• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Police state: the walls are closing in

Usually an article about a misbehaving officer involves something they did, such as attacking and injuring people who weren't attacking them, such as toddlers in cribs. This cop earned that honor by writing this piece that got published in WaPo. He was rightfully besmirched and attacked for his evil Gestapo "I-am-the-law; therefore-never-challenge-me" screed.

This condescending, smug attitude is the reason why cops are universally hated by communities all over the country. Sadly liberals and conservatives support cops across the board, and that is most unfortunate. And cops, along with their left -wing and right-wing cohorts, wonder why they are perpetually hated once and for all.

Cop Tells World: I’ll Shoot You for Walking Wrong

Justin King said:
The Washington Post ran a piece of propaganda written by a Professor in the academically intensive field of “Homeland Security,” you know one of the majors you see on late night TV that’s taught through correspondence courses. He also served the LAPD for 17 years, and the people know how well regarded that particular institution is for its safeguarding of civil rights. Sunil Dutta takes pen to paper to explain to people that the only way they can avoid being gunned down by a cop is to be lead like a lamb to slaughter in any interaction with law enforcement.

Rather than let this wonderfully crafted pile of steaming doublespeak go by without comment, the entire opinion piece is included along with appropriate commentary.

“A teenager is fatally shot by a police officer; the police are accused of being bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers; riots erupt. This, we are led to believe, is the way of things in America.”

This isn’t what the people are led to believe; this is a pretty good summary of the events.

“It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed. And while they’re unlikely to defend it quite as loudly during a time of national angst like this one, people who work in law enforcement know they are legally vested with the authority to detain suspects — an authority that must sometimes be enforced. Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.”

First, I feel I should compliment Mr. Dutta for his expansive vocabulary. “Calumny” basically means “slander,” for those that don’t want to Google the definition. But it isn’t slander. A teenager was fatally shot by a cop. That’s not in dispute. Here’s a list of other people killed by cops just this month. No doubt that some were justified, but some weren’t. Maybe the officer didn’t wake up that morning and say “Today, I’m going to kill someone.” Maybe he did, but we can’t prove it, so it’s not premeditated. Let’s call it Murder in the Second Degree. Sometimes they kill people just because they “don’t have time” to deal with it. It should also be pointed out, Professor, that cops have the legal authority to detain someone under certain circumstances, not just because they call them a “suspect.”

“Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority. In the vast majority of such encounters, I was able to peacefully resolve the situation without using force.”

Great, so has every bartender in the country. Your job isn’t that dangerous, stop acting like it is. Your job is less dangerous than being a trash collector. The time of being able to point to the dangers of the job is over. It is also a career path you chose. Journalism can get pretty tense at times too, but when I’m photographing in an area and someone becomes abrasive with me, I don’t get to shoot them with anything but a camera.

“Cops deploy their training and their intuition creatively, and I wielded every trick in my arsenal, including verbal judo, humor, warnings and ostentatious displays of the lethal (and nonlethal) hardware resting in my duty belt. One time, for instance, my partner and I faced a belligerent man who had doused his car with gallons of gas and was about to create a firebomb at a busy mall filled with holiday shoppers. The potential for serious harm to the bystanders would have justified deadly force. Instead, I distracted him with a hook about his family and loved ones, and he disengaged without hurting anyone. Every day cops show similar restraint and resolve incidents that could easily end up in serious injuries or worse.”

Wonderful anecdote. Tell it to Misty Holt-Singh, but you’re going to have to talk really loud because she’s in a cemetery after officers showed so much restraint that their bullets sent her to the grave when she was taken hostage. I’m sure the dozens of other unarmed dead killed this year by cops would love to hear your story. I’m sure they’d love to hear anything at all.

“Sometimes, though, no amount of persuasion or warnings work on a belligerent person; that’s when cops have to use force, and the results can be tragic. We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous — and officers are rarely at fault. When they use force, they are defending their, or the public’s, safety.”

Another standard line the people are told to believe. Cops are just defending the public’s safety. Without the thin blue line, there would certainly be rioting in the streets. Funny, it seems like the thin blue line has caused rioting in the streets. What public safety risk was happening when officers killed Eric Garner? In your 17 years as a cop how many wife beaters, rapists, murderers, and other actual public safety risks did you take off the street? How many times did you initiate violence when there was none when you cuffed someone for illegal possession of a plant, prostitution, or for failing to pay some form of extortion to the state? You aren’t a hero. You’re the armed collection force of the largest extortion racket this country has ever seen.

“Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.”

I am arguing with you. I think you’re a complete idiot. You can’t stop me. Well, I’m a heterosexual blonde-haired, blue-eyed white male; so I don’t have a race card, but I’ll still call you a pig. Make no mistake, if you violate my rights I will sue you and use your badge as a paperweight. We do pay your salary, and your subjective belief of how I am walking is not grounds for lethal force. It’s funny how I can do all of these things to you as a private citizen, but the second you put on a magic blue costume, it gives you grounds to assault and kidnap me.

This passage shows you for what you are: a hired thug. Thankfully, you don’t represent all cops, but it terrifies me to find out you teach future law enforcement officers. Your students now believe it’s OK to shoot someone for calling them names. That is what you just said. I hope you’re tenured because I have a feeling Colorado Tech University is going to get a whole lot of heat for keeping you on staff.

“Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?”

That’s the wonderful thing about living in a free country, even though those freedoms are currently on life support. We don’t have to cooperate with you. If you don’t want to receive any resistance, don’t ask me where I’m going, don’t ask me where I’ve been, don’t ask me if you can search my car, don’t ask me what’s in my bag, don’t ask how I know my passenger, and don’t even think of pulling a weapon on me.

Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to not violate someone’s rights for the length of time it takes to write a ticket?

“I know it is scary for people to be stopped by cops. I also understand the anger and frustration if people believe they have been stopped unjustly or without a reason. I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves.”

Of course, it’s scary. You, someone who is attempting to tell people how to avoid getting shot, has already stated that you might shoot someone because you believe the manner in which they are walking is not proper. Scared animals, including humans, have a fight or flight mechanism. Perhaps your cutesy little piece here attempting to scare people into submission wasn’t such a good idea. All you have done is reinforce the idea that it is better to roll the dice and hope the cop can be subdued with force rather than hoping not to offend your delicate sensibilities. Working LAPD’s Internal Affairs just means you were the Gestapo arm of the department. A cop offends a higher up, and you get turned loose. You weren’t out trying to protect the citizens from bad cops; your opinion piece clearly shows the country that even those responsible for investigating cops believe it’s OK to put a bullet in someone who calls them a name.

“I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder. (This will prevent a situation like Mike Brown’s shooting, about which conflicting and self-serving statements allow people to believe what they want.) And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave.”

After your little tirade about what is likely to get people shot, you expect them to question their betters and try to exercise their constitutionally protected rights? Are you kidding? You just told the American people in no uncertain terms this is how people end up getting “shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground.”

“Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go. Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.”

By this point in the piece I became convinced that you lost a bet and had to write this as a joke. Kelly Thomas’s brutal murder by cops from your neck of the woods shows this to be a complete fabrication. He submitted, and was still beat to death. The courts provided no justice. Now you act surprised that Americans, having lost faith in the police and courts, are holding trial in the streets. Just as prosecutors offer defendants life sentences to get the plea in order to avoid the death penalty, people have come to realize that it’s better to kill a cop and go to prison than be beat to death while begging for their father.

“But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately.”

Legality has nothing to do with this anymore. Officers that fail to abide by the law should expect resistance. It may not be wise, but it’s better than bleeding out in a car while the cop delays medical treatment so there is only one story of the chain of events leading up to the shooting. Police departments across the country have made the choice to militarize and enforce unjust laws. Don’t be surprised that people have decided to meet force with force. You wanted to play army, well even in the childhood version; somebody ends up lying on the ground. Don’t cry about it now.

“Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.”

Your advice is submit to sexual assault, harassment, deprivation of rights, assault, or whatever the officer decides to dish out, and then contact his supervisor who will probably laugh while he watches the dashcam video before it is erased and the statement goes out that the camera malfunctioned. No thanks. The American people have tried that for long enough. It doesn’t work. Your thin blue line has created a backlash.

“An average person cannot comprehend the risks and has no true understanding of a cop’s job. Hollywood and television stereotypes of the police are cartoons in which fearless super cops singlehandedly defeat dozens of thugs, shooting guns out of their hands. Real life is different. An average cop is always concerned with his or her safety and tries to control every encounter. That is how we are trained.”

Stop. We have all seen the stats. It is not that dangerous. A fisherman has a more dangerous job. Real life is different than the movies. The cops in movies know better than to shoot into a car with hostages, they know better than to shoot unarmed people, they don’t rape “suspects,” they don’t run pedophile prostitution rings, and they don’t flash their guns at sorority girls buying bottled water.

“While most citizens are courteous and law abiding, the subset of people we generally interact with everyday are not the genteel types. You don’t know what is in my mind when I stop you. Did I just get a radio call of a shooting moments ago? Am I looking for a murderer or an armed fugitive? For you, this might be a “simple” traffic stop, for me each traffic stop is a potentially dangerous encounter. Show some empathy for an officer’s safety concerns. Don’t make our job more difficult than it already is.”

If you can’t handle these things without violating people’s rights or shooting unarmed people, then you are in the wrong line of work. Maybe you should take up teaching or something. After all, those that can’t do, teach.

“Community members deserve courtesy, respect and professionalism from their officers. Every person stopped by a cop should feel safe instead of feeling that their wellbeing is in jeopardy. Shouldn’t the community members extend the same courtesy to their officers and project that the officer’s safety is not threatened by their actions?”

This is all true, but now that police use fear as a weapon and attempt to intimidate the populace with armored vehicles, black uniforms, no-knock raids, military tactics, and propaganda pieces in the Washington Post that basically say that they can do whatever the hell they want, the people don’t want you to feel safe. When you behave like an occupying army, expect resistance. The police chose this route, not the people. When people are subjugated by an oppressive control system, they will find a way to dismantle that system. They will exhaust all other options, but then they will use violence. Until police departments remember who pays their salary, I’d suggest you keep your schedule clear for more of your friends’ funerals, because communities across the country are tired of burying people because cops have declared war on the American people.
 
Usually an article about a misbehaving officer involves something they did, such as attacking and injuring people who weren't attacking them, such as toddlers in cribs. This cop earned that honor by writing this piece that got published in WaPo. He was rightfully besmirched and attacked for his evil Gestapo "I-am-the-law; therefore-never-challenge-me" screed.

This condescending, smug attitude is the reason why cops are universally hated by communities all over the country. Sadly liberals and conservatives support cops across the board, and that is most unfortunate. And cops, along with their left -wing and right-wing cohorts, wonder why they are perpetually hated once and for all.

Cop Tells World: I’ll Shoot You for Walking Wrong

Justin King said:
The Washington Post ran a piece of propaganda written by a Professor in the academically intensive field of “Homeland Security,” you know one of the majors you see on late night TV that’s taught through correspondence courses. He also served the LAPD for 17 years, and the people know how well regarded that particular institution is for its safeguarding of civil rights. Sunil Dutta takes pen to paper to explain to people that the only way they can avoid being gunned down by a cop is to be lead like a lamb to slaughter in any interaction with law enforcement.

Rather than let this wonderfully crafted pile of steaming doublespeak go by without comment, the entire opinion piece is included along with appropriate commentary.



This isn’t what the people are led to believe; this is a pretty good summary of the events.

“It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed. And while they’re unlikely to defend it quite as loudly during a time of national angst like this one, people who work in law enforcement know they are legally vested with the authority to detain suspects — an authority that must sometimes be enforced. Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.”

First, I feel I should compliment Mr. Dutta for his expansive vocabulary. “Calumny” basically means “slander,” for those that don’t want to Google the definition. But it isn’t slander. A teenager was fatally shot by a cop. That’s not in dispute. Here’s a list of other people killed by cops just this month. No doubt that some were justified, but some weren’t. Maybe the officer didn’t wake up that morning and say “Today, I’m going to kill someone.” Maybe he did, but we can’t prove it, so it’s not premeditated. Let’s call it Murder in the Second Degree. Sometimes they kill people just because they “don’t have time” to deal with it. It should also be pointed out, Professor, that cops have the legal authority to detain someone under certain circumstances, not just because they call them a “suspect.”

“Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority. In the vast majority of such encounters, I was able to peacefully resolve the situation without using force.”

Great, so has every bartender in the country. Your job isn’t that dangerous, stop acting like it is. Your job is less dangerous than being a trash collector. The time of being able to point to the dangers of the job is over. It is also a career path you chose. Journalism can get pretty tense at times too, but when I’m photographing in an area and someone becomes abrasive with me, I don’t get to shoot them with anything but a camera.

“Cops deploy their training and their intuition creatively, and I wielded every trick in my arsenal, including verbal judo, humor, warnings and ostentatious displays of the lethal (and nonlethal) hardware resting in my duty belt. One time, for instance, my partner and I faced a belligerent man who had doused his car with gallons of gas and was about to create a firebomb at a busy mall filled with holiday shoppers. The potential for serious harm to the bystanders would have justified deadly force. Instead, I distracted him with a hook about his family and loved ones, and he disengaged without hurting anyone. Every day cops show similar restraint and resolve incidents that could easily end up in serious injuries or worse.”

Wonderful anecdote. Tell it to Misty Holt-Singh, but you’re going to have to talk really loud because she’s in a cemetery after officers showed so much restraint that their bullets sent her to the grave when she was taken hostage. I’m sure the dozens of other unarmed dead killed this year by cops would love to hear your story. I’m sure they’d love to hear anything at all.

“Sometimes, though, no amount of persuasion or warnings work on a belligerent person; that’s when cops have to use force, and the results can be tragic. We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous — and officers are rarely at fault. When they use force, they are defending their, or the public’s, safety.”

Another standard line the people are told to believe. Cops are just defending the public’s safety. Without the thin blue line, there would certainly be rioting in the streets. Funny, it seems like the thin blue line has caused rioting in the streets. What public safety risk was happening when officers killed Eric Garner? In your 17 years as a cop how many wife beaters, rapists, murderers, and other actual public safety risks did you take off the street? How many times did you initiate violence when there was none when you cuffed someone for illegal possession of a plant, prostitution, or for failing to pay some form of extortion to the state? You aren’t a hero. You’re the armed collection force of the largest extortion racket this country has ever seen.

“Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.”

I am arguing with you. I think you’re a complete idiot. You can’t stop me. Well, I’m a heterosexual blonde-haired, blue-eyed white male; so I don’t have a race card, but I’ll still call you a pig. Make no mistake, if you violate my rights I will sue you and use your badge as a paperweight. We do pay your salary, and your subjective belief of how I am walking is not grounds for lethal force. It’s funny how I can do all of these things to you as a private citizen, but the second you put on a magic blue costume, it gives you grounds to assault and kidnap me.

This passage shows you for what you are: a hired thug. Thankfully, you don’t represent all cops, but it terrifies me to find out you teach future law enforcement officers. Your students now believe it’s OK to shoot someone for calling them names. That is what you just said. I hope you’re tenured because I have a feeling Colorado Tech University is going to get a whole lot of heat for keeping you on staff.

“Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?”

That’s the wonderful thing about living in a free country, even though those freedoms are currently on life support. We don’t have to cooperate with you. If you don’t want to receive any resistance, don’t ask me where I’m going, don’t ask me where I’ve been, don’t ask me if you can search my car, don’t ask me what’s in my bag, don’t ask how I know my passenger, and don’t even think of pulling a weapon on me.

Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to not violate someone’s rights for the length of time it takes to write a ticket?

“I know it is scary for people to be stopped by cops. I also understand the anger and frustration if people believe they have been stopped unjustly or without a reason. I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves.”

Of course, it’s scary. You, someone who is attempting to tell people how to avoid getting shot, has already stated that you might shoot someone because you believe the manner in which they are walking is not proper. Scared animals, including humans, have a fight or flight mechanism. Perhaps your cutesy little piece here attempting to scare people into submission wasn’t such a good idea. All you have done is reinforce the idea that it is better to roll the dice and hope the cop can be subdued with force rather than hoping not to offend your delicate sensibilities. Working LAPD’s Internal Affairs just means you were the Gestapo arm of the department. A cop offends a higher up, and you get turned loose. You weren’t out trying to protect the citizens from bad cops; your opinion piece clearly shows the country that even those responsible for investigating cops believe it’s OK to put a bullet in someone who calls them a name.

“I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder. (This will prevent a situation like Mike Brown’s shooting, about which conflicting and self-serving statements allow people to believe what they want.) And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave.”

After your little tirade about what is likely to get people shot, you expect them to question their betters and try to exercise their constitutionally protected rights? Are you kidding? You just told the American people in no uncertain terms this is how people end up getting “shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground.”

“Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go. Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.”

By this point in the piece I became convinced that you lost a bet and had to write this as a joke. Kelly Thomas’s brutal murder by cops from your neck of the woods shows this to be a complete fabrication. He submitted, and was still beat to death. The courts provided no justice. Now you act surprised that Americans, having lost faith in the police and courts, are holding trial in the streets. Just as prosecutors offer defendants life sentences to get the plea in order to avoid the death penalty, people have come to realize that it’s better to kill a cop and go to prison than be beat to death while begging for their father.

“But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately.”

Legality has nothing to do with this anymore. Officers that fail to abide by the law should expect resistance. It may not be wise, but it’s better than bleeding out in a car while the cop delays medical treatment so there is only one story of the chain of events leading up to the shooting. Police departments across the country have made the choice to militarize and enforce unjust laws. Don’t be surprised that people have decided to meet force with force. You wanted to play army, well even in the childhood version; somebody ends up lying on the ground. Don’t cry about it now.

“Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.”

Your advice is submit to sexual assault, harassment, deprivation of rights, assault, or whatever the officer decides to dish out, and then contact his supervisor who will probably laugh while he watches the dashcam video before it is erased and the statement goes out that the camera malfunctioned. No thanks. The American people have tried that for long enough. It doesn’t work. Your thin blue line has created a backlash.

“An average person cannot comprehend the risks and has no true understanding of a cop’s job. Hollywood and television stereotypes of the police are cartoons in which fearless super cops singlehandedly defeat dozens of thugs, shooting guns out of their hands. Real life is different. An average cop is always concerned with his or her safety and tries to control every encounter. That is how we are trained.”

Stop. We have all seen the stats. It is not that dangerous. A fisherman has a more dangerous job. Real life is different than the movies. The cops in movies know better than to shoot into a car with hostages, they know better than to shoot unarmed people, they don’t rape “suspects,” they don’t run pedophile prostitution rings, and they don’t flash their guns at sorority girls buying bottled water.

“While most citizens are courteous and law abiding, the subset of people we generally interact with everyday are not the genteel types. You don’t know what is in my mind when I stop you. Did I just get a radio call of a shooting moments ago? Am I looking for a murderer or an armed fugitive? For you, this might be a “simple” traffic stop, for me each traffic stop is a potentially dangerous encounter. Show some empathy for an officer’s safety concerns. Don’t make our job more difficult than it already is.”

If you can’t handle these things without violating people’s rights or shooting unarmed people, then you are in the wrong line of work. Maybe you should take up teaching or something. After all, those that can’t do, teach.

“Community members deserve courtesy, respect and professionalism from their officers. Every person stopped by a cop should feel safe instead of feeling that their wellbeing is in jeopardy. Shouldn’t the community members extend the same courtesy to their officers and project that the officer’s safety is not threatened by their actions?”

This is all true, but now that police use fear as a weapon and attempt to intimidate the populace with armored vehicles, black uniforms, no-knock raids, military tactics, and propaganda pieces in the Washington Post that basically say that they can do whatever the hell they want, the people don’t want you to feel safe. When you behave like an occupying army, expect resistance. The police chose this route, not the people. When people are subjugated by an oppressive control system, they will find a way to dismantle that system. They will exhaust all other options, but then they will use violence. Until police departments remember who pays their salary, I’d suggest you keep your schedule clear for more of your friends’ funerals, because communities across the country are tired of burying people because cops have declared war on the American people.

Dayam! That was good.
 
Woman Jailed for One Month after Cops Confused Her SpaghettiOs for Meth

Think twice the next time you want to gorge on SpaghettiOs in the privacy of your own car. Georgia resident Ashley Gabrielle Huff, 23, just got out of jail after spending over a month there because cops confused some leftover SpaghettiOs on her car spoon (we all have them) for meth.

The Gainesville Times reports that Huff was arrested on July 2 and charged with possession of methamphetamine, but she maintained the entire time that the residue on her spoon came from a snack, not drugs. She attempted to go through drug court, but was jailed on August 2 after missing a bond payment. She was finally released from jail last Thursday after a crime lab analysis determined, once and for all, that the "meth" was just some dried spaghetti sauce.

Hall County assistant public defender Chris van Rossem told the Times, "From what I understand, she was a passenger in a car and had a spoon on her, near her, and I guess the officer, for whatever reason, thought there was some residue. She's maintained all along that there's no way in hell that's any sort of drug residue or anything like that."

According to the Hall County justice system, Huff had never faced drug charges before this incident.

How is this reasonable?
 
More unreasonableness, once again from the war on drugs:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...hats-what-he-gets-exercising-his-rights.shtml

article said:
As the officers and Zullo waited for the tow truck, they continued to try to get his permission for a search. Zullo held firm, so the cops ditched him miles from home in 20-degree weather.

Mr. Zullo asked Hatch if he could retrieve his money and cell phone from his car, because he did not know how he would get home without either item.

Hatch refused, saying that getting home was “not my problem,” and warned Mr. Zullo that if he attempted to retrieve those items from the car he would be arrested. When Mr. Zullo walked towards his car, Hatch placed his hands on Mr. Zullo to restrain him from reaching the car.

After the tow truck arrived and took Mr. Zullo’s car, Hatch and the second state trooper left the scene, leaving Mr. Zullo stranded on the side of Route 7.

(Italics quote the complaint.)

Given the weather I would say the cop should be facing attempted murder charges.
 
Rules for Resisting the Police State

The perils of resisting the police state grow more costly with each passing day, especially if you hope to escape with your life and property intact. The thing you must remember is that we’ve entered an age of militarized police in which we’re no longer viewed as civilians but as enemy combatants.
 
“Common People Do Not Carry This Much U.S. Currency…” – This is How Police Justify Stealing American Citizens’ Money

Police confiscating Americans’ hard earned cash, as well as a wide variety of other valuables, without an arrest or conviction is a disturbing and growing practice throughput these United States. Since cops get to keep the seized funds and use the money on pretty much anything they want, the practice is becoming endemic in certain parts of the nation. The theft is often referred to simply as civil forfeiture, or civil asset forfeiture. Incredibly, under civil forfeiture laws your property is “guilty until you prove it innocent.”
 
Minnesota adopts law curbing asset forfeiture abuse - The Washington Post noting Minnesota Now Requires A Criminal Conviction Before People Can Lose Their Property To Forfeiture
The bill faced stiff opposition from law enforcement and a bottleneck in the legislature. In March, the Star Tribune called it an “outrage” that lawmakers were “dragging their feet on one of the big, common-sense changes” to the state’s forfeiture laws. Ultimately, SF 874 found wide, bipartisan support, passing the state senate 55 to 5 and the state house unanimously. The reforms will go into effect starting August 1, 2014.

A small step, but a step in the right direction.
 
Minnesota adopts law curbing asset forfeiture abuse - The Washington Post noting Minnesota Now Requires A Criminal Conviction Before People Can Lose Their Property To Forfeiture
The bill faced stiff opposition from law enforcement and a bottleneck in the legislature. In March, the Star Tribune called it an “outrage” that lawmakers were “dragging their feet on one of the big, common-sense changes” to the state’s forfeiture laws. Ultimately, SF 874 found wide, bipartisan support, passing the state senate 55 to 5 and the state house unanimously. The reforms will go into effect starting August 1, 2014.

A small step, but a step in the right direction.

Yup, this is how it should be.
 
Can this thread also encompass the vast, privately owned surveillance/tracking systems too?

This thread is just plain misguided....It is really a shame to find sentiments such as those expressed in the OP. That's all it amounts to...misguided sentiments. It doesn't suggest any solutions...just carps at the paradox that is a corporate controlled government not being sufficiently controlled by the rich.

As for the complaint about the heavy handed cops...what do you suppose could be done about that? I live in California, perhaps the most heavily incarcerated population in the entire world. These cops mean business. Heaven help you if you are black or brown or poor. What is a libertarian's solution to the problem? I do agree that our elected officials are the ones that are funding the police and ultimately, the actions of the police are the result of the politicians priorities...how they spend the public's money, and how they believe in using force to make their policies real.

There are people the police are not protecting and serving. They are the ones who would get shot if they walked wrong or reached for their wallets. The reason all this "defending" is being done...lack of democracy, oligarchy, and a failing economy.
 
Last edited:
I've been considering the recent rash of rapist cop news reports as something worth noting here, but I decided on this instead. According to this writer, yes the US is indeed already a police state.

As he points out, you don't really notice it until you cross a line.

Metastasizing of the Police State of America

Counterpunch said:
The latest news on the burgeoning police state in the US — a page-one investigative report in the New York Times disclosing that at least 40 agencies of the US government from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Supreme Court (!) are using undercover agents to spy on and even to entrap law-abiding American citizens — suggests that we have passed the tipping point.

One can no longer speak in terms of the US as a country that is moving towards becoming a police state. We are living in a police state.

The Times reports that IRS personnel have been going undercover posing as accountants and even as physicians to root out tax fraud, that the Supreme Court has been dispatching some of its guards (all of whom have been trained in undercover work) “dressed down” in civilian clothes to mingle with protesters (notably abortion-rights activists) to spy on people simply exercising their First Amendment rights outside the court building, that the USDA sends out agents posing as Food Stamp recipients to try and entrap shop-owners to commit Food Stamp fraud, and that even NASA and the Smithsonian Institution have undercover operatives. Undercover cops and agents are assuming the identities of teachers, doctors, journalists and even priests.

This information has to be put together with the rampant militarization of local police forces, who have become an occupying army, and with the proliferation of spying activities by state and local police agencies, encouraged by the establishment by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security of myriad “Joint Anti-Terrorism Strike Forces, and of 76 so-called Fusion Centers. These latter are totally unregulated operations that meld the spying activities of state and local cops and the myriad three-lettered intelligence units of the federal government, as well as private corporate security units, with no specific agency assuming oversight responsibility.

I used to scoff at the wild-eyed claims made by people on the right and left who said that we were living in a police state. Having lived for a year and a half in China, where a police state has been operating now for 65 years, and having visited police states in Eastern Europe during the days of the Soviet Union, I have seen and experienced what life is like when the police, secret and overt, run rampant, and I knew the US was not like those places.

I’ve changed my mind, though. The only difference I see now, knowing what we know about the breadth and depth of police activity in the US, between what’s happening here and what happens in places where police states have long existed, is that in long-standing police states, everyone knows they are being watched and are subject to arbitrary arrest. while here in the US, many Americans remain blissfully ignorant of what has happened to their vaunted freedoms.

You don’t know you are in a newly established police state until you deliberately or inadvertently cross a line. That’s why we still have people in this country thanking people in uniform for “defending our freedom,” when we’ve actually already lost them (in no small part thanks to the state of perpetual war our politicians have been orchestrating).
 
I've been considering the recent rash of rapist cop news reports as something worth noting here, but I decided on this instead. According to this writer, yes the US is indeed already a police state.

As he points out, you don't really notice it until you cross a line.

The use of undercover officers doesn't make for a police state.
 
I've been considering the recent rash of rapist cop news reports as something worth noting here, but I decided on this instead. According to this writer, yes the US is indeed already a police state.

As he points out, you don't really notice it until you cross a line.

The use of undercover officers doesn't make for a police state.

What does then?

Seizure of property by police without recourse? Routine use of deadly force against unarmed citizens suspected of possible crimes? Dawn raids carried out without warning, against citizens who have never been convicted of a crime? Life imprisonment for trivial offences? Searches carried out without warrants on flimsy pretexts? Beatings of unarmed citizens for no reason other than 'lack of respect' shown towards officers?

Exactly how far can the police go beyond the limits laid down in law, before you will condemn their overreach, Loren? What would they have to do, in order for you to decide that you were living in a police state?
 
The use of undercover officers doesn't make for a police state.

What does then?

Seizure of property by police without recourse? Routine use of deadly force against unarmed citizens suspected of possible crimes? Dawn raids carried out without warning, against citizens who have never been convicted of a crime? Life imprisonment for trivial offences? Searches carried out without warrants on flimsy pretexts? Beatings of unarmed citizens for no reason other than 'lack of respect' shown towards officers?

Exactly how far can the police go beyond the limits laid down in law, before you will condemn their overreach, Loren? What would they have to do, in order for you to decide that you were living in a police state?

I would define a police state based on people's attitudes towards dealing with the police rather than any specific behavior on their part. I've been in actual police states and one incident defines it for me: We had a bit of a run-in with the immigration officials in Romania back before the Iron Curtain rusted (entirely their mistake, we had done nothing wrong.) The hardest part of resolving it was they wanted a form filled in about the incident--in Romanian, a language we did not speak. We couldn't find anyone willing to translate for us because it was a police matter--never mind that their name would not appear on the form. (Finally a businessman from Vienna overheard our plight and offered to help. He realized we would have a very hard time getting local help.)

I do condemn the property seizures and the raids but I don't think either makes us a police state. I'm not convinced on most of the beatings--when you dig into them you normally find that the "victim" had been the original aggressor.
 
What does then?

Seizure of property by police without recourse? Routine use of deadly force against unarmed citizens suspected of possible crimes? Dawn raids carried out without warning, against citizens who have never been convicted of a crime? Life imprisonment for trivial offences? Searches carried out without warrants on flimsy pretexts? Beatings of unarmed citizens for no reason other than 'lack of respect' shown towards officers?

Exactly how far can the police go beyond the limits laid down in law, before you will condemn their overreach, Loren? What would they have to do, in order for you to decide that you were living in a police state?

I would define a police state based on people's attitudes towards dealing with the police rather than any specific behavior on their part. I've been in actual police states and one incident defines it for me: We had a bit of a run-in with the immigration officials in Romania back before the Iron Curtain rusted (entirely their mistake, we had done nothing wrong.) The hardest part of resolving it was they wanted a form filled in about the incident--in Romanian, a language we did not speak. We couldn't find anyone willing to translate for us because it was a police matter--never mind that their name would not appear on the form. (Finally a businessman from Vienna overheard our plight and offered to help. He realized we would have a very hard time getting local help.)

I do condemn the property seizures and the raids but I don't think either makes us a police state. I'm not convinced on most of the beatings--when you dig into them you normally find that the "victim" had been the original aggressor.

What proportion of US citizens do you think would rather avoid any contact with the police, even though they have done nothing wrong?

Does that proportion vary according to skin colour?

Bear in mind that in the 1930s, German citizens with 'Aryan' stamped on their ID cards probably had little qualm about dealing with the cops - at least, with the Orpo or Kripo, who made up the majority of the police forces. The view was rather different for those without that magic word though.
 
I would define a police state based on people's attitudes towards dealing with the police rather than any specific behavior on their part. I've been in actual police states and one incident defines it for me: We had a bit of a run-in with the immigration officials in Romania back before the Iron Curtain rusted (entirely their mistake, we had done nothing wrong.) The hardest part of resolving it was they wanted a form filled in about the incident--in Romanian, a language we did not speak. We couldn't find anyone willing to translate for us because it was a police matter--never mind that their name would not appear on the form. (Finally a businessman from Vienna overheard our plight and offered to help. He realized we would have a very hard time getting local help.)

I do condemn the property seizures and the raids but I don't think either makes us a police state. I'm not convinced on most of the beatings--when you dig into them you normally find that the "victim" had been the original aggressor.

What proportion of US citizens do you think would rather avoid any contact with the police, even though they have done nothing wrong?

Does that proportion vary according to skin colour?

Bear in mind that in the 1930s, German citizens with 'Aryan' stamped on their ID cards probably had little qualm about dealing with the cops - at least, with the Orpo or Kripo, who made up the majority of the police forces. The view was rather different for those without that magic word though.

Yeah--how many would avoid calling the cops if they were the victim of a crime? Not many other than those living outside the law.
 
What proportion of US citizens do you think would rather avoid any contact with the police, even though they have done nothing wrong?

Does that proportion vary according to skin colour?

Bear in mind that in the 1930s, German citizens with 'Aryan' stamped on their ID cards probably had little qualm about dealing with the cops - at least, with the Orpo or Kripo, who made up the majority of the police forces. The view was rather different for those without that magic word though.

Yeah--how many would avoid calling the cops if they were the victim of a crime? Not many other than those living outside the law.

I think you need to get out more.
 
Yeah--how many would avoid calling the cops if they were the victim of a crime? Not many other than those living outside the law.
This is a totally incorrect presumption. Calling the cops doesn't help most victims because police don't really investigate crimes against individuals besides murder. If you house is burglarized do you think they're going to dust for prints and help recover your missing items? No, you will just have to waste time waiting for them to show up and file a report and never see them again. But if your grass is too high or you have an unregistered car you're working on in the driveway you can be sure to expect a ticket. But maybe those offences count as "living outside the law" to you.

Either way its still just a waste of time getting the police involved. This goes for all property crimes. Even violent crimes against your person aren't worth calling the police over unless you know who the perp is because if you don't the police aren't going to lift a finger to find out. Again it would just be a waste of you times at best.
 
Yeah--how many would avoid calling the cops if they were the victim of a crime? Not many other than those living outside the law.
This is a totally incorrect presumption. Calling the cops doesn't help most victims because police don't really investigate crimes against individuals besides murder. If you house is burglarized do you think they're going to dust for prints and help recover your missing items? No, you will just have to waste time waiting for them to show up and file a report and never see them again. But if your grass is too high or you have an unregistered car you're working on in the driveway you can be sure to expect a ticket. But maybe those offences count as "living outside the law" to you.

Either way its still just a waste of time getting the police involved. This goes for all property crimes. Even violent crimes against your person aren't worth calling the police over unless you know who the perp is because if you don't the police aren't going to lift a finger to find out. Again it would just be a waste of you times at best.

Consider it useless is not the same thing as being afraid of doing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom