# Do These Look Like Cops to You?



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)




----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Not sure where you got this but My first impression was its a scam to make money. I saw no assault other than a hand and a lot of camera motion. not real in my book.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Yeah, sadly it does look like today's police to me. We inch closer to Gestapo rule everyday, and aren't that far away now. How long before "Show me your papers!"?


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

"Bless the ballsy oh Lord, for they tickle me immense!"

Brave kids God love 'em. Glad nobody shot.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

slewfoot said:


> Not sure where you got this but My first impression was its a scam to make money. I saw no assault other than a hand and a lot of camera motion. not real in my book.


Since when is it illegal to record police from your own property? Of course I wasn't there, and may be things I am not seeing, but looks like he was not getting in the way of the police doing their job.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Hands visible or not, being arrested for filming public servants while on public(sidewalk) of private(own lawn) property is assault.
The man behind the camera committed no crime.
It is not illegal to disobey an illegal order, regardless of whether the person in authority labels it a "lawful" one or not.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Moonshinedave said:


> Since when is it illegal to record police from your own property? Of course I wasn't there, and may be things I am not seeing, but looks like he was not getting in the way of the police doing their job.


Agreed. This is enforcement run a muck. With the way lawsuits are today I can understand their reluctance to be on film. But as the government says to you if your not doing anything wrong you should have no objection to being searched, questioned or filmed with or without notice or permission. That is a two way street. Correction: Its our street and the police are civil servants. I will record government representatives from my own property if I choose and there should be nothing the government can legally do about it.


----------



## mcangus (Jun 3, 2014)

I live in Communist America. Yes they look like my cops.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

That is NOT police, that is brown shirt thugs! That should not happen in my America and should not be allowed, period.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

It would be nice to see the police walk onto somebodies lawn and have the sprinklers turn on


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

Looks like Military guys to me, not police. Maybe there was more going on there than the guy who video'd it knew.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Do they look like cops no. Are they, probably. Cops today are being taught they can be recorded since the supremes upheld doing so. If this person was truly prevented then he has legit civil action. If he is scamming then he's sound an audience willing to buy his scam.

Assuming it's not a scam we live in a society where he is free to post this, hire a lawyer and add significantly to his savings. Try that in China, Cuba, or Iran....he'll try that in 70% of the world....



Moonshinedave said:


> Since when is it illegal to record police from your own property? Of course I wasn't there, and may be things I am not seeing, but looks like he was not getting in the way of the police doing their job.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Bull if the little shit got his head blown off by crossfire his parents would have a lawyer at city hall before daylight. They identified themselves as police. If illegally impersonating a police officer they went to a lot of trouble to do it.

It is not illegal to make such recordings. However the police have the authority and responsibility to establish a reasonable perimeter of safety. If the little shit was inside recording from a window likely nothing would have been said to him.

If his rights were violated he has the proof. I would like to know this full story and how a judge ruled.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

long as people keep seeing those scenes and thinking. Ridiculous is what it looked like and grown men embarrassed to be seen doing that. Like they should be.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Police state this is what the people who are suppose to protect us look like, and do. The Nazi Gestapo is not much different then some of our "police". How long is it going to be be for we are forced to register fire arms in the name of safety, or show papers for the right to do something? What happen to being an American citizen was our right to do as we pleased legally, or own firearms/weapons? How much long is it going to be be for we are a 100% police state with no freedoms or liberties? When are the American people going to wake up and stand up for their self? We need to stop standing by wile evil succeeds, and put a stop to it and show the world and the people what we will not put up with. Sadly we will put up with this or else it wouldn't be to this point.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Someone needs to add something to this story. Was the person being served have a known violent record?

I guess I am lucky. I never have these bad run-ins with the law that some of you seem to have experienced.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

So the nazi Gestapo was not much different? You know this due to your vast experience and research on them I'm sure. Your brilliant comparison must have evidence of mass murders by those AMERICANS you hate so much, forced incarceration of religious groups, torturous investigations, and massive rapes and brutalizations of millions? Where is it owe enlightened one?

GOD I'm glad we can block ignore some real winners around here!



firefighter72 said:


> Police state this is what the people who are suppose to protect us look like, and do. The Nazi Gestapo is not much different then some of our "police". How long is it going to be be for we are forced to register fire arms in the name of safety, or show papers for the right to do something? What happen to being an American citizen was our right to do as we pleased legally, or own firearms/weapons? How much long is it going to be be for we are a 100% police state with no freedoms or liberties? When are the American people going to wake up and stand up for their self? We need to stop standing by wile evil succeeds, and put a stop to it and show the world and the people what we will not put up with. Sadly we will put up with this or else it wouldn't be to this point.


----------



## oldmurph58 (Feb 8, 2014)

looked on military.com, same outfits the infantry used. Sure dont look like cops.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Ripon said:


> So the nazi Gestapo was not much different? You know this due to your vast experience and research on them I'm sure. Your brilliant comparison must have evidence of mass murders by those AMERICANS you hate so much, forced incarceration of religious groups, torturous investigations, and massive rapes and brutalizations of millions? Where is it owe enlightened one?
> 
> GOD I'm glad we can block ignore some real winners around here!


When the Gestapo first came about they didn't jump right to killing millions of jews. It was a slow process in which the people voted away their rights, we ok with certain things on certain groups of people(the jews), and things like it. As for hating Americans I don't know were you got that from. My guess is your narrow mindness in which if someone brings up a point that doesn't agree with yours then they are wrong. History has a thing for repeating it's self. Some of the things happening now in America are very similar to the things that happened in Germany be for ww2, and yes I do some research on history and current events.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

When you compare the police today to the gestapo of Germany prior to WWII or during WWII without qualification you deserve the rant I gave you. I'm sorry anyone that wants to make that statement without qualification I'd prefer to ignore to be honest; you qualified it some - thank you.

I can find a parallel to modern day law enforcement to pre WWII german police sure and I can also find parallels to the NFL in Roman gladiator games too. It doesn't mean the parallels are truly legitimate. When idiots on the American left try to restrict firearms I don't hear them saying restrict them from Jews, Muslims, or Christians - they are pretty darn equal opportunistic haters of firearms and they don't differentiate one group from another. The germans did that - you know that correct?



firefighter72 said:


> When the Gestapo first came about they didn't jump right to killing millions of jews. It was a slow process in which the people voted away their rights, we ok with certain things on certain groups of people(the jews), and things like it. As for hating Americans I don't know were you got that from. My guess is your narrow mindness in which if someone brings up a point that doesn't agree with yours then they are wrong. History has a thing for repeating it's self. Some of the things happening now in America are very similar to the things that happened in Germany be for ww2, and yes I do some research on history and current events.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Ripon said:


> When you compare the police today to the gestapo of Germany prior to WWII or during WWII without qualification you deserve the rant I gave you. I'm sorry anyone that wants to make that statement without qualification I'd prefer to ignore to be honest; you qualified it some - thank you.
> 
> I can find a parallel to modern day law enforcement to pre WWII german police sure and I can also find parallels to the NFL in Roman gladiator games too. It doesn't mean the parallels are truly legitimate. When idiots on the American left try to restrict firearms I don't hear them saying restrict them from Jews, Muslims, or Christians - they are pretty darn equal opportunistic haters of firearms and they don't differentiate one group from another. The germans did that - you know that correct?


You need take a harder look yourself. The Nazi's didn't start with the Jews. Political dissidents were their first target. Yes, the biggest group they hounded and went after publicly were Jews but there were other also. They sent Gypsies, communists and even homosexuals to the camps. Many educated Poles were sent so they could not form a resistance. They singled out Soviets, the disabled and even Jehovah's Witnesses.

So you can get as indignant as you wish and ignore what is going on. It's your choice.

I would agree with your assertion that the NFL could be compared to the Roman Gladiators. The only real difference right now is it's still illegal to kill your opponent......................for now. There are a number of other parallels to Rome but I won't go there.

All (or most anyhow) suppressive governments started small. Kinda like the Senate Bill S.J. Res. 19. Part of that bill states our politicians get to decide what is free speech and what is not. Yet there is no outrage and you hear nearly nothing about it. Ya gotta crawl before you can walk. Next is baby steps. Then you can hit the ground running. Once they hit the ground running, it's gonna be a little late to do anything about it.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Just shut up and stand in line. 
Free anal cavity searches for everyone. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

The overriding point is should police have the best protection possible given the task. Just because the police had military style vehicle and up to date body armor does not make them in any way shape or form a representation of a police state.

The question at hand is: "Do These Look Like Cops to You?" 

My answer is Yes. As long as badges were worn correctly and they identified themselves correctly. Were they performing a police function, yes.

The video did demonstrate that there are a ton of young people that think they are a Johnny Cocran constitutional lawyer. All the kid did was make himself look foolish on a video that might come up the rest of his life.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Some police I have came into contact with, either talking to direct, or seeing them in action as third person most seem to have the same attitude, that they are just pain better than everyone else. After all the rest of us are just "shits". Yeah, that six to nine months they spend in training, makes them forever better than the rest of us nobodies. Even though, some of us nobodies are ex-military and have spent years handling firearms, and some of us have been in real combat, whereas our brave men in blue only battles come from the firing range, deciding between the jelly or glazed donuts (or both) and once in a while prove their manhood by beating somebody too drunk to even stand up, and of course having a couple of their buddies close by just in case he isn't quite as drunk as they thought.
No, I am not speaking of all, and probably not even most. Some, I know are good men and women just doing their jobs, but the others, the bad ones, are out there sure enough, and the good ones feel committed to defending the actions of the bad ones.
As others have written, we let them get away with it, little by little, small steps at a time, until we've created (allow) a monster we can no longer do nothing with except bow down to.
*EDIT*
I change the word "most" police, to "some" police, I felt it was probably more fair.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I can agree with some, not most. At least not yet. I have known both good and bad but it seems the bad are growing in numbers. I really hope I'm wrong but this is what I see.

It wasn't that long ago that 2 Dallas officers shot a mentally ill person. Yes the guy had a knife but he was sitting in a chair in a cul de sac. The officers had lots of room between this guy and them. They told the guy to stand and he did. A couple of seconds later, the man was dead. How do I know how it went down? The entire thing was captured on a home security system camera. The narrative came from concerned neighbors. How many other situations like this happen that are not on camera?


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

800,000 police officers in America. The number of bad is less today then in years past. The incidents are better documented today, and that leads to greater outcry. What was considered good ole boy police work 25 years ago when I put on a badge is no longer acceptable, but yet somehow there is this strange consensus the police are worse?

It wasn't that long ago two young boys broke into a car in my small town. A neighbor caught them and put them in the back of his PU, drove them to an orchard, made em sit by a tree waited for the farmer to show up. The farmer came with a tractor / back hoe and started digging a hole in front of them. The kids cried like babies as they joked about making the hole deeper so they wouldn't be found. One kid finally yelled the police will get you. The farmer laughed. Looked over and the cop parked behind them laughed louder. No they didn't bury the kids, but they sure scared em straight. Imagine that today? LE today wouldn't be able to participate in that and would lock up a farmer and neighbor for trying.



inceptor said:


> I can agree with some, not most. At least not yet. I have known both good and bad but it seems the bad are growing in numbers. I really hope I'm wrong but this is what I see.
> 
> It wasn't that long ago that 2 Dallas officers shot a mentally ill person. Yes the guy had a knife but he was sitting in a chair in a cul de sac. The officers had lots of room between this guy and them. They told the guy to stand and he did. A couple of seconds later, the man was dead. How do I know how it went down? The entire thing was captured on a home security system camera. The narrative came from concerned neighbors. How many other situations like this happen that are not on camera?


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

I did not comment to say cops are bad. I highly respect the uniform.
I only say, that we are giving up our rights, NOBODY is taking them. 
Are there bad cops, yes, but I know there are great cops out there, in fact, probably a huge majority. 
Still need a lapel camera.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

If you want a good laugh look at LEO walking into local ranges. They look like GI JOE swat team ninja's walking in. Like something out of a bad movie.
Look at some of the ones in Milwaukee dressed up in OD green and black, doo rags on fingerless gloves man they got the bad thing going on.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Ripon said:


> 800,000 police officers in America. The number of bad is less today then in years past. The incidents are better documented today, and that leads to greater outcry. What was considered good ole boy police work 25 years ago when I put on a badge is no longer acceptable, but yet somehow there is this strange consensus the police are worse?
> 
> It wasn't that long ago two young boys broke into a car in my small town. A neighbor caught them and put them in the back of his PU, drove them to an orchard, made em sit by a tree waited for the farmer to show up. The farmer came with a tractor / back hoe and started digging a hole in front of them. The kids cried like babies as they joked about making the hole deeper so they wouldn't be found. One kid finally yelled the police will get you. The farmer laughed. Looked over and the cop parked behind them laughed louder. No they didn't bury the kids, but they sure scared em straight. Imagine that today? LE today wouldn't be able to participate in that and would lock up a farmer and neighbor for trying.


First off, thank you for your service, I am not anti-police, I could not imagine this country without our police force keeping the bad guys at bay. But with that being said you jumped Firefighter75 for making statements you felt was without fact, and then make the statement that there are less bad cops today than in the past, exactly how did you arrive at that fact?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

LE today does not enforce law or good public order. They enforce current agenda and nothing more.
1. They arrest only who the DA and COP allow
2. They go after only who they are allowed
3. They toe the party line of look for a new job
LE in 2014 welcome to the new world.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> Someone needs to add something to this story. Was the person being served have a known violent record?
> 
> I guess I am lucky. I never have these bad run-ins with the law that some of you seem to have experienced.


I think when I first saw this thread I pulled up what news there was and this was either a drug sale site or the gent was known to be armed.

but cops are being branded a s Nazis - which 90% are not; Gestapo - which 90% are not, murders - which 90 plus % are not. Yet let one of them not respond quick enough for their needs or issues and we're not doing our job.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> I think when I first saw this thread I pulled up what news there was and this was either a drug sale site or the gent was known to be armed.
> 
> but cops are being branded a s Nazis - which 90% are not; Gestapo - which 90% are not, murders - which 90 plus % are not. Yet let one of them not respond quick enough for their needs or issues and we're not doing our job.


I dare say cops are not being branded as Nazis. I do dare say, on the other hand, you are building a straw man to defend.

That a criminal is known to be armed or that it was about drugs is reason for an army to roll in at 0400 hrs, you suggest? I don't, but that is a matter of tactics. As has been pointed out, we do not know all of which the PD knew. It could be that the person being arrested used other people to bring groceries to him so he wouldn't need to leave the house, thereby preventing the PD from picking him up off the street. It could be that he was armed to the teeth and had guards in there with him. The PD, I am sure, collected intel before going to arrest him. 
On the other hand, it might have been the use of extreme force with military equipment.

Regardless of that, the neighbor who was on his own property filming the incident was committing no crime and the police had no authority to make contact with him. The police violated their oath in doing so. That is more dangerous than the man being arrested.

The road to tyranny isn't abrupt, but incremental.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Originally Posted by firefighter72 View Post
Police state this is what the people who are suppose to protect us look like, and do. The Nazi Gestapo is not much different then some of our "police".

Funny Guess you and I didn't read the same posts.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Just to be clear the PD hasn't released any news on this either in the press or their web site as to this raid or to this gent's arrest.

However, this same pd took 24 pounds of meth off the street earlier this year.

The officers look like they are suited up for a really bad arrest (perps possibly heavily armed).

The ones on the street by the vehicle are most likely part of the outer perimeter. To keep innocent by standers out of the line of fire and in the case of a meth lab out of the immediate blast zone.

Although the gent with the iPad says he's not armed, the last thing the raid cops want or need is someone breaching their perimeter that may be armed. To a cop we have to treat you as possibly armed unless you're naked or we've searched you.

Do they have the authority to order you back into your house. I'll tell you I don't have that answer.

What I will tell you is that I'll appologize to you for any inconvience after we've got the scene secure and all the bad stuff and guys in the van and be thankful that you are alive forme to tell you that. What I don;t like having to do is to explain to you next of kin why we let you get your stupid ass shot off and why we didn't do more to keep you from getting it shot off.

So which would you have rather have happened?????


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

What the LEO did not want was any witness to what they were doing . It is common for LE to do things like this.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

There was a nice article on the radio about a black person that was being charged with four counts of destroying public property because he bled on police uniforms. After being beat by the cops. The video of the incident had been accidentally taped over and was not available for the trial as evidence.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> Just to be clear the PD hasn't released any news on this either in the press or their web site as to this raid or to this gent's arrest.
> 
> However, this same pd took 24 pounds of meth off the street earlier this year.
> 
> ...


You don't have that answer? 
The man was on his own property and wasn't interfering with operations.
You do have the answer. You might not like it, but you know it.

You took an oath, as did those soldier/cops. All the rationalization about meth taken off the street and whether or not a man who is posing no threat is armed is no excuse for violaing the oath.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Denton said:


> You don't have that answer?
> The man was on his own property and wasn't interfering with operations.
> You do have the answer. You might not like it, but you know it.
> 
> You took an oath, as did those soldier/cops. All the rationalization about meth taken off the street and whether or not a man who is posing no threat is armed is no excuse for violaing the oath.


If the police really had animosity toward the young ... That iPad would have got broken.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> If the police really had animosity toward the young ... That iPad would have got broken.


 That happens often I pad ,phone ect.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> If the police really had animosity toward the young ... That iPad would have got broken.


"Hey! This is on I-Cloud!"

You are assuming it was not broken. I'm not assuming it was. I am basing my opinion simply on what I saw in the footage.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> ...What I will tell you is that I'll appologize to you for any inconvience after we've got the scene secure and all the bad stuff and guys in the van and be thankful that you are alive forme to tell you that. What I don;t like having to do is to explain to you next of kin why we let you get your stupid ass shot off and why we didn't do more to keep you from getting it shot off.
> 
> So which would you have rather have happened?????


I didn't address this paragraph yesterday, but today is another day.

Suggesting the man go back in his house for his own safety is one thing, but suggesting he is somehow interfering with operations, issuing a "lawful order" and then arresting him are other things, all together.

You conjure up a scenario and ask which I would prefer, but your scenario has nothing to do with the point, and the point is whether or not the soldier/cops were interacting with the man without stepping off their constitutional flagstone. The answer is clear; they were not. Your scenario has nothing to do with that, and neither does your preference.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Denton said:


> I didn't address this paragraph yesterday, but today is another day.
> 
> Suggesting the man go back in his house for his own safety is one thing, but suggesting he is somehow interfering with operations, issuing a "lawful order" and then arresting him are other things, all together.
> 
> You conjure up a scenario and ask which I would prefer, but your scenario has nothing to do with the point, and the point is whether or not the soldier/cops were interacting with the man without stepping off their constitutional flagstone. The answer is clear; they were not. Your scenario has nothing to do with that, and neither does your preference.


Yeah I think the main point of the thing was that. Which makes anyone wonder what they wanted to do unseen to a person, living proximal to and as we do, that they were so indulgently hyped up about?
The 'maginary stormtrooper" was doing the whole negate-by-disregard act, and ACT it is, which kinda makes him the "potentially dangerous aggressor acting strangely" on camera..in fact, in fine...but, I'm from the before time. Lots of stuff looks really strange to me


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I also picked up on the assertion that cops are to assume that the citizen is armed until searched or is naked. Again, a statement made as if personal fears or rationalizations trumps the constitution and the individual rights granted by God and not by the government or the soldier/cops.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

One can always pick two courses of action when dealing with law enforcement compliance or antagonistic. As eith anyone doing their job antagonism is not appreciated even by the most congenial of personalities. Unless one can prove otherwise one should assume the police was there on official business. It is reasonable for those purchasing safety equipment for police to expect them to use it. So that coupled with probable cause circumstances that we do not know we should assume they are both equipped and there to do their jobs. Given that the equipment alone says a civilian should not be that close to the focus of the deployment. I do not know the guidelines for removal of civilians for such an action but they could have evacuated the area.

On the other hand the little shit uncooperative. He refused to go inside. From there he could have videoed. He sounds underage to me which is another unknown factor. Given the time lapse if the kid had a gripe he has had time to post it.

My guess is he was on his parent's property. They were not at home and he was released to them. After which dad jerked a knot in him.

As of the antomosity many have that post here against law enforcement I do not understand. But I'll say this. Reading post like some have posted is where youth and young adults get false ideas about behavior, respect, and how to survive against overwhelming force be that force right or wrong.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> One can always pick two courses of action when dealing with law enforcement compliance or antagonistic. As eith anyone doing their job antagonism is not appreciated even by the most congenial of personalities. Unless one can prove otherwise one should assume the police was there on official business. It is reasonable for those purchasing safety equipment for police to expect them to use it. So that coupled with probable cause circumstances that we do not know we should assume they are both equipped and there to do their jobs. Given that the equipment alone says a civilian should not be that close to the focus of the deployment. I do not know the guidelines for removal of civilians for such an action but they could have evacuated the area.
> 
> On the other hand the little shit uncooperative. He refused to go inside. From there he could have videoed. He sounds underage to me which is another unknown factor. Given the time lapse if the kid had a gripe he has had time to post it.
> 
> ...


Maybe under fascist, retard, commie dumb, gratuitous ugly some people will finally feel "safe" and "powerful" or some other neurotic foible thing little geeters need?


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

oddapple said:


> Maybe under fascist, retard, commie dumb, gratuitous ugly some people will finally feel "safe" and "powerful" or some other neurotic foible thing little geeters need?


Is name calling the best you've got? Pitiful so, so pitiful!


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

oddapple said:


> Maybe under fascist, retard, commie dumb, gratuitous ugly some people will finally feel "safe" and "powerful" or some other neurotic foible thing little geeters need?


Perhaps you ought to live close to a fascist or Commie government before you try and compare the USofA with either.

I get the impression from quite a number of you that you have had a lousy experience with one or more groups of Police. That rather than take responsibility for your actions you want to blame the police for not letting you do what you damn well pleased (and to hell with anyone that doesn't like it).

Most of the Cops that I know and I know those at the private, local, state and federal level all just want to get thru their shifts with as little confrontation as possible.

They've got a job to do that 99% of you couldn't handle and are more than happy to let others take care of society's problems.

Most law breakers I've had the misfortune of dealing with all brought themselves to our attention - that's right I didn't (and most cops don't) go out looking for a murderer or rapist or child molester. If you are doing something not legal, don't do anything that brings your dumbass to our attention.

A lot of you seem to not like the laws that are written and enforced by the police. Don't bitch at us! Bitch at that law maker that won't listen to you.

And don't gripe about the Unconstitutionality of a law or action. If it's unconstitutional those are decisions not made by street cops, but the boys and girls in the black robes that sit in judgement at the courthouse. Think your rights are being violated, hire an attorney and have your day in court.

Don't try and convince me that your case is just. that's like the folks that after I'd arrested them on a warrant - issued by a judge or magistrate - think that if they tell me their side of the story that I'll be convinced enough to stop the cruiser, let them out of the back and unarrest them.

Not likely, their story belongs before a court of law. Now I'll be more than happy to tell the prosecutor what your dumbass said.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Yeah, that amounts to "just following orders." You have no protection when you enforce an unconstitutional statute. 

Those who take the oath should know what it means, and they should place that first and foremost.

Also, Sarge, you are not the only one to have worked criminal justice. I do not speak from a theoretical position, and you straw arguments created by saying, "my impression is..." are understood to be what they are; redirections.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Thugs and Goons. Always tougher when in groups.
I have Family in LE and they would never be part of this nonsense


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> One can always pick two courses of action when dealing with law enforcement compliance or antagonistic. As eith anyone doing their job antagonism is not appreciated even by the most congenial of personalities. Unless one can prove otherwise one should assume the police was there on official business. It is reasonable for those purchasing safety equipment for police to expect them to use it. So that coupled with probable cause circumstances that we do not know we should assume they are both equipped and there to do their jobs. Given that the equipment alone says a civilian should not be that close to the focus of the deployment. I do not know the guidelines for removal of civilians for such an action but they could have evacuated the area.
> 
> On the other hand the little shit uncooperative. He refused to go inside. From there he could have videoed. He sounds underage to me which is another unknown factor. Given the time lapse if the kid had a gripe he has had time to post it.
> 
> ...


You know what I do not understand? I do not understand it when _anyone_ does not comprehend their rights, the origins of those rights, and how the government was created to protect them. I hold no animosity for the police in general; it is the system and how it is evolving that disturbs me. The cops in particular that bother me are those who took the oath yet has endless excuses and reasons why violating the oath is OK.

Whatever to think of the I-Pad dude, no matter if you or I think he was using good sense, there was no lawful reason to make contact with him. This is a no-brainer when viewing through a constitutional lens and without personal feelings or opinion.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

There is no excuse for police to enforce any unconstitutional laws. Following orders, or laws put in place by the "law maker that won't listen to me" are just excuses if the law in question is unconstitutional. You don't HAVE to enforce them.


----------



## Jeep (Aug 5, 2014)

Agreed, I think a lot of LEO's now are just Sheeple


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

If the kid's first amendment rights were violated see the ACLU. I think if you check the case law his rights were not violated.


----------



## Pinsonprepper (Jul 10, 2014)

Never forget, LEO's are armed - as they are armored - for their protection - not for the public's protection. I am certain that some war veterans become LEO's - and that some who wouldn't join the military service out of fear of harm do as well. Now factor in the school yard bullys who become LEO's and you see where the exceptions to the rule - the thankfully small minority of bad apples in the LEO's - come from. Better psychological screening would help. Still, the vast majority of LEO's are decent folks. It's hard to tell - at night - good or bad, he has a gun... common sense would dictate that one would obey their 'orders' - and not argue with them. Certainly be truthful, but never offer an answer to a question not posed - LEO's aren't your 'new best friend' - any and every thing you say can be used against you. I'm sorry for the OP's troubles... but, right or wrong, he brought some of it on himself.

Pp


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

It was just in the news that a public school in San Diego got an MRAP surplus. I guess those kindergartens and girls scouts got tougher over the years. 

Two state police men just got ambushed two countries over in pike county Pennsylvania its all over the national news. Whoever did it is still out there on the lamb.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Denton said:


> You know what I do not understand? I do not understand it when _anyone_ does not comprehend their rights, the origins of those rights, and how the government was created to protect them. I hold no animosity for the police in general; it is the system and how it is evolving that disturbs me. The cops in particular that bother me are those who took the oath yet has endless excuses and reasons why violating the oath is OK.
> 
> Whatever to think of the I-Pad dude, no matter if you or I think he was using good sense, there was no lawful reason to make contact with him. This is a no-brainer when viewing through a constitutional lens and without personal feelings or opinion.


My problem with those here is their definition of what they see as constitutional. I'm really sorry but there comes a time when you have to listen to what the 9 wise men in the black robes say. They are the ones charged with the task of deciding what is constitutional or isn't.

Just because you don't think it's constitutional doesn't make it so. Take Gay marriage for example. Do I agree with it? No. Do I think it will be found constitutional? Yep. Will I agree with it probably not, but that's what those wise men get paid to do.

And your rights aren't unlimited - for example you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

My impressions are not redirections but a way of putting things into perspective. All of us develop or opinions based on our own personal experiences. And that is something that is natural and can not be factored out of any discussion.

But and this goes for quite a number of folks on this forum a goodly number of those posting here have an ax to grind. Against any one of a number of issues from immigration to the federal government and tend not to look objectively at any point of view other than their own.

My problem for those who are inflexible is that they tend to be leading those newer to prepping to courses of action that will lead them on a path not towards fixing our problems but abandoning our great nation.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Most LEO come though the education system only a few places do not require anything more than a high school education. Those that go to though the education system learn fast you go along with the agenda or forget being a LE officer. It does not take long to turn them even if they went into it with the best of intentions .
They all give in in time and join the agenda.
9 wise people do not tell you what the constitution says . 5 of 9 political appointees do. That is a major difference.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Anyone can exercise their rights up to the point where they interfere with the rights of others. If, in exercising your rights you endanger others then you are violating their rights and no longer exercising your own. That is the only limit on our rights. The police are oath-bound to protect individual rights and when they step onto private property without permission or probable cause they are no longer protecting the rights of individuals, they are infringing on those rights and acting unlawfully.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> My problem with those here is their definition of what they see as constitutional. I'm really sorry but there comes a time when you have to listen to what the 9 wise men in the black robes say. They are the ones charged with the task of deciding what is constitutional or isn't.
> 
> Just because you don't think it's constitutional doesn't make it so. Take Gay marriage for example. Do I agree with it? No. Do I think it will be found constitutional? Yep. Will I agree with it probably not, but that's what those wise men get paid to do.
> 
> ...


My rights are not hard to understand. I do not need nine people in black robes to explain them to me. We aren't talking about the nuances of some law, we are talking about particular, video-documented incident. You are playing the scenario game. What if the kid took a stray in the head? The cop would have served his conscience well by warning him to go in the house. After that, intellectual evolution and individual rights take over.

What wise men get paid to do. Wise men, if that is what you'd like to call them, understand the law of nature and nature's God, understand the origin of our rights and understand that our government was created to protect those rights and not control the people. Activist judges are not wise, they are working an agenda that is contrary to the vision of the founders. To know and understand this, yet shrug one's shoulders and go along to get along, places one at odds with the founders and the Creator who endows us with certain, unalienable rights.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

What good is a right to a dead man? Giving some young man that thinks he is bullet proof the idea he should alone take on law enforcement is such a situation is irresponsible.

Teaching them to pick their battles. Find a strategy and employ a tactic is demonstrating wisdom to youth. They will remember both it and you.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> What good is a right to a dead man? Giving some young man that thinks he is bullet proof the idea he should alone take on law enforcement is such a situation is irresponsible.
> 
> Teaching them to pick their battles. Find a strategy and employ a tactic is demonstrating wisdom to youth. They will remember both it and you.


I hear you, but what was that young man doing? Was he "fighting the future" with a rifle, or was he recording from his own yard? Should he have expected the soldier cops to behave as they did, or should he have expected them to uphold the oath they took?

Who is to take the stand and where is it to be taken? Suggesting they pick their battles while then admonishing them to find a strategy and employ a tactic when it seems this kid did so us basically saying nobody is to do a thing.

I had a run-in with the local cops, a few years ago. They arrested me on my property while they had no legal reason for being there. The case was tossed, and I visited the cop shop afterward. The chain of command gave me this and that justification and reasoning for their conduct, and I stayed focused on the illegality of the department's conduct. At the end of the conversation, I explained to them that they cannot rationalize away their oath of office, and that they really need to call the city attorney and ask him to explain a Title 42 suit to them after I leave, and that the next situation will not be a freebie for them. They must have done so, as their attitude changed, drastically.

I have a good rapport with the chief; he knows I am former military, former C.J., current Christian and current constitutionalist. I am not anti-cop, am I pro-constitution, pro-freedom. I believe those of this department are, too, but they, like any other human, are apt to taking shortcuts and rationalizing them. That is to say, cops are human.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Bottom line is, we all need to be en garde, as we know human nature and the nature of governments. Sleeping at the wheel in this case does not get us instantly wrapped around a tree; it causes us to slowly drive into a river. We'll be drowning before we know it.


----------

