a small town), and put his hand on his sidearm and screamed at me to put my hands on my head. im by no means an aggressive looking dude, im a skinny 19yr old that looks like im barely old enough to drive
anyway, i was speeding, and i got a warning. cops usually arent unreasonable, ive always found friendly conversation makes the situation less tense.

another situation- driving down I5, get pulled over for "eratic driving", he said i appeared to be under the influence of something. I laughed and was like, "um, sir, its a jeep, the steering is slop" (turn my steering wheel, tires dont move) he asked where i was going,blah blah, and then we laughed about me looking 16 and having an ashtray full of cigarettes. i drove home. i really wasnt under the influence, but i had smoke and i couldve been hassled bad.
edit on 25-3-2011 by WJjeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
This is an example of most Law Enforcement use of force Continuum.

Link



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thewanger
 


Killing cops in the name of freedom? You must be joking. LEO's help enforce laws such as murder like you just proclaimed will be done to them. It wont happen, as soon as you tried, those of us in the military will gladly side with our LEO brothers and eliminate the threat.
edit on 25-3-2011 by LoverBoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
The problem stems from people believing that officers are enforcing the law.

Under the law you are innocent until proven guilty.

But to an officer you are guilty until proven innocent - as the cop's in here have stated, they go in expecting a worst case scenario - and really you can't blame them they have to put their life first.

The problem with this mindset though is it is inhumane - and the reason I say this is because human nature is to assume that most people are good, but the cop enters ever situation assuming they are bad.

I am not anti cops in anyway because we would not have the society we have without them but I also do not like that we have the society we have because of them.

IMO if someone really wants to kill you they will find a way - no amount of expecting the worse will prevent it - they could shoot you before you even stepped out of the squad car. I think having the "worst case scenario" mindset probably kills more innocents than it protects, and probably does little to effect those that were planning on killing an officer... just my opinion though.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
The problem stems from people believing that officers are enforcing the law.

Under the law you are innocent until proven guilty.

But to an officer you are guilty until proven innocent - as the cop's in here have stated, they go in expecting a worst case scenario - and really you can't blame them they have to put their life first.

The problem with this mindset though is it is inhumane - and the reason I say this is because human nature is to assume that most people are good, but the cop enters ever situation assuming they are bad.

I am not anti cops in anyway because we would not have the society we have without them but I also do not like that we have the society we have because of them.

IMO if someone really wants to kill you they will find a way - no amount of expecting the worse will prevent it - they could shoot you before you even stepped out of the squad car. I think having the "worst case scenario" mindset probably kills more innocents than it protects, and probably does little to effect those that were planning on killing an officer... just my opinion though.


Don't worry he is on the case...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by thewanger
 


Killing cops in the name of freedom? You must be joking. LEO's help enforce laws such as murder like you just proclaimed will be done to them. It wont happen, as soon as you tried, those of us in the military will gladly side with our LEO brothers and eliminate the threat.
edit on 25-3-2011 by LoverBoy because: (no reason given)


so you would fire on US citizens? as much as youd like to think the military is superior to the citizens, we have you outnumbered and outgunned (in the USA).




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join