Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

Wow, I get it now, a cop can't violate your rights because you have none. How stupid of me. These cops are awesome and deserve a raise!

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Homedawg

 

Absent obvious criminal activity an officer has NO right to demand id, to detain or search a citizen of this country, who by law, are innocent til proven guilty. You apperently think that an leo can and should interact with the public he supposedly serves on the opposite track: guilty til proven innocent (but quick to claim the other when caught lawbreaking themselves).

Actually here in AZ you are required to provide ID at any time when asked by a LEO

does this surprise you americans .what goes around comes around .Now tyranny has come to roost in Usa

Since we seem to have an abundance of people who think they are constitutional scholars and who think they understand how the law and their rights work I offer the following info for you to research. Its a bit lengthy as I gave the legal terms, what it means, and examples for each. Hopefully this info will assist some in understanding the op article and how it progressed.

I am NOT providing this info as a defense of the op articles Officer actions. I am providing it so people can learn how this actually works and not how they think it works.

Probable Cause

reply to post by Xcathdra


Excellent post.

Sadly, none of that applies to corrupt law enforcement.... They are the law, and above it whenever, wherever, and for whatever they choose.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Excellent post.

Sadly, none of that applies to corrupt law enforcement.... They are the law, and above it whenever, wherever, and for whatever they choose.

As with any profession, you will have your share of morons, including law enforcement. Cops are subject to not only the same laws as a civilian, we are subject to expanded criteria that only applies to Law Enforcement. Not every single officer is corrupt, power hungry, abuses his or her authority, etc etc etc.

*Not directed at you, but in general
I also want to point out that people seem to be undermining their own arguments. You guys claim we are above the law, face preferential treatment etc etc etcetc, while completely ignoring the fact that you guys are posting articles that document police misconduct/brutality/etc etc etc in addition to their arrest, charges being filed and the officer being prosecuted.

If we are above the law as claimed, then why are we being charged with the crimes? Based on the logic I am seeing others demonstrate in the thread, cops should never ever be charged with any crimes, since we are "above" the law.

Yet here we are.

reply to post by NuroSlam


1:55 - "You're not listening to our orders right now"

Wake up America, cops can order you to do whatever they please, even if you're on your own private property, because they feel uncomfortable. Is that all the justification they need to do whatever they want, arrest whoever they want? "I feel threatened by a 140 pound woman videotaping me in her front yard", law enforcement officers are PATHETIC! Absolutely no crime was committed here, she was on her private property, using her own videocamera, to videotape police officers which are there to protect people. She cannot videotape them, but they can videotape themselves arresting somebody and put it on COPS if they want to.

These pigs do not protect and serve, they intimidate and abuse authority.

I think we've had just about enough harassment from law enforcement officers and our own government, it's time for a revolution. Sadly the majority of the people in this country don't even see what is happenning, they just mindlessly live their lives, thinking about their appearance and popularity, while the government slowly is taking away our Constitutional rights one by one, right in front of their stupid faces.

I post things like this on Facebook, and nobody gives a s***. Nobody cares about their rights being taken away, then in a few years when there are cops patrolling our neighborhoods with assault rifles, setting up checkpoints where we have to provide ID, telling us where we can and can't stand, what we can and can't say, I'm sure they'll be the idiots that argue that they're here to help us.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Whatever happened to zero tolerance?

Since you state there are morons in every profession, including law enforcement, it implies you know such morons. If you DO know such morons, and fail to arrest them for violating the law, the YOU are a co-conspirator and enabler of crimes under the color of authority.

There is NO middle ground here. Either you maintain absolutely strict standards, higher than those applied to the general public, because the power they possess is vastly more than Joe Public's, or you are guilty of aiding and abetting crimes, period.

Regarding the Rochester arrest:

Police are human, have feelings, etc...BUT...those feelings don't give them the authority to abuse the public and aren't justification for arresting anyone. Feel scared? Too freaking bad, control your fear. Your job isn't to make yourself safe, it is to protect the public. Your personal feelings have no business effecting how you do your job. If you can't control your emotions you have no business being a cop. In this case the arrest was made clearly because she annoyed the cop, who made a comment about thinking she was anti-cop. Everyone gets annoyed by the public they interact with at times, but a clerk in a store puts up with more crap than any cop ever sees and is usually pretty polite, because they'd lose their job if they reacted like cops do. You see, they manage to control their emotions and do the job they are paid to do with patience and politeness. Only cops indulge themselves in venting their frustrations, fears, and annoyance upon their employers.

Another thing, it chaps my hide when cops refer to non-cops as "civilians", as if cops weren't. Get a clue: a cop is a civilian, since he or she isn't active duty military. Trying to usurp the military's titles is just pathetic, cops come nowhere close to the sacrifice, devotion to duty, and honor the average military troop displays. If a soldier looked to his own safety first, we'd lose every war we fought.

I know that a lot of cops are ex-military. But in the military I served in (USAF), the skycops were the guys whose abilities and intellect were too low to be useful for much more than standing guard. Military police aren't exactly the cream of the crop: those guys go into the actual combat and technical units. So claiming status as a military vet only impresses those who don't know much about the military and how it functions.

Cops are, always were, and always will be civilians.

As far as not being up on the current laws, it is clearly a responsibility of upper management to ensure that today's laws are followed, not those superceded years ago. A failure to keep the lower ranks informed properly is criminal neglect in my opinion, and should be grounds for immediate dismissal with prejudice, i.e, no retirement bennies and exclusion from working in law enforcement forever: that kind of incompetence cannot be tolerated. That is how corruption creeps into police work.

So to all the LEOs out there: police yourselves first with zero tolerance for bad apples, learn to control your fears, and to respect the public, and perhaps you might earn some respect from the rest of us. But as long as you protect and excuse criminal behavior within your own ranks you deserve contempt and to be considered as part of the criminal class yourselves, even if you personally think you're a good guy because you don't actively break the law (that you know of). You tolerate a known or suspected "bad apple" within your ranks, then you are aiding and abetting crime and are equally criminal in whatever the "bad apple" does, be it rape, murder, theft, whatever.

We've had about 11 "bad apples" under investigation in San Diego recently: rapists (several), stalkers, dui hit and run, extorting hookers for sex (rape), assault...sadly the list goes on. In any other context we'd be talking "tip of the iceberg", which I personally think is the case; these are just the ones dumb enough and egregious enough to get caught.

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Joining at least 10 department colleagues caught up in misconduct investigations over the last several months, a veteran San Diego police officer was on unpaid leave Friday and facing a possible DUI charge stemming from a recent off-duty South Bay traffic incident.

The case stems from a report by another motorist about the driving of the 19-year SDPD officer, whose name was withheld, early last Friday evening on Ithaca Court in Chula Vista, according to a three-sentence news release from police in that city south of San Diego.

"No arrest was made at that time, but there is a continuing investigation into the incident, and the (Chula Vista Police) Department intends to forward a case to the (District Attorney's) Office for ... review," the statement reads. "SDPD's command was notified of the incident the evening it occurred, and CVPD is cooperating with their internal investigation.'

...A succession of other officers with the department have been accused of various crimes this year, ranging from off-duty DUI to on-the-job sexual assaults. Of those, six have been arrested.

In response to the rash of officer-misconduct cases, San Diego police Chief William Lansdowne publicly apologized and pledged to immediately institute a comprehensive in-house reform plan designed to prevent such embarrassments in the future.

"I clearly understand that this activity, conduct ... (of the) officers involved in these cases has tarnished the image of this police department," the chief said during a May 10 news conference. "And we'll work hard to repair that, but it'll take years to rebuild that relationship, I believe, between us and the community of San Diego."

The next day, a 26-year-old SDPD officer was arrested for allegedly raping a prostitute in Presidio Park while on duty. The accusations against Daniel Edward Dana of Escondido, a three-year member of the department, promptly cost him his job and left him facing a maximum of more than 17 years in prison if convicted.

www.cbs8.com... er-under-investigation

That many cops doing commiting that many crimes couldn't have gone unnoticed within the ranks. So all the other cops who knew these guys and what they were doing are equally guilty. If they didn't know, then they should be fired for incompetence for not noticing crimes perpetrated right under their noses.

Once a cop hater,always a cop hater and ner will any evidence to the contrary be allowed to enetr the mind of said hater....resistance is futile with these type folks

For those who think that I am nothing more then a cop hater, I ask you to read the

For all you "LEO's" out there

thread, and see for yourself how I interact with members of law enforcement and get back with me. This is how a good cop acts and treats a citizens concerns and answers their questions.

reply to post by NuroSlam


You make statements like you arent a cop hater,and offer another thread as proof,yet you open that thread with statements such as" Well answer me this boy wonders,"....No,its easy to see you have severe bias...

reply to post by apacheman


Care to point out where being a moron is illegal and a violation of the law? If we use your logic, then many people on this site should be arrested as well..

As far as strict standards go, what are you smoking? Do you work in an enviornment where no people make a mistake, including yourself? Contrary to the way some people portray law enforcement, its not the easiest profession to work in, and comments from people in this thread bear that out.

Let me give you a law that contains elements that must be violated, and send you into a situation involving more than one person who are telling you 2 different stories and see how well you can read through the BS to make a decision.

Until you or the others can go down to the lake and walk across it, you have no room to talking.

What you and the others fail to grasp is when we are dealing with a person, that person becomes our responsibility. If we are working a DWI accident where the drunk survived, but killed a family of 5, that drunk is under our control since we have him detained / arrested, and we are responsibile for his safety.

If I am dealing with an individual, and a 3rd party feels the need to watch, thats fine but do it from a distance. If that 3rd party does anything that attracts my attention, and continues after I tell them to stop, then they have now obstructed me in doing my job by forcing me to divert my attention from at hand to deal with them.

You guys seem to be confused with how your civil rights work. Let me explain this to you, again.

Your rights extend to the point of interfering with the rights of others. If an officer tells you to do something, and you dont agree with it, thats fine. If you think you can continue to be a pain in the ass without action being taken while trying to claim your civil rights are violated, then you are a moron as well.

And since, based on your own logic, you are a moron, we should arrest you. You think it comes down to emotions and control and you would be the farthest from understanding how it works. My emotions have nothing to do with me telling a 3rd party to back off or to stop a certain action.

The simple fact you think its based on emotion further reinforces the fact that you and several others really have no idea / concept / clue how this profession works. Which is even more evident with the comments people make towards law enforcement, which by the way are based on emotion and not facts. And you suggest cops act on emotion... Back to that moronr comment and arresting people.

Using the term criminally negligent when talking about updated laws / case law, again, reinforces my point that you dont know what your talking about. Again if we apply that logic, then law enforcement would be able to arrest just about every person they come into contact with.

Or are you suggesting that civilians should get preferential treatment?

We are required to go through quarterly - annual training to keep up with new laws, changes in laws and case law updates. For a person to make the suggestion command staff should be held criminally negligent for failing to keep lower ranks informed, while completely failing to understand the term criminally negligent and how its used, is hypocritical and not all surprising.

You and the others refuse to learn how the law works, how your rights work, while at the same time offering your interpretation and opinion of the law based on nothing more than an ignorance on how it works.

As I said before, not all cops fall into the view you and others have. As I have said before, not all civilians we deal with are morons. Both groups have their "icebergs".

As far as the articles you and everyone else brings up I point this out. The simple fact that the media is reporting on invesitigations into officers completely undermines the continued argument by some that cops are above the law. If we were, there never would be an investigation into the officers in the first place.

Hypocritical much?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
For those who think that I am nothing more then a cop hater, I ask you to read the

For all you "LEO's" out there

thread, and see for yourself how I interact with members of law enforcement and get back with me. This is how a good cop acts and treats a citizens concerns and answers their questions.

Why do you think that your opinion of how "a good cop acts" should be the standard across the nation? respect is eanred, not just granted. That is a 2 way street though and people seem to forget that.

If I stop you for speeding, and you decide to berate me for enforcing a law while not going after rapists or murders, at what point do you think I am going to tell you to shut up so I can continue with what I origionally stopped you for? I dont mind letting people vent to a point, but at some point the diatribe from the person stopped becomes an interference of my job, which forces us to reassert control over the stop.

You and the others ignore the details and liability involved when we do our job. Any time an officer deals with a person in an investigative manner, we are responsible for that persons safety as well as ours. I am not going to stand at the drivers window and let a person who was speeding berate me for 20 minutes on how I should go after someone else. Not only is it dangerous for the person to be sitting on the side of the road, its more dangerous for me to be standing at their window with traffic going by,

People make the comments cops should know what they are getting into. We do know what we are getting into, which is why we take the actions we take.

As another poster pointed out, and I agree with, once a cop hater always a cop hater. I see comments from people who obviously have no idea how the law or their rights work. You guys argue from a position of ignorance while critiquing officer actions when you dont even know how law enforcement operates.

All cops are corrupt / pigs etc / etc / etc.

That also is a 2 way road and can be applied to people in this thread about the everyday citizen being corrupt / asses / morons / ignorant / and self grandizing with the argument of go arrest a real criminal so you can continue to speed because you feel your above the law.

funny how that works.

reply to post by Xcathdra


This particular cop filed a false report alleging he stopped three criminals. No wonder he felt unsafe because he was being filmed with only one.

I submit that given that he is known to have perjured himself on an official report, he is a criminal cop.

That you defend his behavior speaks volumes about the way you approach your job. I guess that in your eyes a criminal cop is still a cop, and protecting a fellow cop is more important than upholding the law.

edit to add:

In the context under discussion, you were the one who called bad-apple cops who violated citizen's rights and worse "morons". Being a moron is not against the law, true (unless of course a camera is involved). What is against the law is being a moron with a badge who abuses his position and authority. If you know them and don't arrest them, then you are aiding and abetting criminal behavior. Clear now?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Why do you think that your opinion of how "a good cop acts" should be the standard across the nation? respect is eanred, not just granted. That is a 2 way street though and people seem to forget that.

Thats very true, and at least here in Phoenix the common patrol officer shows very little respect even when you are trying to take a food order from them, The stations will order 50 pizzas, want them in 30 mins and more often then not will not even say thank you. there is no curtesy by the LEO in phoenix. This is my experiance as a business owner.

As another poster pointed out, and I agree with, once a cop hater always a cop hater. I see comments from people who obviously have no idea how the law or their rights work. You guys argue from a position of ignorance while critiquing officer actions when you dont even know how law enforcement operates.

I argue from the point of life liberty and property. that a crime must meet the burden of corpus delicti

My point is simple, overall there is no respect for the individuals rights to life liberty or property when it comes to the extraction of money. And in the end, that is the majority of a the job that a LEO does. Look for someone breaking some arbitrary law, issue a request for funds(a ticket) and if it "donation" is not paid, then they are kidnapped and imprisoned. How different would you act if you could just be fired by the people that pay your salary, I dare say you would act quite a bit differently. Does anyone wonder why there are no real oversight committees panelled by the common citizen? because the police unions do everything in their power to stop it.

You can continue to attack me with these lame claims that I hate cops, that I will always hate cops, but in the end, you are not addressing the issue of why. you gloss over it, crying about doing your job, ok, continue to do your job as you are, but know one day, if things don't start to change, and the LEO returns to the Peace Officer i'm afraid you are all going to find out that you are seriously out gunned and out manned by the common citizen.

I do have a serious disgust of the common patrol officer, but does that mean I don't treat them with respect? no, I respect those who respect me as an individual.

Whats a good cop? I say former Sheriff Mack of Graham County Az was a great cop, he knew that the sheriff was the last line of defense against government, not its enforcement arm, that he was responsible to all the people, to protect them all, not just those that voted for him.

Hi, I'm Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and long-time crusader for freedom and individual rights. .........
I lecture and give seminars on constitutional issues relating to gun control, law enforcement, States' rights, the farce, otherwise known as the drug war, and the oath of office. I have also been a consultant for lawyers, and people in general helping them with cases of unlawful arrests and police misconduct. I have stood for "the little guy" against "big brother" government.

www.sheriffmack.com...
He is on the board of directors of the oath keepers, yes I am an anarchist, I see no need for government, but if I am going to have to live under its rule since people are no civilised enough to live peaceably, Then this is what I expect of a good cop
oathkeepers.org...

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

reply to post by apacheman

There is NO middle ground here. Either you maintain absolutely strict standards, higher than those applied to the general public, because the power they possess is vastly more than Joe Public's, or you are guilty of aiding and abetting crimes, period.

Bravo, well put!

Thank you very much apacheman. A star on your post!

reply to post by NuroSlam


Right.. as I said before, you apparently have no understanding of what Sheriff Mack was involved in. You also ignore the fact its a case form 1997. You ignore the fact the legislation has been changed and complies with the Supreme Court ruling in that case.

As with everything else, if you are going to invoke a supreme court case, you should probably understand what the case is about, the results, how old it is, as well as any case law that reversed the origional ruling.

again your view on cops is based on what you think instead of the actual law itself. There is a huge difference between the 2.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
For all you "LEO's" out there
thread, and see for yourself how I interact with members of law enforcement and get back with me. This is how a good cop acts and treats a citizens concerns and answers their questions.

Why do you think that your opinion of how "a good cop acts" should be the standard across the nation? respect is eanred, not just granted. That is a 2 way street though and people seem to forget that.

I think this statement speaks for itself, why do I think my opinion counts? Because I am a citizen, I am a tax payer, I am a business man, I PAY YOUR SALARY. My opion does matter, just not to you.

Its obvious that like everything else anyone that has a problem with the common patrol office has said you have dismissed with bravado.
Had you actually read the thread you would have seen that I asked a number of questions and that a training officer from LA answered then, not in a demeaning tone, not with malice but with an attempt to honestly address the issue. A polite respectful discussion ensued and at least for me, I have genuine respect for this man. He even has a term for some one like you "shiny badge syndrome".

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Right.. as I said before, you apparently have no understanding of what Sheriff Mack was involved in. You also ignore the fact its a case form 1997. You ignore the fact the legislation has been changed and complies with the Supreme Court ruling in that case.

As with everything else, if you are going to invoke a supreme court case, you should probably understand what the case is about, the results, how old it is, as well as any case law that reversed the origional ruling.

again your view on cops is based on what you think instead of the actual law itself. There is a huge difference between the 2.

What court case did i invoke? Once again, putting words in mouth
Yes it is what I think, it was the law to beat and return a slave, because its a law does not mean its "lawful"

reply to post by apacheman

First off, I didn't say all, but only those I'm familiar with; applying the same rules of logic that governs polling, if you have a big enough sample, you can extrapolate to the whole. I have a pretty big sample set. When you see the same problems in city after city, year after year, for decades, then you can make reasonable conclusions as to causes. When the probabilities lie on side of corruptio, go with the probabilities.

How can you reasonably claim to personally know and have had experience with a big enough sample of the sworn police officers to draw a conclusion like that.
Total Numbers of Sworn Police Officers by State
So you are claiming to have a pretty big sample set? One that is large enough and diverse enough to draw a conclusion as broad as the one you are making? Look at the numbers. I think not.

Second, it's a pretty big leap to claim police are always justified in their entry into homes, as witness case after case of getting the wrong address, wrong guy, etc. I've suffered through 2 home invasions, one claiming to be police. Since the innocent homeowner doesn't know if the armed strangers kicking his door in are actually cops, or actually have the correct address, the whole thing says shoot first if you can.

Unfortunately, I do not have data on the number of times the police get the wrong address on a search warrant. Based on the number of times the police conduct search warrants, compared to the number of times we hear of the police getting the wrong address, you have a better chance of hitting the mega millions jackpot then the police hitting your house instead of the one they intended to. And I will guarantee it will be like you hit the mega millions jackpot because the department will immediately provide an apology and a hefty settlement to remedy the mistake.

It can also be concluded that, based on the amount of legitimate search warrants conducted by the police compared to the amount of illegitimate home invasions committed by criminals posing as police, the regular citizen has a better chance of getting struck by lightning then being the victim of a police impersonation home invasion. The reason I say "regular citizen" is because there is one group in particular that falls prey to this sort of home invasion regularly. Drug dealers.

Third, one of the biggest delusions that cops have is that their job is more dangerous than average. It simply isn't true: go to the DOL and look up workplace injury/mortality rates and clearly, police work is far, far safer than construction, farm work, fishing, taxi-driving or clerking at a 7-11.

In the professions you listed, there is not a group of people that are constantly trying to undermine your efforts and specifically target you for violence. The people in these professions also do not have a job where they are required by duty to act in certain scenarios where everyone else is attempting to escape the situation. Your comparison on the mortality/injury rate is completely baseless. Did the data show the incidence of attempts on a police officer's life or safety? I am sure that number is way higher than the rest due to the nature of the job.

Im sorry but the rest of your post is rediculous, unverifiable and not worth responding to.