If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 372
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14055 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-07-04 02:23:16 PM
That is one seriously messed up story.
 
2013-07-04 02:40:04 PM
Some paid time off should show them.
 
2013-07-04 02:55:49 PM
This is why we're supposed to have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force.  Good luck surviving such an encounter, though.
 
2013-07-04 03:56:09 PM
If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.
 
2013-07-04 04:12:07 PM
USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-07-04 04:46:33 PM
What's all this then?
 
2013-07-04 05:03:31 PM
Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?
 
2013-07-04 05:07:17 PM

fjnorton: That is one seriously messed up story.


Seriously.  They make the Iraqi National Police look like this guy:

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-04 05:08:04 PM

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.


Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.
 
2013-07-04 05:09:11 PM

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


I think it's the first time I've ever heard of one since after we kicked the british out.

And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.
 
2013-07-04 05:09:42 PM
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't kill the dog.
 
2013-07-04 05:09:51 PM

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.
 
2013-07-04 05:10:12 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-04 05:10:42 PM
So far, our government has thoroughly trashed all the Constitutional Amendments but the Third.

Now they're gunning for that one too! Let no Amendment remain untrashed.
 
2013-07-04 05:10:42 PM

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.
 
2013-07-04 05:10:55 PM

halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.


Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.
 
2013-07-04 05:11:17 PM
Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...
 
2013-07-04 05:11:57 PM
The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.

I was about to say this is kind of exciting. It was one of those stupid things that the colonial army should've never done to start with, and I've never heard of it being a problem since.

All criminals charged were dismissed with prejudice.

Criminal charges?
 
2013-07-04 05:11:59 PM
Holy fark
 
2013-07-04 05:12:12 PM
Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.
 
2013-07-04 05:13:15 PM

OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.


Erm, I hate to bust on your parade here, but legally the civilian police are NOT considered members of the military or state militia/national guard. This isn't a third amendment issue.

Fourth, Fifth and possibly sixth, on the other hand....
 
2013-07-04 05:13:49 PM

halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.


The police are in violation of 18 US 241 and 18 US 242.  Basically, civil rights violations with conspiracy thrown in.  They violated both the 3rd and 4th amendments.

The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.
 
2013-07-04 05:14:18 PM
Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.
 
2013-07-04 05:14:58 PM

abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.


He'd have no legal right to do so, since the police identified themselves as officers of the law carrying out their duties.

Had he done so, we'd be reading about a guy headed to a date with a needle, rather than a guy headed to a date for a massive financial windfall.

However, these things really don't surprise me from California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and New York.
 
2013-07-04 05:16:08 PM
CSB

Back in the 70's I had a deputy pull up in my driveway and ask me if he could park there to watch another place. I figured I didn't have much choice as we were leaving for the day anyway. The only problem was the 18" pot plant growing in a container on my patio. We left and he backed his patrol car in my drive. We came back a few hours later, the cop was gone and the nice green plant was still there.
 
2013-07-04 05:16:13 PM
This has 'notorious neighborhood crank' aaaaallllll over it. I'll wait for some actual reporting on this one
 
2013-07-04 05:16:16 PM

hardinparamedic: abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.

He'd have no legal right to do so, since the police identified themselves as officers of the law carrying out their duties.

Had he done so, we'd be reading about a guy headed to a date with a needle, rather than a guy headed to a date for a massive financial windfall.

However, these things really don't surprise me from California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and New York.


"Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?
 
m00
2013-07-04 05:16:17 PM
So the cops did all this to gain a command post for a domestic violence case? Really? Something's fishy here.
 
2013-07-04 05:16:43 PM
Clearly they were Wonton Criminals. I mean If they had nothing to Hide why didn't they Let the officers in their home and offer to cook them a fine hot meal as well. They should have invited any daughters they had home as well for the officers. It may have been a bit late For Prima Nocta but hey guest rights are guest rights amiright?
/sarcasm off
// the revolution will not be televised
 
2013-07-04 05:17:03 PM

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


And they call "ladies of the evening" crack whores now.  Semantics change.
 
2013-07-04 05:17:13 PM

OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd


No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.
 
2013-07-04 05:17:39 PM

LL316: halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.

Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.


Anyone can file a lawsuit over pretty much anything, there's plenty of nutty examples. Their point is, that the game is rigged; it's very difficult to win a civil suit against the police. And damn near impossible to sue them personally.
 
2013-07-04 05:17:44 PM
The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.
 
2013-07-04 05:18:13 PM

bunner:


It would cost you but the results would be the same and the reresponse time would be better
 
2013-07-04 05:19:01 PM

hardinparamedic: He'd have no legal right to do so


No, but he'd damned sure have a moral right.
At least, his moral right to defend his home from hostile invaders could be weighed against his moral obligation to stay alive to provide for a wife/child/dog, and possibly come up favorably.
 
2013-07-04 05:19:29 PM
Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is  gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!
 
2013-07-04 05:20:00 PM

m00: So the cops did all this to gain a command post for a domestic violence case? Really? Something's fishy here.


Cops have the same attitude as those pitbulls that attempt to eat a porcupine.
 
2013-07-04 05:20:10 PM
This department had to pay out a quarter-million $ for kicking a guy in diabetic shock in the head.
 
2013-07-04 05:20:14 PM
Ah the Henderson Police Force... everyone in Vegas knows that's some quality right there
 
2013-07-04 05:20:58 PM

EngineerAU: The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.


That's really interesting, hadn't heard of that. Plus the lockout was probably in relation to other action (the strike) and not 'we're locking you out to give them your home', otherwise even without precedence that'd be a slam dunk. Without that with it being a seperate action...yeah I could see them throwing up their hands.

/loves learning cool new things
 
2013-07-04 05:21:13 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.


If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military.  Until that happens, they are military.
 
2013-07-04 05:21:15 PM

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: He'd have no legal right to do so

No, but he'd damned sure have a moral right.
At least, his moral right to defend his home from hostile invaders could be weighed against his moral obligation to stay alive to provide for a wife/child/dog, and possibly come up favorably.


A little over 2 centuries ago, we decided that the arrogant, armed, violent jackoffs pushing us around and taxing us for the privilege had to go.  Guess what time it is.
 
2013-07-04 05:21:25 PM

cornfedokie: Clearly they were Wonton Criminals. I mean If they had nothing to Hide why didn't they Let the officers in their home and offer to cook them a fine hot meal as well.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-04 05:21:29 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?


You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.
 
2013-07-04 05:21:43 PM

bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]


What's the difference?
 
2013-07-04 05:22:12 PM

halB: Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.


You do realize that this is in federal court, right?
You do realize that this is constitutional rights case?

Yah, my guess is that this will actually be a pretty interesting case.
 
2013-07-04 05:22:20 PM
I'd say fark the police, but around here, Denver, they aren't so bad. Sue them into the stone age, so they have to resort to actual investigation, a opposed to intimidation and abuse. A cop saved my life, once, long ago. That does not preclude me from seeing the bad apples within the brotherhood.
 
2013-07-04 05:22:43 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.


Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.
 
2013-07-04 05:23:07 PM
Happy Fourth of July, suckers.
 
2013-07-04 05:23:23 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]

What's the difference?


We don't actually sign the paychecks for the Crips?
 
2013-07-04 05:24:23 PM
Land of the free...


/not so much anymore.
//you guys are totally farked.
///NSA! NSA! er... USA!
 
2013-07-04 05:25:40 PM

bunner: Guess what time it is.


Time to call you a farking idiot for masturbating over the thought of Civil War round II?

OgreMagi: If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military.  Until that happens, they are military.


That's your opinion and I respect it as such. However, your opinion also carries absolutely no weight in the courts or legislature, and reality does not reflect your belief in the least.

Reality is what you argue about when you get the financial windfall this situation banks out. Any federal judge would laugh at you if you suggest the local police are actually representatives of the federal military.

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: He'd have no legal right to do so

No, but he'd damned sure have a moral right.
At least, his moral right to defend his home from hostile invaders could be weighed against his moral obligation to stay alive to provide for a wife/child/dog, and possibly come up favorably.


Well. At least when you're setting in a jail cell, awaiting your date with Big Bobby, you can know you're morally superior in turning the situation completely against you for the majority of the United States population.
 
2013-07-04 05:26:08 PM
He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are i.imgur.com .
 
2013-07-04 05:26:53 PM
My favorite part is how they totally forgot all about the original reason for wanting to use his house in the first place.

Sorry sacks of sh*t, the lot of them. And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.
 
2013-07-04 05:27:44 PM

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


+2 for carefully crafted irony.
 
2013-07-04 05:28:01 PM

A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.


What if they obeyed... under protest?
 
2013-07-04 05:28:43 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?


What do protestants have to do with this?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-07-04 05:29:38 PM
This shiat simply MUST stop. The alternative is this continues, festers and gets worse.
Then, at some point, it will all come to a head like a deep pustulistic boil and 'pop!'.
These types of incidents only have 1 effect, to galvanize the seething hatred the general populous feel for those who feel they are above the laws they are charged with upholding while abusing those they have been chartered with serving (the public at general).

Dear LEOs,
Stop this crap or at some point someone WILL go utterly batshiat and find a group of folks who feel the same and they will bring it to your front door.
It's not a matter of if, but when, as long as you stay this course of behaviour.
Sincerely,
John Q. Public
 
2013-07-04 05:29:40 PM

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


Pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but it's absolutely legal to refuse a request from a police officer. They have to give you a lawful order. Otherwise, it's a request. Unfortunately, most people aren't good at figuring out which is which.

Even worse, neither are most police officers.
 
2013-07-04 05:29:50 PM
Wambu: 1/10. Nice try. Need to be a little more invective, maybe use a "personal story."
 
2013-07-04 05:30:16 PM

A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.


But zey were only follovink orderrs.

www.addictinginfo.org

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.
 
2013-07-04 05:30:41 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?


I'll give them a gold star for effort, I suppose. They'll have to ask a lawyer what that's worth in court.

hardinparamedic: The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?

What do protestants have to do with this?


Well, by doctrine they don't have to actually be nice to anyone so maybe there's more to this than I first suspected....
 
2013-07-04 05:30:47 PM
Sure, let the police hang out at your home for an open-ended amount of time, they seem like good, reasonable fellows.
 
2013-07-04 05:30:48 PM
For all those who have no problem with the ever increasing "security measures" enacted to keep us safe. There is a whole lot more of this in your future.
 
2013-07-04 05:31:11 PM

OgreMagi: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military.  Until that happens, they are military.


Walks like a duck.
Dresses like a duck.
Has weapons like a duck.
F**ks up your duck with pepperballs.

It's a duck.
 
2013-07-04 05:31:20 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


endthelie.com
 
2013-07-04 05:31:34 PM

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


8/10 would troll again!
 
2013-07-04 05:31:59 PM

OgreMagi: If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military. Until that happens, they are military.


They also use military rank systems. Sargent, Lt. Captain, etc, and frequently use sleeve stripes.


The problem is that the amendment specifies "soldier" and not military. I don't think law enforcement personnel count as soldiers. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this.
 
2013-07-04 05:32:00 PM

eventhelosers: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

[endthelie.com image 850x637]


IT'S SPELLED DIFFERENT!1!!1!
 
2013-07-04 05:33:20 PM

Lady Indica: wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .

Pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but it's absolutely legal to refuse a request from a police officer. They have to give you a lawful order. Otherwise, it's a request. Unfortunately, most people aren't good at figuring out which is which.

Even worse, neither are most police officers.


This.

This actually stinks of "I don't like you, citizen, exercising your rights and all.", and really sickens me.

bunner: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

But zey were only follovink orderrs.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 524x516]

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.


Was it the joke that you chose a picture of American Schoolchildren doing the Bellamy salute to the Pledge of Allegiance? Because all you're illustrating with that is nationalism, not fascism. It wasn't changed until the entry of the US in WWII, and it's association with some cheeky German guy.
 
2013-07-04 05:33:50 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military. Until that happens, they are military.

That's your opinion and I respect it as such. However, your opinion also carries absolutely no weight in the courts or legislature, and reality does not reflect your belief in the least.

Reality is what you argue about when you get the financial windfall this situation banks out. Any federal judge would laugh at you if you suggest the local police are actually representatives of the federal military.


When 3rd was written it was specifically because the British government had placed soldiers in private homes for the purpose of POLICING the colonialists.  There was no actual police force at the time.  I think a judge would rule that this does fall under the meaning of the amendment.
 
2013-07-04 05:34:33 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?


"I was only following orders" historically isn't exactly the best defense, but it tends to work pretty much only if the person is new, or lowest on the totem pole. They may believe they have no other options. Someone with rank or experience, they know they have other options.

So it seems to me anyway, I'm hardly expert in such.
 
2013-07-04 05:34:40 PM

kyrg: For all those who have no problem with the ever increasing "security measures" enacted to keep us safe. There is a whole lot more of this in your future.


as long as it doesn't happen to ME!
 
2013-07-04 05:35:09 PM
Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
 
2013-07-04 05:35:23 PM

hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.


Hey dude, I get it, you're friends with cops, and you think they'd never do something like this to you. It's cool.
 
2013-07-04 05:35:38 PM

wambu: Walks like a duck.
Dresses like a duck.
Has weapons like a duck.
F**ks up your duck with pepperballs.

It's a duck.


What apparantly constitutes the Military in your mind:

ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com 
media.npr.org
www.veteranstoday.com
 
2013-07-04 05:35:57 PM

Lady Indica: "I was only following orders"


Use of that phrase should be sufficient cause for an immediate firing.
 
2013-07-04 05:36:24 PM
I'm honestly a little curious to know what was going through those cops heads.
 
2013-07-04 05:36:34 PM

OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.


THIS would solve so many problems.
 
2013-07-04 05:37:31 PM
I am not a lawyer, and the Wikipedia looks little iffy. But I keep thinking that RICO could be used more?
 
2013-07-04 05:38:17 PM

James F. Campbell: Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.


Don't necessarily agree with that [life], but I do believe any 'abuse of legal authority' should carry with it a hefty sentence modifier, like a hate crime. Along with similar burdens of proving it. That should go for ANY legal authority that is abused in the commission of a criminal act, IMHO.
 
2013-07-04 05:38:40 PM

Gergesa: I'm honestly a little curious to know what was going through those cops heads.


Testoserone, and a very poor understanding of their role. That's about it.
 
2013-07-04 05:39:14 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Hey dude, I get it, you're friends with cops, and you think they'd never do something like this to you. It's cool.


And I get that you knuckleglaze with the idea of not being an internet tough guy, and shooting a cop. Really. Stop being such a pussy and just do it. Be the an hero FARK wants you to be, bro.

James F. Campbell: Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.


License them at the state level, like every other regulated profession. Take the departments out of this, and appoint a board to oversee those licensed by the state.

Department refuses to discipline Officer Dickbag? Yank his license. Legally, can't work as a cop anymore anywhere without that. Problem solved.

Also think there should be a federal level agency just to handle police civil rights and brutality issues.

OgreMagi: When 3rd was written it was specifically because the British government had placed soldiers in private homes for the purpose of POLICING the colonialists.  There was no actual police force at the time.  I think a judge would rule that this does fall under the meaning of the amendment.


Well, the problem with that is those soldiers were commissioned regulars of the British Army or the Commissioned Militia under control of the British Continental Army, not town constables or the county/province sheriff. So, the term would be more applicable to Military Police than it would regulars, given the intent of the language.
 
2013-07-04 05:40:39 PM

hardinparamedic: wambu: Walks like a duck.
Dresses like a duck.
Has weapons like a duck.
F**ks up your duck with pepperballs.

It's a duck.

What apparantly constitutes the Military in your mind:

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 640x380] 
[media.npr.org image 850x637]
[www.veteranstoday.com image 370x278]



One (a police officer) has essential immunity from prosecution. The others are rednecks and you can shoot them at will.
 
2013-07-04 05:40:55 PM

hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Hey dude, I get it, you're friends with cops, and you think they'd never do something like this to you. It's cool.

And I get that you knuckleglaze with the idea of not being an internet tough guy, and shooting a cop. Really. Stop being such a pussy and just do it. Be the an hero FARK wants you to be, bro.

James F. Campbell: Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

License them at the state level, like every other regulated profession. Take the departments out of this, and appoint a board to oversee those licensed by the state.

Department refuses to discipline Officer Dickbag? Yank his license. Legally, can't work as a cop anymore anywhere without that. Problem solved.

Also think there should be a federal level agency just to handle police civil rights and brutality issues.

OgreMagi: When 3rd was written it was specifically because the British government had placed soldiers in private homes for the purpose of POLICING the colonialists.  There was no actual police force at the time.  I think a judge would rule that this does fall under the meaning of the amendment.

Well, the problem with that is those soldiers were commissioned regulars of the British Army or the Commissioned Militia under control of the British Continental Army, not town constables or the county/province sheriff. So, the term would be more applicable to Military Police than it would regulars, given the intent of the language.


I have zero interest in shooting anyone... Not have I expressed any in this thread or any other.... You drunk?
 
2013-07-04 05:41:12 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Gergesa: I'm honestly a little curious to know what was going through those cops heads.

Testoserone, and a very poor understanding of their role. That's about it.


I'm guessing steroids were involved.
 
2013-07-04 05:41:14 PM
So is there any other links to this story that don't just refer back to this article? Incident happened in 2011.
 
2013-07-04 05:42:33 PM
I'm usually on the side of law and order and think most lawsuits are BS, but this one, I hope they clean the hell up and these cops get fired and even imprisoned.  I know it won't happen, but I can always hope.
 
2013-07-04 05:43:07 PM

Lady Indica: EngineerAU: The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.

That's really interesting, hadn't heard of that. Plus the lockout was probably in relation to other action (the strike) and not 'we're locking you out to give them your home', otherwise even without precedence that'd be a slam dunk. Without that with it being a seperate action...yeah I could see them throwing up their hands.

/loves learning cool new things


Engblom v. Carey. The USSC said it was a violation and remanded it. The district court found qualified immunity because the government didn't KNOW it was a violation because there  was no previous history (It's the ONLY significant case EVER settled on the third amendment.)  Part of the issue at hand was that they were national guard, so technically state troops, not federal, and that the housing was government owned.  The USSC found that there was tenancy, and that by virtue of the 14th amendment, the 3rd applied to the state.
 
2013-07-04 05:44:28 PM
I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

denverandmore.com
 
2013-07-04 05:45:02 PM
Revenge is a dish best served cold...behind the officers home one dark night with a golf club.
 
2013-07-04 05:45:33 PM

Slappajo: One (a police officer) has essential immunity from prosecution.


Yeah. That's not exactly true. (Link is from VA, but yeah.)

There's an ex-cop in Memphis right now who's on trial for two counts of Vehicular Homicide in direct violation of that claim.

Slappajo: The others are rednecks and you can shoot them at will.


Yeah, for a second degree murder charge.
 
2013-07-04 05:46:03 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is  gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!


This isn't big government, this is city government, which is as small time as you can get.  Don't forget, the people crying about big government often say that the states, counties, and cities should be able to do practically whatever they want, even though that's the level where the most blatant rights abuses take place since the feds tend to watch their step and make sure that they actually have a good and legal reason to do so when it comes to actually causing legal injury to others.

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.


Yeah, they are government employees after all, members of the executive branch, even though they're at the bottom of the ladder.  It generally applies to any one in the employ of the government at any level, which was how it was used to create the right to privacy.
 
2013-07-04 05:46:50 PM
Note to self if I ever get a call like that, spray paint a big sign on the garage door that says "the police asked me to use my house as a lookout! Isn't that neat?!" after the call where I refused and before they arrive.

Yeah, I have a big mouth lol.
 
2013-07-04 05:47:18 PM

A Shambling Mound: My favorite part is how they totally forgot all about the original reason for wanting to use his house in the first place.

Sorry sacks of sh*t, the lot of them. And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.


I don't think it mattered much by then, since the crooks would've changed locations after all that commotion going on. The key to good stake out is the element of surprise.
 
2013-07-04 05:48:17 PM
This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?
 
2013-07-04 05:48:51 PM

eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".


Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.
 
2013-07-04 05:49:37 PM

namatad: OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.

THIS would solve so many problems.


You know what solves a lot of problems? Requiring cams and recording equipment. Good cops have NOTHING to fear from it.

Interesting how many departments fought tooth and nail against it, and how many still do NOT utilize a tool which can ONLY protect good cops, and help assure convictions.

If you have to go outside the law to do your job, to work the grey areas to dispense justice...you're one of the bad guys and fark you.
 
2013-07-04 05:50:55 PM

theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?


And all the news stories are coming out within the last few hours.
 
2013-07-04 05:52:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

In Engblom v. Carey, it was ruled that the third amendment applies to state authorities as well as it does federal. In this case it was the state national guard that was ruled to be the same as soldiers mentioned in the Constitution. While that doesn't automatically mean that police are covered, the fact that the court was willing to consider members of a state entity to be soldiers is interesting.
 
2013-07-04 05:52:33 PM

theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?


This has probably been through arbitration and attempting a civil settlement for the past two years, if I had to guess. City attorneys want something like this to go away quietly. Good for them not doing so.
 
2013-07-04 05:52:55 PM

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: One (a police officer) has essential immunity from prosecution.

Yeah. That's not exactly true. (Link is from VA, but yeah.)

There's an ex-cop in Memphis right now who's on trial for two counts of Vehicular Homicide in direct violation of that claim.

Slappajo: The others are rednecks and you can shoot them at will.

Yeah, for a second degree murder charge.


Are you really going to argue that cops who misbehave are subject to the same standards as the rest of us? That was my point with the first point. The second was snark.
 
2013-07-04 05:53:13 PM
Paid Administrative Leave for EVERYONE!!!!
 
2013-07-04 05:53:46 PM

darkmayo: So is there any other links to this story that don't just refer back to this article? Incident happened in 2011.


I found this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151769636/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et- al -Complaint

I haven't read all of it yet, and it looks like a lot is redacted or something. Anywho, there yas go
 
2013-07-04 05:55:21 PM

Lady Indica: namatad: OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.

THIS would solve so many problems.

You know what solves a lot of problems? Requiring cams and recording equipment. Good cops have NOTHING to fear from it.

Interesting how many departments fought tooth and nail against it, and how many still do NOT utilize a tool which can ONLY protect good cops, and help assure convictions.

If you have to go outside the law to do your job, to work the grey areas to dispense justice...you're one of the bad guys and fark you.


MHMM
and yet, study after study has shown that dashboard cams and similar reduce the number of lawsuits against the police and cities, reducing costs to taxpayers.

along with reducing police misconduct.
OF course the police would be against this.
 
2013-07-04 05:56:32 PM
All the news is JUST coming out because the case was just seen on June 30th.
 
2013-07-04 05:57:02 PM
Cops serve and protect each other and whoever the chief tells them is paid in full for a "MONEY.  HANDS OFF" pass.  We're just the meat in a street gang control war sandwich and whoever wins, we're just gonna have to carry on keeping our heads down and staring at our feet lest we end up on the ass end of a substance addled thug beatdown.

America as the fairy tale we were sold is over.  The  melting pot didn't, the fragmented culture serves the wealthy and keeps us barking sh*t at each other while they rifle the joint and the cops are the bouncers.  The gangstah boyees just skim the crumbs and keep us thinking the cops are on or team.

We have no team.  We're biomass.  We're the pockets they pick to replace what they steal.  We're revenue farms.  We're chattel that got too uppity.

And the only comfort is knowing that when the other shoe drops and the joint is busted out like a mobster bar, and the getaway car is being dropped into D, that the goon squad who were totally convinced that they had a seat in it are gonna be sitting on the curb next to us, surveying the decimation and saying "well, that didn't work out."
 
2013-07-04 05:57:27 PM

Slappajo: Are you really going to argue that cops who misbehave are subject to the same standards as the rest of us?


I'm pointing out that they're not as immune as people seem to think they are to criminal, or civil remedies, quite frankly. Nothing more or less. Don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that nationwide, policing is dirty enough that it should be regulated in a far, far different manner than it is now. Something like the UK has ideally.
 
2013-07-04 05:57:46 PM
As someone who has done nothing wrong, I am so much more frightened of our police than I am of either drug dealers or terrorists.
 
2013-07-04 05:58:06 PM
Am I the only one smelling a coup? And it's not the OWS guys who are gonna do it. . . .

/this is starting to look a lot like Egypt. . . .
 
2013-07-04 05:58:40 PM

lack of warmth: I don't think it mattered much by then, since the crooks would've changed locations after all that commotion going on


It was sold as a domestic violence stakeout.  ( Beats me, apparently this is normal?)  No actual criminals were involved other than the cops.
 
2013-07-04 05:58:52 PM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.


First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?
 
2013-07-04 06:00:12 PM

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: Are you really going to argue that cops who misbehave are subject to the same standards as the rest of us?

I'm pointing out that they're not as immune as people seem to think they are to criminal, or civil remedies, quite frankly. Nothing more or less. Don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that nationwide, policing is dirty enough that it should be regulated in a far, far different manner than it is now. Something like the UK has ideally.


Many cities have civilian oversight boards.  They are usually packed with friends of cops, retired cops, and political cronies or they have absolutely no power to do anything other than to make a recommendation, which will be ignored.
 
2013-07-04 06:00:38 PM

LL316: halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.

Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.



If I wanted to waste 500 dollars I could sue you for being a meanie to me.  And that will still get dismissed.

You don't sound like someone who knows that much about the legal system.
 
2013-07-04 06:01:27 PM

farkitecht: As someone who has done nothing wrong, I am so much more frightened of our police than I am of either drug dealers or terrorists.


THIS

I'm done
 
2013-07-04 06:02:58 PM

Peki: Am I the only one smelling a coup? And it's not the OWS guys who are gonna do it. . . .

/this is starting to look a lot like Egypt. . . .


How do you suppose that a multinational cavalcade of revolution inspiring shenanigans managed to start going on all at once?
 
2013-07-04 06:03:01 PM
Right off the bat it looks like violations of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments.

Not to mention things like assault and battery, animal abuse, oppression, etc

abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.


My guess is that they would have shot him and anyone else who was in his house, planted drugs on him, called him a drug dealer, and taken his house and car.  He wouldn't ever see a courtroom, they would kill him then and "confiscate" any possessions they felt were worth having.

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


It does.  But I find it hard to believe that there are any cases where the government can just kick you out of your house and use it for their own without violating the constitution.  If the local mayor told you "I like your house, get out, I'm taking it", I'm pretty sure you aren't SOL, despite the fact that he's a mayor, not a solider.

These days, the cops have all the same gear that soldiers do, so it's a very fine line.

Even if it doesn't violate the 3rd, there are still quite a few illegal activities and a couple of other breaches of the constitution, assuming the story in this article is reasonably accurate.
 
2013-07-04 06:03:45 PM
From the doc I posted, "All criminal charges against Plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed with prejudice."

Good. So the hammer is pointed solely on the cops now.
 
2013-07-04 06:06:21 PM

FARK rebel soldier: theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?

And all the news stories are coming out within the last few hours.


Putting together a case is hard and time consuming.
 
2013-07-04 06:06:40 PM

OgreMagi: Many cities have civilian oversight boards.  They are usually packed with friends of cops, retired cops, and political cronies or they have absolutely no power to do anything other than to make a recommendation, which will be ignored.


Which is why there needs to be a State or Federal-level agency like the UK has. Like I said before, State level licensure and professional credentialing.

halB: If I wanted to waste 500 dollars I could sue you for being a meanie to me.  And that will still get dismissed.

You don't sound like someone who knows that much about the legal system.


You really don't, either. Chances are, the reason we didn't hear about this sooner is because it was going through civil negotiations and an attempt from the city to settle. You don't hear about a LOT of cases of police misconduct on the civil side because it's far cheaper for them to write checks outright below the level of their liability insurance coverage than it is for them to fight.

eventhelosers: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.


Setting there at a special event isn't exactly what I'd call intimidating. Especially when the only thing it can do is honk at me. Angrily. No offense or snark meant by this comment, totally serious with this.

eventhelosers: Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


There are entire libraries written about what is wrong with the grant system in the United States for HS/Emergency Services. Namely, the "use it or lose it and get less next time" mentality.
 
2013-07-04 06:07:25 PM

Lady Indica: The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?

"I was only following orders" historically isn't exactly the best defense, but it tends to work pretty much only if the person is new, or lowest on the totem pole. They may believe they have no other options. Someone with rank or experience, they know they have other options.

So it seems to me anyway, I'm hardly expert in such.


That works okay in time of war, specifically regarding military personnel. The penalties they face for deliberately failing to follow orders can be steep.

As pointed out in this thread, cops are civilians. What's the worst that could happen to an objector? A black mark? Unpaid leave? Termination?

Any of those are better options than participating in abject idiocy and thuggery such as we are discussing.
 
2013-07-04 06:07:57 PM

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.


This is what's wrong with America.

If even a fraction of this story is true, all the cops involved should be hung or at least branded on the arm as blacklisted and left unemployable with a scar you can't hide.

At the very least, they should go to jail and enjoy all the comfort of having to break large rocks into pea gravel for a few years then be released blacklisted and unemployable with a record in the system.

At the barest minimum, any lawsuit should come out of their personal assets directly. Paycheck, saving, and pensions.
 
2013-07-04 06:08:11 PM

bunner: How do you suppose that a multinational cavalcade of revolution inspiring shenanigans managed to start going on all at once?


Oh, I've been making the connections.

/I don't think 2014 is going to be a good year. . .
 
2013-07-04 06:10:29 PM

Peki: bunner: How do you suppose that a multinational cavalcade of revolution inspiring shenanigans managed to start going on all at once?

Oh, I've been making the connections.

/I don't think 2014 is going to be a good year. . .


Not if the people who are finally closing out a 250 year global business plan can help it.
 
2013-07-04 06:11:23 PM

boozel: From the doc I posted, "All criminal charges against Plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed with prejudice."

Good. So the hammer is pointed solely on the cops now.


It doesn't say where the prejudice is focused.  I figured that these charges were dismissed, but the family was now the biggest legal enemy of the police department with the makes, models, colors and license plates of their cars recorded on the police database.  If they are going just one mile over, stop them, search them and ticket them for everything possible.  If someone breaks into their home, ignore the 911 call.  If their neighbor's house is broken into, they become the first suspects.  etc...
 
2013-07-04 06:12:08 PM

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.


No, SCOTUS would vote 9-0 on this one.  No warrant = no access, no exceptions.  SCOTUS has already said that no-knock-no-warrant entry of homes is a form of assisted suicide and homeowners cannot be prosecuted for defending their property.
If you're in an apartment you're screwed tho.
 
2013-07-04 06:12:16 PM
Homeowner's first phone calls after the cops made their demand should have been to the local TV news and newspaper: "The cops are coming over to seize my house because I won't let them use it for a sniper position on the house next door!"
And I would have set up as many hidden recording devices as I could arrange in the time left before the cops showed up.  I would get them on the record responding to my question about what was their probable cause and where was their warrant. At that point they would probably try to bullshiat me.  I would get on record as saying that they are intimidating me out of my home by force of arms and that I intend to pursue all my legal options when the current crisis is over. Then I'd evacuate and go find the reporters and a lawyer. I don't know that this would prevent them from giving me a "tune-up" and fake arrest on general principle anyhow, but I'd have  built my case for the eventual lawsuit.
 
2013-07-04 06:13:02 PM
eventhelosers:   Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

??? Refusing to let the cops in your house does NOT make you an ahole.
 
2013-07-04 06:13:51 PM
If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.
 
2013-07-04 06:14:22 PM

namatad: Lady Indica: namatad: OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.

THIS would solve so many problems.

You know what solves a lot of problems? Requiring cams and recording equipment. Good cops have NOTHING to fear from it.

Interesting how many departments fought tooth and nail against it, and how many still do NOT utilize a tool which can ONLY protect good cops, and help assure convictions.

If you have to go outside the law to do your job, to work the grey areas to dispense justice...you're one of the bad guys and fark you.

MHMM
and yet, study after study has shown that dashboard cams and similar reduce the number of lawsuits against the police and cities, reducing costs to taxpayers.

along with reducing police misconduct.
OF course the police would be against this.


The initial fear (and this was even with good cops) is that a lot of their shiat looks bad, but is legal. They were afraid that the public (stupid & cop hating public) would not understand what they were seeing and just be all 'oh see the cop was rough and mean, GIVE THEM TEH MONIES'.

Reality is, people are pretty farking reasonable, and it surprises even me how often people are on the side of the police when they see someone pepper sprayed and roughly taken down for non compliance. People aren't that farking stupid, and they can easily see through someone being a mouthy coont and refusing to comply...to cops raging on someone and beating the shiat out of them for no reason.

Once the data came out (fewer lawsuits, better defense, less probs) it was adopted a lot of places. And it's STILL bitterly fought by many unions and cities. That some still bitterly fight it, should tell you a lot. Also ANY tampering with such devices should carry a really serious criminal penalty.

That all being said, I know cops who years before this was possible, carried personal tape recorders on them. I know of more than one who was literally saved by having this, when people filed false complaints against them. One CHP officer I know had a complaint and lawsuit filed against him by a woman he gave two speeding tickets to. She tried to get out of it on looks, and recognized him as a customer in the grocery store he went to. Didn't work, she got the ticket. Second time she propositioned him. He refused, gave her the ticket. She had done it in such a way that he wasn't obligated to file bribery shiat, but he told her she was crossing the line.

Anyhoo, she tried to get him fired. Caused an investigation, and initially filed a lawsuit. She claimed he'd asked her out repeatedly, even stalking her at her grocery store!!! And when she refused his attention, he started stalking her on the highway! It almost sounds believable too, and in the 80s when people were kneejerking on this type of sexual abuse, he'd have been farked. It looked bad.

But he carried a personal recording device, because he personally knew other cops who'd had their asses saved by it. And he stockpiled tapes for six months or some crazy amount of shiat before recycling. Anyway, he had it all on tape, and it saved his ass.

He was then able to file a civil suit against her, and won a $10k (max at the time) judgment. I don't believe he ever collected a penny on it, was more the principle of it.

Sadly, she did not face any criminal charges.

Anyhoo my entire point to this clearly fascinating and entertaining tale ;) is that most cops have heard a similar story. I can't even THINK of a story I've ever heard from any cop (and I know a lot of them in many depts through family) that ever had 'and the recording/video damned the good cop'. Not once.

They should be under constant video and audio. No reason for them not to be. Safer for them, and safer for us and better for adjudicating justice.

Can't think of any good reason not to, unless you're a scumbag who doesn't want to get caught with their hand in the till. Or farking groupies on patrol. Or roughing up people while using racist epitaphs.
 
2013-07-04 06:15:15 PM

bunner: lack of warmth: I don't think it mattered much by then, since the crooks would've changed locations after all that commotion going on

It was sold as a domestic violence stakeout.  ( Beats me, apparently this is normal?)  No actual criminals were involved other than the cops.


Considering there is reference to an incident command post, it sounds like there was an active situation going on with a barricaded suspect.  Why it was so important to get into THIS guys home?  Vantage point for marksmen maybe?
 
2013-07-04 06:15:59 PM

bunner: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

But zey were only follovink orderrs.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 524x516]

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.


Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
2013-07-04 06:16:13 PM
hardinparamedic:

eventhelosers: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Setting there at a special event isn't exactly what I'd call intimidating. Especially when the only thing it can do is honk at me. Angrily. No offense or snark meant by this comment, totally serious with this.


Actually they were just cruising with it to an event, and happened to "detour" past occupy tampa.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/are-tampa-police-using-tanks-to -t hreaten-protesters/1288919884001

Read about the new rules of protesting in Wisconsin.  Think big picture, or fall in line as you wish.  By the time many are alarmed it may just be too late, or I may be a nutjob, but I would like to be a nutjob with the right to protest, and without local cops being able to outgun the detachment I served in.
 
2013-07-04 06:16:17 PM

Ima4nic8or: If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.


Difficulty.  He'll still live in a country full of fake LEO just like these clowns only with a bullseye on his shirt and a tidy bit of potential revenue to harvest in his bank.
 
2013-07-04 06:16:39 PM
If I did my job as badly as those cops, I'd be fired and denied unemployment benefits and might never work again.

However, it's very interesting that the cops documented their plans in writing, which will surely be their undoing. Now, I strongly suspect that there's some hyperbole in that complaint (the tip-off is how they go to great lengths to describe how the poor dog was treated), but even if it's only partly true, the fact that the cops noted their plan to remove him, forcibly if needed, from his house in order to do their jobs, well, that's pretty much a cut-and-dried slam dunk. No court will rule that the police have no culpability there.

I also find it interesting that the individual officers are named as defendants, in addition to the police force itself and their superior officers. While I don't know the logistics of whether it will stick or if they'll simply fall under the umbrella of the department as government employees, at the very least these officers now have to hire their own lawyers to sort the mess out and do some fighting. The department might pay for them, they might not, but even if this goes nowhere, the department is going to lose a shiatload of money along the way. If the department somehow prevails, I can guarantee you that there will be policy changes. Sadly they won't be good ones like, "Don't invade citizens' homes uninvited," but rather DON'T WRITE shiat DOWN.
 
2013-07-04 06:17:16 PM

A Shambling Mound: Lady Indica: The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?

"I was only following orders" historically isn't exactly the best defense, but it tends to work pretty much only if the person is new, or lowest on the totem pole. They may believe they have no other options. Someone with rank or experience, they know they have other options.

So it seems to me anyway, I'm hardly expert in such.

That works okay in time of war, specifically regarding military personnel. The penalties they face for deliberately failing to follow orders can be steep.

As pointed out in this thread, cops are civilians. What's the worst that could happen to an objector? A black mark? Unpaid leave? Termination?

Any of those are better options than participating in abject idiocy and thuggery such as we are discussing.


That is a REALLY excellent point, and one I'd not considered.
 
2013-07-04 06:17:36 PM

Pinko_Commie: Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.


Precisely why I referenced that pic.
 
2013-07-04 06:18:51 PM

bunner: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

But zey were only follovink orderrs.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 524x516]

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.


Technically Godwin's Law is merely the observation that if a discussion's long enough, someone's going to eventually play the Nazi card.  The idea that playing it implies that you lost the argument is merely a corollary, and largely ignored these days anyway.
 
2013-07-04 06:19:02 PM

JerkStore: Now, I strongly suspect that there's some hyperbole in that complaint (the tip-off is how they go to great lengths to describe how the poor dog was treated)


People like dogs.  Give them a sandwich and you know where you stand.
 
2013-07-04 06:19:20 PM

prjindigo: No, SCOTUS would vote 9-0 on this one.  No warrant = no access, no exceptions.  SCOTUS has already said that no-knock-no-warrant entry of homes is a form of assisted suicide and homeowners cannot be prosecuted for defending their property.
If you're in an apartment you're screwed tho.


That's got nothing to do with the Third Amendment, however.
 
2013-07-04 06:19:41 PM
Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-04 06:19:44 PM

Mithiwithi: The idea that playing it implies that you lost the argument is merely a corollary, and largely ignored these days anyway.


I'm aware of that.  As well it should be.
 
2013-07-04 06:21:14 PM
The cops think they're entitled to citizens' aid and it's a crime to refuse it in several States.

Ohio:   http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.23

2921.23 Failure to aid a law enforcement officer.

(A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to aid a law enforcement officer, a minor misdemeanor.

Virginia has a similar law:  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-463

And New York:   http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article195.htm#p195.10

Nevada doesn't seem to have such a statute.
 
2013-07-04 06:21:36 PM

WickerNipple: eventhelosers:   Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

??? Refusing to let the cops in your house does NOT make you an ahole.


In my opinion if your neighbor is beating the old lady or whatevs (my comprehension) and you won't help then it does, but you have that right.  God Bless America.  I'm atheist and all just sayin
 
2013-07-04 06:22:54 PM

hardinparamedic: So, the term would be more applicable to Military Police than it would regulars, given the intent of the language.


You do realize Military Police is a modern concept, don't you?
 
2013-07-04 06:23:15 PM

JerkStore: While I don't know the logistics of whether it will stick or if they'll simply fall under the umbrella of the department as government employees, at the very least these officers now have to hire their own lawyers to sort the mess out and do some fighting.


No they don't. It will be covered for them as long as they don't countersue. If they choose to take any individual action, THEN they're out from under that umbrella.

If they are found to have acted outside the scope of their official capacity (or illegally) THEN they can lose that protection, but they're very very bulletproof on this shiat. They kinda have to be or they'd be constantly hit with BS lawsuits. As it is, many are mass named in a case simply because they had some action in it, even if it was merely being part of the chain of custody for some evidence or some shiat.

This is why most do not countersue even when they could and win, because they're facing nutbags who have an axe to grind and a big warchest to burn on their zealotry or belief they're right or whatever.
 
2013-07-04 06:23:43 PM

BarkingUnicorn: (A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.


Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?
 
2013-07-04 06:24:40 PM
www.kurzweilai.net

It comes out next week. Buy it. Read it.
The author has a blog called the agitator. If you haven't go on his blog and read it. This is nothing compared to what other people have gone through.
/Yeah we militarized our police force over the past two decades
//It will only get worse, not better.
 
2013-07-04 06:26:28 PM

Gergesa: I'm honestly a little curious to know what was going through those cops heads.


They should get their asses kicked so hard the next thing going through their heads is their anal sphincters.
 
2013-07-04 06:32:16 PM
This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them
 
2013-07-04 06:33:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: (A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.


Obviously this case shows that you are at substantial risk if you allow police onto your property and into your home without a warrant and thus under no obligation to assist them.
 
2013-07-04 06:34:05 PM

OregonVet: You do realize Military Police is a modern concept, don't you?


That was my point. Sorry I did not communicate it as well as I intended.

Civilian Police are NOT Military Police. They are not members of the Military, nor are they members of the State National Guard.

bunner: Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?


You're referring to DC V. Heller, right, with no idea what the definition of "Special Relationship" means in that case, or the fact that it was not the SCOTUS?
 
2013-07-04 06:35:57 PM

LrdPhoenix: EVERYBODY PANIC: Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is  gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!

This isn't big government, this is city government, which is as small time as you can get.  Don't forget, the people crying about big government often say that the states, counties, and cities should be able to do practically whatever they want, even though that's the level where the most blatant rights abuses take place since the feds tend to watch their step and make sure that they actually have a good and legal reason to do so when it comes to actually causing legal injury to others.


Agree, most folks who prefer smaller govt are especially focussed on the abuses at the federal level. But it is still oppressive and wrong for any organization entrusted with authority to so badly abuse the regular folk. This does not bode well for the future. Your correction is appreciated.
 
2013-07-04 06:38:07 PM

OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them


That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.
 
2013-07-04 06:39:35 PM
One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.
 
2013-07-04 06:40:04 PM

bunner: Pinko_Commie: Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Precisely why I referenced that pic.


I did wonder, it seemed an interesting choice. I'm also glad I wasn't snarky.
 
2013-07-04 06:43:08 PM

eventhelosers: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

[endthelie.com image 850x637]


Yeah, so farking what?  I can go out and buy a tank or an APC just like that one.  Does that mean I am now part of the military?
 
2013-07-04 06:52:00 PM

Mock26: One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.


shooting a cop is ALWAYS against the law.  this is why if your gonna rob someone, don a police outfit b4hand
 
2013-07-04 06:52:28 PM

AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]


Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.
 
2013-07-04 06:53:04 PM

eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]


Yeah, you tell them!  Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars.  It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form!  I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle.  America, fark YEAH!
 
2013-07-04 06:53:05 PM
This is an outrage if even remotely true, however a search of the news turns up no other stories about this.  I suppose I could look up the court records and see if there really is a lawsuit filed.
 
2013-07-04 06:54:20 PM

Pinko_Commie: bunner: Pinko_Commie: Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Precisely why I referenced that pic.

I did wonder, it seemed an interesting choice. I'm also glad I wasn't snarky.


Whatever the powers that be can convince our children is normal and acceptable, or old and useless and must be discarded are the floors and walls of the society we will build for tomorrow.
 
2013-07-04 06:55:06 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them!  Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars.  It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form!  I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle.  America, fark YEAH!


The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess.  If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower.  And for the same farking reason they give.
 
2013-07-04 06:55:08 PM

theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?


You have to file a claim and wait for it to be denied before you can sue. Plus time for gathering evidence and statements etc.

/IANAL but even I now that much just from paying slight attention now and then between bouts of drunken carousing.
//I posted this drunk, from a bar, on my phone
///slashes!
 
2013-07-04 06:55:22 PM

HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.


OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?
 
2013-07-04 06:56:20 PM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.


But, but, no police officer in America has ever been in an active shooter situation where they would need an armored vehicle to protect themselves or victims!  It is just not possible!  All criminals have an honor code that prevents them from being heavily armed or armored!  Gee, EVERYONE knows that.
 
2013-07-04 06:59:11 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Mock26: One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.

shooting a cop is ALWAYS against the law.  this is why if your gonna rob someone, don a police outfit b4hand


Not in Indiana since last year.  Here's just one section that has cops shiatting their pants there:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

 (k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
        (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
            (A) acting unlawfully; or
            (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
        (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
 
2013-07-04 06:59:12 PM

HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.


And when the german people claimed, "we didn't know what he was going to do!" the response should have been "he made it pretty damn clear what he was planning to, and since everyone was pretty much required to memorize that horrid book, you knew."
 
2013-07-04 07:01:12 PM

Mock26: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

But, but, no police officer in America has ever been in an active shooter situation where they would need an armored vehicle to protect themselves or victims!  It is just not possible!  All criminals have an honor code that prevents them from being heavily armed or armored!  Gee, EVERYONE knows that.


If the police limited themselves to using their special gear in those extreme and RARE circumstances, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.  Except they like to go full on military raid style for non-violent and minor warrants, e.g. simple pot possession.
 
2013-07-04 07:02:41 PM
www.mindparts.org
 
2013-07-04 07:03:04 PM

eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?



img.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-04 07:04:17 PM

gfid: This is an outrage if even remotely true, however a search of the news turns up no other stories about this.  I suppose I could look up the court records and see if there really is a lawsuit filed.


CourtHouseNews is a fairly old (est. mid-90s) legit news service with no political agenda.  It publishes civil cases of interest to legal pros, that's all.
 
2013-07-04 07:06:34 PM

eventhelosers: OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them

That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.


...which would be "all of them" and "none of them", respectively.
 
2013-07-04 07:08:25 PM

buckeyebrain: eventhelosers: OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them

That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.

...which would be "all of them" and "none of them", respectively.


The good cops succumb to peer pressure and eventually become bad cops. Or they try to point out police abuse, get framed for crimes, then shot and burned in a small cabin in the woods.
 
2013-07-04 07:09:07 PM

hardinparamedic: You do not have the right to shoot the police.


That's a rather broad statement that is not factual. In Texas, you do have the right to shoot the police and it is even specifically called out:

(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


(this is defining use of force but not lethal force, but this opens the door for legal force)

I don't want to be the one to test this in court, though.

[1] http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
 
2013-07-04 07:09:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Civilian Police are NOT Military Police. They are not members of the Military, nor are they members of the State National Guard.


Actually, there are in fact a lot of civilian cops in both the NG and the Reserves. I know that has nothing to do with this, but the fact remains that.
 
2013-07-04 07:11:19 PM

eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]


Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?
 
2013-07-04 07:13:10 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?


How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?
 
2013-07-04 07:14:45 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]


OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.
 
2013-07-04 07:17:15 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them!  Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars.  It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form!  I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle.  America, fark YEAH!

The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess.  If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower.  And for the same farking reason they give.


Right!  Because everyone knows that no criminal would ever dare use a firearm that a civilian was not allowed to possess.  In the entire history of America no police officer has ever confronted a criminal using a firearm that would otherwise be illegal in the hands of a civilian.  Not a single incident.  I am so happy to live in a country where criminals obey the law.

Also, you do realize that the unarmed vehicle pictured is, well, an unarmed vehicle?  You can own one of those if you want.
 
2013-07-04 07:17:57 PM

hardinparamedic: bunner: Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?

You're referring to DC V. Heller, right, with no idea what the definition of "Special Relationship" means in that case, or the fact that it was not the SCOTUS?


Are you confusing Heller with Warren?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
 
2013-07-04 07:18:36 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?


Also, how does that rate on the 9/11 scale? Two football fields or an Olympic swimming pool?
 
2013-07-04 07:19:36 PM

hardinparamedic: The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.


Doesn't sound very friendly.
 
2013-07-04 07:21:21 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.


Not too bright, are you?  Did you see the part that I had highlighted?  I will give you a hint, it was this part:  First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that?  Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?
 
2013-07-04 07:21:36 PM

OgreMagi: The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.


This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?
 
2013-07-04 07:24:06 PM

OgreMagi: How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?


West Memphis in 2010 comes to mind.

Weber, NY in 2012.
 
2013-07-04 07:24:56 PM

pedrop357: This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?


What firearms do the police use that civilians are not allowed to own? I'm curious.
 
2013-07-04 07:29:51 PM

bunner: HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?


Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook.  Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.
 
2013-07-04 07:31:26 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?


So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?
 
2013-07-04 07:32:37 PM

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?

What firearms do the police use that civilians are not allowed to own? I'm curious.


Post 1986 machineguns and imported firearms not determined to have a sporting purpose for starters.

Then we have laws in a bunch of states that outright forbids possession of rifles and/or shotguns with short barrels, machineguns, suppressors, so-called destructive devices, etc.

Police departments do not have to pay. a $200 tax on each nfa weapon nor do they have to wait as long as 8 months to be approved to own or possess them.
 
2013-07-04 07:33:45 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?


In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.
 
2013-07-04 07:34:20 PM

pedrop357: OgreMagi: The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.

This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?


And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess?  Do you think a strongly worded letter would work?  Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing?  OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?
 
2013-07-04 07:34:31 PM
 It's strange to hear people arguing in favor of this insanity, and on Jul 4th no less. Without irony even.
sad and disgusting.
 
2013-07-04 07:35:13 PM

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


Insanely rare, it's never been to the supreme court. THIS is one of the last rights they didn't touch and now it's gone. Holy fark this is very bad.

/ July 4th I read this, holy fark, so sad
 
2013-07-04 07:36:17 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.


Wow.  You really are stupid.
 
2013-07-04 07:37:55 PM

Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?


You argue like a teenager.  You use extreme examples, unlikely events, and bad logic.

You argue the police need more firepower because criminals don't follow the rules.  I agree.  And because the criminals almost always target non law professionals (us civilians), we have an even greater need for that fire power.  You just argued that the people being targeted need better weapons.  So are you going to back off on that argument now, or are you going to go for some more "really stupid logic", which is your specialty?
 
2013-07-04 07:38:48 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.

Not too bright, are you?  Did you see the part that I had highlighted?  I will give you a hint, it was this part:  First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that?  Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?


ok you win I'm wrong, APC's drive like Ferraris at speed on pavement.

You know some criminals are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, I think all police departments need nuclear weapons too.
 
2013-07-04 07:40:49 PM

eventhelosers: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

[endthelie.com image 850x637]


That is the weirdest vehicle....for Vallejo.
 
2013-07-04 07:41:49 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

Wow.  You really are stupid.


And you appear to have gathered your reality from Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis movies.
 
2013-07-04 07:45:51 PM

hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.


you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.
 
2013-07-04 07:49:45 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.


And you've just handed them everything they need to strap you to a table and put a needle in your arm.
 
2013-07-04 07:53:13 PM

Mock26: And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess? Do you think a strongly worded letter would work? Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing? OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?


The fact that it may or not be difficult to get criminals to obey the law has never been a factor when people like you push gun control, so I see no reason why criminals' obeyance of the law should be used as a way to block laws from being applied to the police.

if you weren't so single-minded, you might realize that another option to stop infringing upon the rights of non-police officers such that they're ability to buy/possess/bear arms is identical to those of the police.
 
2013-07-04 07:54:03 PM

hardinparamedic: HindiDiscoMonster: you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.

And you've just handed them everything they need to strap you to a table and put a needle in your arm.


How?  It's the empty words of the prosecutor against the homeowner.
 
2013-07-04 07:54:53 PM

LrdPhoenix: Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook.  Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.


Except for the 48,231,700 people who just wanted to watch the game with a beer and a hot dog, yeah.  User application error in module humanity.  System rebooted.
 
2013-07-04 07:56:15 PM

eventhelosers: OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them

That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.


Hey, I appreciate both of the good cops who protect and serve.  It's not their fault that the other 99.9% ruin it for the rest.

BTW, do you feel the same way about gang members?  Is it wrong to assume that all members of MS13 are bad people?
 
2013-07-04 07:58:40 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.

you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.


Hold that thought, they're still adjudicating a case involving this.
 
2013-07-04 08:00:51 PM

pedrop357: Is it wrong to assume that all members of MS13 are bad people?


I think the "I solemnly swear to be f*cking all dis sh*t up, shootin' motherf*ckers stone ass cold and gettin' dat money, yo" is sort of a tip off.  The honesty would be refreshing if it weren't for the fact that they're homicidal thugs.
 
2013-07-04 08:04:57 PM
A few years ago some local cops were responding to an auto accident where the people involved only spoke Spanish.  At that point the cops saw a Hispanic looking woman, who was not involved in the the accident,  walking down the street.  The cops  asked this woman if she spoke Spanish.  She replied that she could speak Spanish.  The cops then demand....they didn't request.....that the woman act as an interceptor for them.  The woman refused, and was promptly arrested and held in the county lock-up over the weekend.  At the time she was on her way to pick up her kids at the local elementary school.

Eventually, the charges against her were dropped.  The woman's lawyer filed a lawsuit against the PD.  It was settle for some small amount, I think less than $10K
 
2013-07-04 08:06:18 PM
I wanted to mention that, since we're on the topic of gangs, that - for anybody who thinks that jive assed, illiterate, gun toting, misery and addiction selling, SUV driving, dope addled, hateful, gutless, ball-less, sociopathic, thieving homicidal cowards are romantic or respectable - that those people are the stupidest, most gullible, piss ignorant no self esteem having boulder brained motherf*ckers on earth.  Thanks.
 
2013-07-04 08:09:24 PM

bunner: jive assed, illiterate, gun toting, misery and addiction selling, SUV driving, dope addled, hateful, gutless, ball-less, sociopathic, thieving homicidal cowards


...but enough about the police...
 
2013-07-04 08:10:37 PM
 

LrdPhoenix: bunner: HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?

Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook.  Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.



Yeah, but the losing team doesn't have it's hometown bombed to shiat and then the ruins divided for several decades and anyone that tries to cross over the dividing line gets shot at.
 
2013-07-04 08:12:43 PM

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.


IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.
 
2013-07-04 08:15:09 PM

bunner: I wanted to mention that, since we're on the topic of gangs, that - for anybody who thinks that jive assed, illiterate, gun toting, misery and addiction selling, SUV driving, dope addled, hateful, gutless, ball-less, sociopathic, thieving homicidal cowards are romantic or respectable - that those people are the stupidest, most gullible, piss ignorant no self esteem having boulder brained motherf*ckers on earth.  Thanks.


Having had some dealing with some gang members, I just want to say it's a surprise they have enough brain cells to figure out how to tie their shoes.  We already know they don't have enough sense to pull up their pants.
 
2013-07-04 08:16:54 PM

eventhelosers: You know some criminals are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, I think all police departments need nuclear weapons too.


www.angryflower.com
 
2013-07-04 08:18:35 PM

OgreMagi: Having had some dealing with some gang members, I just want to say it's a surprise they have enough brain cells to figure out how to tie their shoes.


Nah, man.  Just boost some dope Nike's and have your b*tch tie them.  Then beat her ass for dissin' you.
 
2013-07-04 08:19:03 PM

Gyrfalcon: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.


If it were two homeowners having a pissing match, I'd say, "who the fark knows?"  But with one side being the police, I'm going to have to assume the police are the lying sacks o'shiat.  Too many instances of police misconduct going on, too many cases of the police thinking they can do whatever the fark they want, to whomever they want, and there will be no consequences.  They lost any benefit of the doubt a long time ago.
 
2013-07-04 08:26:01 PM

bunner: pedrop357: Is it wrong to assume that all members of MS13 are bad people?

I think the "I solemnly swear to be f*cking all dis sh*t up, shootin' motherf*ckers stone ass cold and gettin' dat money, yo" is sort of a tip off.  The honesty would be refreshing if it weren't for the fact that they're homicidal thugs.


On that note I'll enter this conjecture:  Some kids join up to stay alive.  Maybe instead of spending money on military grade equipment for Mock26's what ifs, we spent it to help them find a better way, they would choose the better way.
 
2013-07-04 08:26:14 PM
Just a weird idea on how the cops who go beyond the bounds could be kept in check; require every cop to carry liability insurance which is paid for by the individual cops. When the idiot cops go all Judge Dredd and get sued for it, their rates will go up and if they are really big idiots, they might not be able to afford to be a cop anymore.

The cops in this situation need jail time as they went way, way too far.
 
2013-07-04 08:28:59 PM

Fissile: they didn't request.....that the woman act as an interceptor for them.


Damn auto correct!
 
2013-07-04 08:29:14 PM

eventhelosers: what ifs, we spent it to help them find a better way, they would choose the better way.


Interesting conjecture indeed.  So far the excursions into testing that hypothesis have been less than fruitful.  And as far as "don't hate the playa, hate the game"- No players, no game.
 
2013-07-04 08:30:46 PM

prjindigo: TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.

No, SCOTUS would vote 9-0 on this one.  No warrant = no access, no exceptions.  SCOTUS has already said that no-knock-no-warrant entry of homes is a form of assisted suicide and homeowners cannot be prosecuted for defending their property.
If you're in an apartment you're screwed tho.


I meant that SCOTUS would rule 6-3 against a violation of the third only. The other merits, if TFA is accurate, are slam dunk. While the plain language of the third doesn't apply to this case, the original intent certainly does.
 
2013-07-04 08:32:37 PM
What...what the hell kind of domestic dispute was this?

And, c'mon cops, really? What the shiat?
 
2013-07-04 08:35:21 PM

Honest Bender: This is why we're supposed to have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force.  Good luck surviving such an encounter, though.


If it comes to a gunfight with the cops you will not win. 0% chance of winning. Which really just means that if you find yourself in said shootout your only option is to go for the high score before they get you.
 
2013-07-04 08:38:17 PM

prjindigo: If you're in an apartment you're screwed tho.


Why would being in an apartment be different?  An apartment is still considered a private home for all intents and purposes.  The police still require an warrant to enter and search.  The apartment complex owner can't even override that.
 
2013-07-04 08:43:26 PM
 
2013-07-04 08:50:52 PM
i1172.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-04 08:57:21 PM
What's wrong with people.

Ban police unions, institute licenses for cops that they must renew on a yearly basis by proving knowledge of law, institute REAL civilian review boards.

Problem solved.

Cops are not your friends, they are reactive and are trained in how to trick you.  This is not Russia or China and if you approve of gestapo tactics by thugs with a badge, you need to move to Communist China immediately and write us after a year of living there.

That's where we're headed.  Disgusting pigs.
 
2013-07-04 08:59:35 PM
Normally I'd take the side against the pigs on any story but this one is as over the top as a 10 year old kid telling a lie about how mutant space Marines broke into the house and that's why the lamp is broken.  It's too much to possibly be true.
 
2013-07-04 09:00:13 PM

destardi: This is not Russia or China and if you approve of gestapo tactics by thugs with a badge, you need to move to Communist China immediately and write us after a year of living there.


Well, yeah, but on the upside, we could visit our old jobs and money.
 
2013-07-04 09:04:18 PM

Bravo Two: The actual complaint:

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mitchell-v-hpd-complaint .p df


Thank you.
 
2013-07-04 09:10:03 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Normally I'd take the side against the pigs on any story but this one is as over the top as a 10 year old kid telling a lie about how mutant space Marines broke into the house and that's why the lamp is broken.  It's too much to possibly be true.


At one time people would have thought the very idea of the police randomly stopping people on the street and frisking without cause as too far fetched to be believed.

That's the problem.  The police HAVE gone over the top.  This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.  We're about halfway down that slope.  Do we ride it out or try to find some brakes on this farking thing?
 
2013-07-04 09:12:00 PM

OgreMagi: Smeggy Smurf: Normally I'd take the side against the pigs on any story but this one is as over the top as a 10 year old kid telling a lie about how mutant space Marines broke into the house and that's why the lamp is broken.  It's too much to possibly be true.

At one time people would have thought the very idea of the police randomly stopping people on the street and frisking without cause as too far fetched to be believed.

That's the problem.  The police HAVE gone over the top.  This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.  We're about halfway down that slope.  Do we ride it out or try to find some brakes on this farking thing?


I have no doubt that at least half of the story is true.  But all of it?  That's even more farked up than the buddy pig movies come up with.
 
2013-07-04 09:15:29 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Honest Bender: This is why we're supposed to have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force.  Good luck surviving such an encounter, though.

If it comes to a gunfight with the cops you will not win. 0% chance of winning. Which really just means that if you find yourself in said shootout your only option is to go for the high score before they get you.


This. The penalties are the same whether it's 1, 1000, or 1000000.

You have a 99.99% chance of dying due to it, whether you die in the shootout, are executed at the scene, are suicided in jail, are sentenced to death or spend the rest of your life in prison.

the upside is that you take a bunch of scumbag cops with you and send a message that thr police can listen to and stop doing that shiat, OR act even worse in which case hopefully your acts encourage/inspire others to do what you did. thus restarting the cycle.

The police can stop what will be a huge backlash against their profession at any time by just acting with a bit more restraint as well as accepting that they aren't the only people in the world.
 
2013-07-04 09:15:54 PM

OgreMagi: This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.


You have just summarized the state the union, as it were, for the last 35 years.  You have rendered the ponderous addresses issued from their respective administrations moot.
 
2013-07-04 09:19:16 PM

hardinparamedic: OregonVet: You do realize Military Police is a modern concept, don't you?

That was my point. Sorry I did not communicate it as well as I intended.

Civilian Police are NOT Military Police. They are not members of the Military, nor are they members of the State National Guard.

bunner: Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?

You're referring to DC V. Heller, right, with no idea what the definition of "Special Relationship" means in that case, or the fact that it was not the SCOTUS?


Except when they pint out farking constantly that they are not 'civilians' like the unwashed masses of those of us who don't wear badges, that is.

They're not 'civilians' then.
 
2013-07-04 09:20:35 PM

bunner: OgreMagi: This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.

You have just summarized the state the union, as it were, for the last 35 years.  You have rendered the ponderous addresses issued from their respective administrations moot.


bunner, just for the record; sometimes you make me lol, sometimes you piss me the fark off, sometimes you annoy the me, sometimes you make me think, and sometimes it's a combination. So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.

/no snark intended
 
2013-07-04 09:21:07 PM
oh, can we please hear all about how it's ok to let cops set up random checkpoints, monitor our phone, email and cam conversations and seize our assets by forfeiture etc and so on from the goddam police state apologists a little bit more?
 
2013-07-04 09:24:41 PM

bunner: OgreMagi: This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.

You have just summarized the state the union, as it were, for the last 35 years.  You have rendered the ponderous addresses issued from their respective administrations moot.


Long ago, when I said, "I don't think I like where this is going", people said I was paranoid.
 
2013-07-04 09:27:01 PM

megarian: bunner: OgreMagi: This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.

You have just summarized the state the union, as it were, for the last 35 years.  You have rendered the ponderous addresses issued from their respective administrations moot.

bunner, just for the record; sometimes you make me lol, sometimes you piss me the fark off, sometimes you annoy the me, sometimes you make me think, and sometimes it's a combination. So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.

/no snark intended


I am in the habit of simply saying what I mean and trying to do so in an engaging manner.  And, to quote Chaim Witz, "If everybody loves you, you're probably an idiot".
 
2013-07-04 09:32:28 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

West Memphis in 2010 comes to mind.

Weber, NY in 2012.


A better question would be how many deaths/injuries could the militarization of police prevented in shootouts like this vs. how many deaths/injuries have been caused by military style SWAT raids.
 
2013-07-04 09:37:04 PM

OgreMagi: bunner: OgreMagi: This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.

You have just summarized the state the union, as it were, for the last 35 years.  You have rendered the ponderous addresses issued from their respective administrations moot.

Long ago, when I said, "I don't think I like where this is going", people said I was paranoid.


That means "If think there's a problem that isn't affecting me or I can't agree exists, you must be a loon".  Worked for the USSR for  years.  Most people can't be arsed enough to step back three feet and look at the whole forest.  They sort of count on this  phenomenon.
 
2013-07-04 09:42:05 PM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.


I respectfully beg to differ. When I lived in Tucson ('99-'01), the TPD would roll their M113 APC down the street I lived on, a main artery, by the way, every Saturday morning. Early. Waking me up from my peaceful slumber.

Why? Who knows. I have my reasons. I think it was to 'flex', and as Mr. Hicks puts it, "...so you know that state power will win and we'll bust your house down and we'll f*ckin' bust you anytime we want...".

As evidenced in the article we are commenting on.
 
2013-07-04 09:48:22 PM

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?




fark you. These are heroes, deserving our respect.
 
2013-07-04 09:51:04 PM

megarian: So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.


Are you related to my ex wife?   :  )
 
2013-07-04 09:56:32 PM

hardinparamedic: License them at the state level, like every other regulated profession. Take the departments out of this, and appoint a board to oversee those licensed by the state.


You mean like the  POST certification they have in Nevada where this occurred?

These programs are run by Officers to certify Officers, and they don't see anything wrong with the behavior described in this article.
 
2013-07-04 09:57:47 PM
This is a case where the public needs to stand up together and correct this kind of injustice.
And that is why Homeland Security is stock piling bullets.

There is a war going on in America, and it's against just about all of us.
 
2013-07-04 10:01:05 PM

bunner: megarian: So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.

Are you related to my ex wife?   :  )


I...um...I hope not because I might face jail-time.

Oh. OH.

I mean, "who?"
 
2013-07-04 10:05:24 PM
I'm surprised the cops got this excited about a domestic violence call.  Wonder if the victim has a relative on the police force.
 
2013-07-04 10:06:56 PM

Stoker: This is a case where the public needs to stand up together and correct this kind of injustice.
And that is why Homeland Security is stock piling bullets.

There is a war going on in America, and it's against just about all of us.


The war is being packaged and sold to us as something we need to wage against each other.  If you can create a social zeitgeist wherein people are willing to believe the idea that the cause of their woes and their fears and the reason they  don't have a pot to piss in is the fault of the other poor sonofab*tch up yonder road who is hiding under his bed, too, without a  pot to piss in, you can keep society fragmented and mistrustful and not focused on your shenanigans.  Everything since Sep. 2001 has been straight out of Goebbels and Khrushchev's playbooks.  All of it.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-04 10:08:08 PM

megarian: bunner: megarian: So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.

Are you related to my ex wife?   :  )

I...um...I hope not because I might face jail-time.

Oh. OH.

I mean, "who?"


Not sure what the first part means but she's a very nice girl and I got nothing bad to say about her.
 
2013-07-04 10:09:38 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.

you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.


The cop would be painted the hero while you, the lowly scum.
 
2013-07-04 10:11:20 PM

pedrop357: Mock26: And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess? Do you think a strongly worded letter would work? Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing? OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?

The fact that it may or not be difficult to get criminals to obey the law has never been a factor when people like you push gun control, so I see no reason why criminals' obeyance of the law should be used as a way to block laws from being applied to the police.

if you weren't so single-minded, you might realize that another option to stop infringing upon the rights of non-police officers such that they're ability to buy/possess/bear arms is identical to those of the police.




It's a mathematical problem. You people will never get that fact.
 
2013-07-04 10:11:38 PM

fnordfocus: hardinparamedic: License them at the state level, like every other regulated profession. Take the departments out of this, and appoint a board to oversee those licensed by the state.

You mean like the  POST certification they have in Nevada where this occurred?

These programs are run by Officers to certify Officers, and they don't see anything wrong with the behavior described in this article.


As I stated earlier, anything involving police oversight is either run completely by the police, e.g. internal affairs, or is packed with the "right" people to guarantee the outcome the police desire.

Those tv shows where the internal affair guy bucks the system to bring down a bad cop?  Doesn't happen.  The internal affair guy's job is to figure out the best way to bury the corruption story.  If that means sacrificing one cop to cover for the others, not a problem.  They would prefer to pull out some 20 year old pot conviction to taint the credibility of the eye witness.

Even grand juries are controlled.  The DA won't always prosecute someone a grand jury indicts, especially if it involves someone with the right political connections.
 
2013-07-04 10:14:32 PM

bunner: Stoker: This is a case where the public needs to stand up together and correct this kind of injustice.
And that is why Homeland Security is stock piling bullets.

There is a war going on in America, and it's against just about all of us.

The war is being packaged and sold to us as something we need to wage against each other.  If you can create a social zeitgeist wherein people are willing to believe the idea that the cause of their woes and their fears and the reason they  don't have a pot to piss in is the fault of the other poor sonofab*tch up yonder road who is hiding under his bed, too, without a  pot to piss in, you can keep society fragmented and mistrustful and not focused on your shenanigans.  Everything since Sep. 2001 has been straight out of Goebbels and Khrushchev's playbooks.  All of it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]


I wonder how many politicians had to keep themselves from jumping up and screaming "JACKPOT!" when the first plane hit the tower?  They didn't see it as a tragedy.  They saw it as an opportunity.

I can't believe how disillusioned I've become in my middle ages.  :(
 
2013-07-04 10:14:39 PM

bunner: megarian: bunner: megarian: So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.

Are you related to my ex wife?   :  )

I...um...I hope not because I might face jail-time.

Oh. OH.

I mean, "who?"

Not sure what the first part means but she's a very nice girl and I got nothing bad to say about her.


Well, you said "related" so I was implying that I may have slept with her. And it might be illegal (depending on the state).

I can't ever be sure. I'm Ukrainian and my family is huge. I don't know a lot of my cousins.

But that's part of the fun.
 
2013-07-04 10:17:24 PM

OgreMagi: As I stated earlier, anything involving police oversight is either run completely by the police, e.g. internal affairs, or is packed with the "right" people to guarantee the outcome the police desire.

Those tv shows where the internal affair guy bucks the system to bring down a bad cop?  Doesn't happen.  The internal affair guy's job is to figure out the best way to bury the corruption story.  If that means sacrificing one cop to cover for the others, not a problem.  They would prefer to pull out some 20 year old pot conviction to taint the credibility of the eye witness.

Even grand juries are controlled.  The DA won't always prosecute someone a grand jury indicts, especially if it involves someone with the right political connections.


Reader's Digest condensed version, yeah, it's all a con.   :  /  *sigh*
 
2013-07-04 10:32:50 PM

OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.

If it were two homeowners having a pissing match, I'd say, "who the fark knows?"  But with one side being the police, I'm going to have to assume the police are the lying sacks o'shiat.  Too many instances of police misconduct going on, too many cases of the police thinking they can do whatever the fark they want, to whomever they want, and there will be no consequences.  They lost any benefit of the doubt a long time ago.


Well, there are two possible stories:

1. The cops asked for entry for a legitimate cause, were denied, and the homeowner subsequently made up the story out of whole cloth to make a claim against the city, or get back at the cops for some other reason. This scenario makes sense if the homeowner has a history with one of the cops (like if one of the cops is his ex-brother in law or something) or some kind of gripe against the city.

2. The cops broke into the house for some other reason (a bogus drug warrant, a fake search) and rummaged around, pepperballing the homeowner when he protested, and then threatened him when they left, assuring him nobody would believe him. Then when he filed suit, they hastily cobbled together this b/s story about a "domestic violence investigation" as a pretext for why they were trying to be inside his house. This scenario makes sense if we've got a couple of rogue cops and they've been pulling this kind of shiat before.

What DOESN'T make sense is the idea that they  contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house. The only time they'd need to do that would be in a genuine tactical situation, where SWAT had been deployed, and in that case, the homeowner wouldn't be telling the officers he "didn't want to get involved." Or, if he did, the next thing the cops did wouldn't be to be kicking down HIS door as opposed to dealing with the subject in the next house.

What also doesn't make sense is the Third Amendment violation. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. "Quartering" is defined pretty narrowly as "providing with shelter" and soldiers are always defined as members of the armed services, not civil police. I can see pretty well that the homeowner's rights were trampled all over; but I really don't think soldiers were quartered in his house in any way he's going to be able to prove.
 
2013-07-04 10:40:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.

If it were two homeowners having a pissing match, I'd say, "who the fark knows?"  But with one side being the police, I'm going to have to assume the police are the lying sacks o'shiat.  Too many instances of police misconduct going on, too many cases of the police thinking they can do whatever the fark they want, to whomever they want, and there will be no consequences.  They lost any benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

Well, there are two possible stories:

1. The cops asked for entry for a legitimate cause, were denied, and the homeowner subsequently made up the story out of whole cloth to make a claim against the city, or get back at the cops for some other reason. This scenario makes sense if the homeowner has a history with one of the cops (like if one of the cops is his ex-brother in law or something) or some kind of gripe against the city.

2. The cops broke into the house for some other reason (a bogus drug warrant, a fake search) and rummaged around, pepperballing the homeowner when he protested, and then threatened him when they left, assuring him nobody would believe him. Then when he filed suit, they hastily cobbled together this b/s story about a "domestic violence investigation" as a pre ...


If consider the time when the Constitution was written, police forces did not exist.  Armed agents of the government enforcing the law were all soldiers.  Now we have armed agents of the government enforcing the law who are not considered soldiers by the strictest of definitions, but I personally feel they fall under the definition as intended by the authors of our Constitution.

Even without the 3rd Amendment violation, there's enough bad shiat going on here that it should get every single cop involved in the unemployment line.
 
2013-07-04 10:45:51 PM
They'll lose their jobs for mistreating the dog.
 
2013-07-04 10:58:58 PM
This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
 
2013-07-04 11:02:54 PM

DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.


I agree.

Vote third party.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop voting for the status quo.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
 
2013-07-04 11:07:37 PM
Actually, you're voting for the second party.  The demopublicans are just two sock puppets on either hand of the same owner.
 
2013-07-04 11:18:25 PM
I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.
 
2013-07-04 11:38:57 PM

jayphat: I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.


When the sh*t got seriously, my guess is the regular British army.  Fun fact, Paul Revere never said "The British are coming!"  They WERE British.  He said "The regulars are upon us."  Redcoats.  Regular army.
 
2013-07-04 11:42:23 PM

DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.


1.5/10. Put some effort into it. Is that too much to ask ? Sheesh .
 
2013-07-04 11:46:59 PM

bunner: jayphat: I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.

When the sh*t got seriously, my guess is the regular British army.  Fun fact, Paul Revere never said "The British are coming!"  They WERE British.  He said "The regulars are upon us."  Redcoats.  Regular army.


Regular law enforcement was done by constables, modeled after the British system of policing.

The Military was there to ensure compliance to the crown, not compliance to the everyday law.
 
2013-07-04 11:49:15 PM

OgreMagi: If consider the time when the Constitution was written, police forces did not exist.  Armed agents of the government enforcing the law were all soldiers.


That is completely, unabashedly false.

The Early Colonial policing was done by constabulary, wardens and sheriffs, and by groups of men deputized and empowered during times of need.
 
2013-07-04 11:52:52 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?

You argue like a teenager.  You use extreme examples, unlikely events, and bad logic.

You argue the police need more firepower because criminals don't follow the rules.  I agree.  And because the criminals almost always target non law professionals (us civilians), we have an even greater need for that fire power.  You just argued that the people being targeted need better weapons.  So are you going to back off on that argument now, or are you going to go for some more "really stupid logic", which is your specialty?


Those extreme examples are called sarcasm.   Of course, given the fantasy world that you seem to be living in I should not have expected you to pick up on that.

Also, where in all of Hades have I been arguing that the police need more firepower because criminals do not follow the rules?  Is Intelligence your dump stat?  Armored vehicles != more firepower.  Oh wait, dump stat.  Let me try that again.  The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"
 
2013-07-04 11:55:59 PM

jayphat: I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.


There were no professional police departments at the time.  Boston PD is the nation's oldest, founded in 1838.

Law enforcement would have come from quite a few sources, including elected officials such as Sheriffs and the general population.  Clearly, it sometimes came from the military.  For example, the Whiskey Rebellion was put down by federalized militiamen.
 
2013-07-04 11:56:09 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.

Not too bright, are you?  Did you see the part that I had highlighted?  I will give you a hint, it was this part:  First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that?  Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?


ok you win I'm wrong, APC's drive like Ferraris at speed on pavement.

You know some criminals are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, I think all police departments need nuclear weapons too.


 I was asking you for proof that the APC in the picture you posted was, as you claimed, was used for intimidation at a protest.  So, do you have the evidence?  Or did you just make that up?
 
2013-07-04 11:56:26 PM

Mock26: The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"


You're talking to someone who seems to think we're just one inch away from this happening in the United States.

3.bp.blogspot.com

/are those T-62s?
 
2013-07-04 11:58:27 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.[5].

The police can surely be considered agents of the state. If you still are not willing to call this a 3rd ammendment violation then it is surely a 4th ammendment violation.
 
2013-07-04 11:58:39 PM

fnordfocus: For example, the Whiskey Rebellion was put down by federalized militiamen.


That's not entirely the whole story.
 
2013-07-04 11:59:05 PM

fnordfocus: There were no professional police departments at the time.  Boston PD is the nation's oldest, founded in 1838.


Which is where the Oirish got their come up. Nobody wanted to be a cop in Boston.  Boston was a mess.  The micks took the job.  Also the origin of "paddy wagon".
 
2013-07-04 11:59:34 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

Wow.  You really are stupid.

And you appear to have gathered your reality from Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis movies.


I am not the one talking about LAPD apache attack helicopters, so if anyone is getting their reality from the movies it would be you.
 
2013-07-05 12:04:12 AM

pedrop357: Mock26: And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess? Do you think a strongly worded letter would work? Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing? OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?

The fact that it may or not be difficult to get criminals to obey the law has never been a factor when people like you push gun control, so I see no reason why criminals' obeyance of the law should be used as a way to block laws from being applied to the police.

if you weren't so single-minded, you might realize that another option to stop infringing upon the rights of non-police officers such that they're ability to buy/possess/bear arms is identical to those of the police.


Where have I said anything about gun control?  I am a gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  I was merely pointing out that the police having APCs in response the criminals being able to acquire high powered firepower does not make them into a military or even a quasi-military organization.
 
2013-07-05 12:04:54 AM
The dude calls his mommy!

Don't fight the cops, they will kill you and burn your house down.

Call a lawyer and the TV news immediately if this ever happens again.
 
2013-07-05 12:08:08 AM
remember,there is no progression or pattern to any of these unconnected events
anyone implying otherwise must be insane
you don't want people to think you're insane, do you?
see, we are here to help
everything is fine
those were bad people doing bad things
they got what they deserved
you're not a bad person, so bad things won't happen to you
we are making the world safe for everyone
it is good work
 
2013-07-05 12:09:15 AM

OgreMagi: DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I agree.

Vote third party.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop voting for the status quo.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.


infamous.net
 
2013-07-05 12:09:54 AM

CBob: remember,there is no progression or pattern to any of these unconnected events
anyone implying otherwise must be insane
you don't want people to think you're insane, do you?
see, we are here to help
everything is fine
those were bad people doing bad things
they got what they deserved
you're not a bad person, so bad things won't happen to you
we are making the world safe for everyone
it is good work


*shudder*
 
2013-07-05 12:20:12 AM

hardinparamedic: Mock26: The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"

You're talking to someone who seems to think we're just one inch away from this happening in the United States.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

/are those T-62s?


Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.
 
2013-07-05 12:21:29 AM

Mock26: Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-05 12:22:38 AM

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


I know I'm late to the party, but if you're going to take that word literally, then that means it doesn't apply to the Marine Corps, Navy, or Airforce.  Or those Coast Guard guys.  just sayin.
 
2013-07-05 12:25:15 AM

hardinparamedic: Mock26: The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"

You're talking to someone who seems to think we're just one inch away from this happening in the United States.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

/are those T-62s?


Not that, but we are way past this:

www.beirutnightlife.com
 
2013-07-05 12:32:50 AM

OgreMagi: Not that, but we are way past this:


A cautionary tale. If you're going to get geeked out on PCP, don't do it while black and in the one place which makes the south look racially tolerant.
 
2013-07-05 12:37:35 AM

hardinparamedic: Mock26: Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 480x360]


Sorry, misread your post.
 
2013-07-05 12:38:27 AM

Mock26: hardinparamedic: Mock26: Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 480x360]

Sorry, misread your post.


It's totally okay. I'm guilty of it too, recently.
 
2013-07-05 12:54:34 AM
Late to the thread and haven't read all of the posts, so my point may have already been covered.

The cops wanted in to use this guy's home as a look out/surveilance post for a neighbor in a domestic abuse case, right?  So, by busting in, creating a big scene there and at the the guy's parents' home nearby, aren't they pretty much blowing their cover?  It sure sounds like they have now lost the element of stealth on this and are just doing it out of spite for getting refused.
 
2013-07-05 12:55:24 AM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?


Yes. An armored vehicle is not the only way to prepare for that one particular situation that happend once and I think there are a lot of other options available that don't involve turning our police into soldiers which we should consider first.  Like tasers this new police equipment will be sold to us as safer and used judiciously and then be turned on us at their slightest whim, which is how they use tasers now.  As the incident the article describes clearly shows, many police forces have no self restraint and zero respect for anyone who isn't in blue.  Your opinion clearly comes from a place of trust and sympathy for our police forces and I see that, but there are many who do not share your faith in the police, and many of them for good reason.
 
2013-07-05 01:10:05 AM

UseLessHuman: An armored vehicle is not the only way to prepare for that one particular situation that happend once and I think there are a lot of other options available that don't involve turning our police into soldiers which we should consider first.


Except that those situations occur nationwide every year, and those armored vehicles are a way to get medical aid to victims who would otherwise be left to bleed until the shooter or shooters were neutralized, or can provide a distraction and cover for an entry team rather than a free target.

UseLessHuman: Like tasers this new police equipment will be sold to us as safer and used judiciously and then be turned on us at their slightest whim, which is how they use tasers now.


A lot of departments have taken away tasers from their people due to the potential for abuse and torturous use. Others have gotten worried about being the causative factor in SICDS.

UseLessHuman: As the incident the article describes clearly shows, many police forces have no self restraint and zero respect for anyone who isn't in blue.  Your opinion clearly comes from a place of trust and sympathy for our police forces and I see that, but there are many who do not share your faith in the police, and many of them for good reason.


Not really. You can have "respect", so to speak, for the job they do and the principles they are supposed to uphold, while not trusting individuals or even departments because of their past behavior.

I have a great deal of respect for the police, to be quite honest. I could not do their job, and I honestly would not want to. Frankly, given some of the people they deal with, I wouldn't be able to keep my cool.

That said, I'm not stupid. There's no way I'd volunteer information to the police, or let them into my car or premises without a warrant. There's no way I'd openly talk to a cop before having a lawyer by my side. At the point they become the adversary, you stop being nice and helpful, and start being smart and using the justice system.

That said, the place in our society to argue it out is not with a cop who - probably - has had all of a day on constitutional law and principles as part of his POST course. It's in front of a judge with a lawyer.
 
2013-07-05 01:28:11 AM

Ima4nic8or: If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.


paid leave for the cops.

undisclosed, confidential settlement for the victims

/happens all the time
 
2013-07-05 01:31:13 AM

CourtroomWolf: A better question would be how many deaths/injuries could the militarization of police prevented in shootouts like this vs. how many deaths/injuries have been caused by military style SWAT raids.


I'm sure they don't track stats like that. You know, no real reason to do that.
 
2013-07-05 01:33:30 AM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.


The M113 and 557 pictured above were and still are used to move troops on the battlefield. Of course the army stopped using them because .30 cal rounds will penetrate one side of the vehicle and bounce around inside. So If the cops want to use them so be it.
I had a chunk of 7.62 mm that was accidentally discharged penetrate one I was riding in and the round skipped around and hit three guys before coming to a stop in my forearm. So let the cops use them.
 
2013-07-05 02:10:31 AM

m00: So the cops did all this to gain a command post for a domestic violence case? Really? Something's fishy here.


The DV case probably involved a drug ring. It's Vegas, that's not exactly a nice corner of Nevada.

/And drugs drive profits, so.
 
2013-07-05 02:21:30 AM

Milo Minderbinder: No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


If you want to get picky, enlisted army personnel are called soldiers. In the navy they're sailors and in the air force they're airmen.

I kind of doubt that the third amendment excludes military branches other than the army, or officers though; and I similarly doubt that forcing people to quarter armed and sworn agents of local governments would be excluded too.
 
2013-07-05 02:28:50 AM
Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.
 
2013-07-05 02:31:41 AM

lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.


The good cops were both busy.
 
2013-07-05 02:33:06 AM

lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.


That is exactly why I stopped trusting the police and always assume they are lying.  When has there ever been a news story which stated, "internal affairs was tipped off to the abuse and corruption by fellow police officers."  I don't remember ever hearing a story like that, though there has to have been a few if there is no "thin blue line".
 
2013-07-05 02:46:52 AM

OgreMagi: lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.

That is exactly why I stopped trusting the police and always assume they are lying.  When has there ever been a news story which stated, "internal affairs was tipped off to the abuse and corruption by fellow police officers."  I don't remember ever hearing a story like that, though there has to have been a few if there is no "thin blue line".


I've heard of some, but most are usually a cop who was on scene and not actively bad filing a report implicating the active bad cops.

The unicorn of 'good cop' incidents would be finding an incident where the good cop actually stopped the bad cops from abusing, hurting, or killing the suspect.  No matter how many cops are at the scene, the best that can be hoped for is that some of the cops will stand idly by and do nothing instead of assisting in the victimization.  The bad cops will hurt or kill while you while the "good" cops do nothing.

The math and laws of randomness and/or probability do not support this idea that the bad cops are a minority.  What are the odds that the only bad cops on the force all happened to be on the same shift, in the same beat/sector/precinct and all got dispatched (or self-dispatched) to that incident?  If they aren't the only bad ones, just how many more are there?
 
2013-07-05 03:15:34 AM

hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.


It's explicitly allowed in Indiana.
 
2013-07-05 03:16:22 AM

pedrop357: OgreMagi: lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.

That is exactly why I stopped trusting the police and always assume they are lying.  When has there ever been a news story which stated, "internal affairs was tipped off to the abuse and corruption by fellow police officers."  I don't remember ever hearing a story like that, though there has to have been a few if there is no "thin blue line".

I've heard of some, but most are usually a cop who was on scene and not actively bad filing a report implicating the active bad cops.

The unicorn of 'good cop' incidents would be finding an incident where the good cop actually stopped the bad cops from abusing, hurting, or killing the suspect.  No matter how many cops are at the scene, the best that can be hoped for is that some of the cops will stand idly by and do nothing instead of assisting in the victimization.  The bad cops will hurt or kill while you while the "good" cops do nothing.

The math and laws of randomness and/or probability do not support this idea that the bad cops are a minority.  What are the odds that the only bad cops on the force all happened to be on the same shift, in the same beat/sector/precinct and all got dispatched (or self-dispatched) to that incident?  If they aren't the only bad ones, just how many more are there?


If you or I witness a crime and fail to report it, we can be charged with being an accessory.  If a cop fails to report another cop committing a crime, he is by definition a bad cop.  He should be tried for being an accessory to whatever crime he witnessed.  I'm tired of cops being rewarded with two weeks of paid administrative leave as a punishment.  That works as well as giving a small child a time out in front of the tv.
 
2013-07-05 03:36:26 AM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.

Erm, I hate to bust on your parade here, but legally the civilian police are NOT considered members of the military or state militia/national guard. This isn't a third amendment issue.

Fourth, Fifth and possibly sixth, on the other hand....


When the cops are carrying AR15s, and wearing tacti-cool body armor, they're soldiers.
 
2013-07-05 03:38:57 AM
One of the shiattiest PD's ANYWHERE. Chief was asked to step down. I hope the family enjoys their money and gets a lot of it.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/15/henderson-police-chief-a sk ed-step-down/#axzz2Y9dFBXo5
 
2013-07-05 03:44:35 AM
I'm also finding it hilarious that some of the same Farkers who were saying "but the founding fathers didn't mean assault rifles when they wrote the 2nd amendment!" a few months ago are the same Farkers who are sticking with the strictest definition of the 3rd amendment. You can't have it both ways, Statists.
 
2013-07-05 04:04:30 AM
Another recent lawsuit against these same assholes cost the city a quarter million dollars when they beat and kicked a diabetic in the head while he was held and restrained. None of the officers involved were dismissed. If I lived in that shiathole I would be at City Council meeting raising ten tons of holy hell. They did get Police Chief Jutta to step down last year. She got a $200,000 buyout and will receive a yearly pension in excess of $100,000. None of the actions during the cop's assault on the diabetic would have even been recorded except a Nevada Highway Patrol car's dash cam caught the incident on tape. The city of Henderson demanded that the Henderson PD install dash cams in all units, but apparently the police union will have to approve of allowing cameras in publicly purchased patrol cars.  Seriously, fix this shiat.
 
2013-07-05 04:14:08 AM

Dahnkster: The city of Henderson demanded that the Henderson PD install dash cams in all units, but apparently the police union will have to approve of allowing cameras in publicly purchased patrol cars.  Seriously, fix this shiat.


Tell the police union to go fark themselves and install the dash cams.  Make it policy that any cop who tampers with the camera will be fired immediately.  When the union throws a hissy fit, repeat the "go fark yourself" statement.  If they threaten to strike, explain the part about there is no right to strike against the public safety and any police officer who strikes (or does a sick-out) will be terminated.  Hire new cops.  Problem solved.  This is a case of a police department being rotten to the core.  When that happens, the only real option is to scrap everything and start over.
 
2013-07-05 04:34:02 AM

fjnorton: That is one seriously messed up story.


Anyone taking bets that none of this actually happened?
 
2013-07-05 04:37:18 AM

OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military. Take a look at them these days. They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.


Yeah, so what?  I can go out and purchase all the same clothes and gear that is worn by soldiers.  Would that make me a soldier?  No.  Of course not.  And the same holds true for police.

Also, they are NOT carrying military grade weapons.  A select few carry semi-automatic versions of military style firearms (and many of those can also be purchased by civilians in most parts of the country!) and wear specialized clothing.  The vast majority of police in this country still wear a "traditional" police uniform and carry a pistol.  Of course, no reason why you should let facts get in the way of your paranoid conspiracy rant.
 
2013-07-05 04:38:33 AM
I'm throwing the bullshiat flag on this one.  Every "news" site is repeats the one story from court house news.  All the websites are extreme right wing anti-government websites.

Until a REAL source with some thing like COURT DOCUMENTS I'll believe this.
 
2013-07-05 04:39:38 AM

OregonVet: Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.


No, they do not count as soldiers.  They count as law enforcement agents.  There is a huge world of difference there.
 
2013-07-05 05:14:56 AM
I see this story getting legs. I did some Googles and it is spreading rather quickly. Particularly, on libertarian blogs, legal/attorney sights arguing about rather this would in fact constitute a 3rd amendment constitutional issue. Conservative and gun-rights blogs are also discussing this case. Wonder if any of the national news agencies will cover this? Given this department's history of lawsuits and fark-ups, I can't see how they in any way,shape or form this PD or city of Henderson  want to see these stories come to light.
 
2013-07-05 05:19:03 AM

WireFire2: I'm throwing the bullshiat flag on this one.  Every "news" site is repeats the one story from court house news.  All the websites are extreme right wing anti-government websites.

Until a REAL source with some thing like COURT DOCUMENTS I'll believe this.



Mitchell et al v. City of Henderson, Nevada et al, Nevada District Court, case number 2:2013cv01154, filed June 30, 2013, Presiding Judge Andrew P. Gordon.
 
2013-07-05 05:20:58 AM

obamadidcoke: I had a chunk of 7.62 mm that was accidentally discharged penetrate one I was riding in and the round skipped around and hit three guys before coming to a stop in my forearm. So let the cops use them.


jesus! I knew when we worked on them  the old timers would call them rolling coffins but I figured it was just because it was a target of opportunity. I never heard anything like that. crazy
 
2013-07-05 05:23:26 AM

WireFire2: I'm throwing the bullshiat flag on this one.  Every "news" site is repeats the one story from court house news.  All the websites are extreme right wing anti-government websites.

Until a REAL source with some thing like COURT DOCUMENTS I'll believe this.


That was already covered two pages back. Please try to keep up with threat of the class... and pick up your BS flag off the field of play. Thank you.

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mitchell-v-hpd-complaint .p df
 
2013-07-05 05:25:10 AM
Darn it. I now see Mock26 already had this matter well in hand.
 
2013-07-05 05:54:53 AM

eventhelosers: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third: You got it right. (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth: Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army. Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


They might be able to get it by free grant, but as you say, it still takes maintenance, and likely needs some refurbishment before use.  Maintenance costs?  Well, that would depend on how often it's used.

However, from my knowledge most SWAT 'Bread Trucks' aren't actually all that armored, and while they might be cheaper on maintenance per mile, by the time you pay to have one armored against rifle shots you're looking at several decades of maintenance equal to the 'free' of the milsurp vehicle.

Then there's the idea that tracked vehicles can go places that a wheeled vehicle cannot.  The end result can get complicated.
 
2013-07-05 06:06:04 AM

lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.


The theory I've been espousing lately is that it's less that you have good cops and bad cops.  It's that you have good and bad departments.  IE while the level of 'goodness' of a specific cop in a department/precinct/agency/office might vary, it'll tend to track with how grey the whole organization is.

Thus you'll see two police agencies in very similar circumstances; one with zero lawsuits against it and another with over a dozen.

A good department will consistently weed out the 'bad eggs' early on, provide continual correction, etc...  Bad departments play cover-up, drive out the uncorruptible, and corrupt that which remains until they're all bad.

Going by the other posts about other incidents involving this same department; it's one of the bad ones.  Note how it pays out money but doesn't remove or discipline the offending officers.
 
2013-07-05 06:36:22 AM
♪ ♫ I'm proud to be an American, where at least I delusionally think I'm free. ♪ ♫

www.prlog.org
 
2013-07-05 08:16:05 AM

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.


Exactly.  While this isn't within the literal wording of the Third Amendment, it's certainly a violation of the spirit of it and Framer's Intent.

1. There wasn't a clear distinction between soldiers and policemen when Amendment 3 was written, as the militias (or in the Colonial era, the British Army) did routine law enforcement functions.

2. Since the literal wording of the Amendment specifies "soldiers", are you honestly going to argue they can station Marines, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen in people's homes?  Amendment Three doesn't specify "military" it says "soldiers".  There is only one Federal Court case on that amendment (Engblom_v._Carey), so there is very little in the way of official interpretation (and that case hinged on whether or not housing provided pursuant to a job counted as under Third amendment protection, since it was about a group of correctional officers on strike, who had housing provided by the prison they worked at, and they took their housing from them while on strike and gave it to National Guard who had been called up to replace them)

3. In any case, the police are armed men who represent and enforce the will of the government.  The whole idea of the Third Amendment is to prevent government from placing representatives (especially armed ones who can enforce the will of the government) in your homes and thus violating the sanctity of your homes and your privacy.

If you're saying this isn't an Amendment 3 violation, why don't we just follow that to it's literal conclusion and say that whenever a police department can't get a warrant for a search on a house, they just demand to use that house for a lookout/stakeout point, and the owners can't refuse so one way or the other the police get in.
 
2013-07-05 10:20:36 AM

ocd002: Note to self if I ever get a call like that, spray paint a big sign on the garage door that says "the police asked me to use my house as a lookout! Isn't that neat?!" after the call where I refused and before they arrive.

Yeah, I have a big mouth lol.


Then you get arrested and charged with "vandalism of temporary police headquarters."
 
2013-07-05 10:22:26 AM
Okay follow me here.
There are no good cops.

Only a small portion of cops actually commit acts like this.
But the cops who consider themselves "good" because they dont do these things cover for the bad cops who do commit these crimes.

Cops can do what they want, shoot who they want, break all the laws they want and even if you have video its a 50/50 chance someone will believe you.

If I am on a jury I think I will assume the cop is a complete liar in every instance.
 
2013-07-05 10:33:09 AM
... and a couple million payout after the lawyers are done with them, which means
... a couple million in damages paid by an insurance company, which means
... higher insurance premiums passed through to John Q. Taxpayer
... and several police officers lose their jobs and their pensions

So everyone wins!
 
2013-07-05 10:48:35 AM

real_headhoncho: LrdPhoenix: bunner: HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?

Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook.  Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.


Yeah, but the losing team doesn't have it's hometown bombed to shiat and then the ruins divided for several decades and anyone that tries to cross over the dividing line gets shot at.


Sounds like someone's come up with a way to boost Superbowl viewership...
 
2013-07-05 11:55:31 AM
Should have called 911 instead of mommy.   "Yeah 911 5 cops are breaking into my house because I don't want to let them use it for a stakeout.  I just need you for a totally awesome recording to use in the lawsuit."
 
2013-07-05 12:34:11 PM

Prince George: Should have called 911 instead of mommy.   "Yeah 911 5 cops are breaking into my house because I don't want to let them use it for a stakeout.  I just need you for a totally awesome recording to use in the lawsuit."


You're implying that the same 911 system that goes hand-in-hand with the cops wouldn't just happen to, uh, "lose" the recording.
 
2013-07-05 01:12:52 PM

Mock26: OregonVet: Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.

No, they do not count as soldiers.  They count as law enforcement agents.  There is a huge world of difference there.


Geez you're a dumfuk.  Yeah I'm going straight to juvenile name calling, I have no desire to have a conversation with you.
 
2013-07-05 01:34:21 PM

Prince George: Should have called 911 instead of mommy.   "Yeah 911 5 cops are breaking into my house because I don't want to let them use it for a stakeout.  I just need you for a totally awesome recording to use in the lawsuit."


Better yet, that same thing but to News Channel Whateveritisthere.
 
2013-07-05 01:39:00 PM
This is what you can expect for cop blocking.
 
2013-07-05 01:39:06 PM

Silverstaff: 1. There wasn't a clear distinction between soldiers and policemen when Amendment 3 was written, as the militias (or in the Colonial era, the British Army) did routine law enforcement functions.


As I linked before in the thread, no they did not. Colonial law was enforced by groups of deputized men under the local sheriff, or by wardens or constables elected or appointed. It was modeled after what was done in England.

Silverstaff: Since the literal wording of the Amendment specifies "soldiers", are you honestly going to argue they can station Marines, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen in people's homes?  Amendment Three doesn't specify "military" it says "soldiers".


Marines, Airmen, Sailors, and Coast Guardsmen are uniformed federal military officers, or members of a State National Guard/Militia. So that would make them Soldiers under the commission of the United States.

Silverstaff: In any case, the police are armed men who represent and enforce the will of the government.  The whole idea of the Third Amendment is to prevent government from placing representatives (especially armed ones who can enforce the will of the government) in your homes and thus violating the sanctity of your homes and your privacy.


They are not soldiers or members of the military or militia by any attempt to define them as such. They fit with the classical definition of the constabulary. You're looking for the 4th Amendment on this one.

Silverstaff: If you're saying this isn't an Amendment 3 violation, why don't we just follow that to it's literal conclusion and say that whenever a police department can't get a warrant for a search on a house, they just demand to use that house for a lookout/stakeout point, and the owners can't refuse so one way or the other the police get in.


Because it ignores the existence of the 4th Amendment, and is a hyperbolic example of a slippery slope, not a "literal conclusion"
 
2013-07-05 02:35:40 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-05 02:41:02 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.
 
2013-07-05 02:42:32 PM

buckeyebrain: Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...


They're "HAIL ANTS!" types, every one.

dorkshelf.com
 
2013-07-05 02:48:55 PM

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?
 
2013-07-05 02:58:36 PM

TV's Vinnie: buckeyebrain: Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...

They're "HAIL ANTS!" types, every one.

[dorkshelf.com image 512x384]


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-05 03:22:25 PM

roadpuppets: Mock26: OregonVet: Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.

No, they do not count as soldiers.  They count as law enforcement agents.  There is a huge world of difference there.

Geez you're a dumfuk.  Yeah I'm going straight to juvenile name calling, I have no desire to have a conversation with you.


Last time I checked you were not required to join the military in order to become a police officer.  Not only that, but a police officer can quit his job at any time.  Oh yeah, there is also the little known fact are not members of the United States military!  So yeah, the only dumfuk here is you.
 
2013-07-05 03:28:02 PM

TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.


Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.
 
2013-07-05 03:53:27 PM

TV's Vinnie: wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .

You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?


Humor -- how does that works on FARK?
 
2013-07-05 03:58:28 PM

TV's Vinnie: And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less.


All of this has what to do with whether this is a third versus a fourth amendment violation?

TV's Vinnie: It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.


Who's defended this in this thread, again?

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-05 04:01:00 PM

TV's Vinnie: wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .

You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank Helen Keller and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?


Pet peeve.
 
2013-07-05 04:04:06 PM

Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.


I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.
 
2013-07-05 04:05:10 PM

OgreMagi: I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.


Well, then he'd have a 3rd Amendment violation, now wouldn't he?
 
2013-07-05 04:08:28 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Well, then he'd have a 3rd Amendment violation, now wouldn't he?


Mock's own words, "Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS."  What do you think a marine will say if you call him a soldier?
 
2013-07-05 04:12:17 PM

OgreMagi: Mock's own words, "Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS."  What do you think a marine will say if you call him a soldier?


What he says is irrelevant. He's a commissioned representative of the United States Military, thus fitting the classical definition of soldier that was used in the United States constitution.
 
2013-07-05 04:52:51 PM

Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.


So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?
 
2013-07-05 04:54:06 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.


Uh, Marines are soldiers. So as such if the government tried to forcibly require me to house Marines they would in fact be trying to forciblyl require me to house soldiers, and that would be in violation of the 3rd Amendment.  You might want to try picking up a dictionary sometime and actually looking up the word "soldier."  You know, since Intelligence is definitely your dump stat I will look it up for you:

sol·dier
noun

\ˈsōl-jər\
Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
 b : an enlisted man or woman
 c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
 b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4: one who shirks work

Hmm, pretty damned plain and only willful ignorance could confuse the facts here.  A soldier is someone engaged in military service.  Oh what?  It also says "and especially in the army"?  Yes.  It does say that.  But that does not negate the first part of the definition (the part where it says "one engaged in military service."  All Marines are soldiers.  Same with everyone in the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy.  They are all soldiers.  And while all branches of the military have their own internal police force (called military police) it has nothing to do with civilian police.  State and local police officers are NOT SOLDIERS.  You can call them that all you want but it will not change the facts.
 
2013-07-05 04:56:41 PM

bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]


I guess the best way to handle a street gang is with a rival street gang.
But can a street gang handle a trained terrorist group like the the American police force?
 
2013-07-05 05:06:23 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?


That would not be a violation of the 3rd Amendment.  That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Why is it so hard for so many people to see the difference there?
 
2013-07-05 05:10:30 PM

Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Uh, Marines are soldiers. So as such if the government tried to forcibly require me to house Marines they would in fact be trying to forciblyl require me to house soldiers, and that would be in violation of the 3rd Amendment.  You might want to try picking up a dictionary sometime and actually looking up the word "soldier."  You know, since Intelligence is definitely your dump stat I will look it up for you:

sol·dier
noun
\ˈsōl-jər\
Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
 b : an enlisted man or woman
 c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
 b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4: one who shirks work

Hmm, pretty damned plain and only willful ...


And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.
 
2013-07-05 05:16:18 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?


Out of curiosity, did you even read my post?   Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."  And since you have established that your comprehension skills are not all that great I will say this as plain as possible, "I would have a problem with the police coming into my home without a warrant."  Is that plain enough for you?  Or are you going to go all WHARRGARBLE again?
 
2013-07-05 05:18:17 PM
OgreMagi: And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the other stuff that's in there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
2013-07-05 05:24:54 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Uh, Marines are soldiers. So as such if the government tried to forcibly require me to house Marines they would in fact be trying to forciblyl require me to house soldiers, and that would be in violation of the 3rd Amendment.  You might want to try picking up a dictionary sometime and actually looking up the word "soldier."  You know, since Intelligence is definitely your dump stat I will look it up for you:

sol·dier
noun
\ˈsōl-jər\
Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
 b : an enlisted man or woman
 c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
 b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4: one who shirks work

mm, pretty damned plain and only willful ...


And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Except for  the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.
 
2013-07-05 05:25:26 PM

TV's Vinnie: So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?


freedomfeens.com
 
2013-07-05 05:27:23 PM

Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?

That would not be a violation of the 3rd Amendment.  That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Why is it so hard for so many people to see the difference there?


Original intent vs. plain language. Stop acting like a child.
 
2013-07-05 05:29:12 PM

Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."


Actually, you are condoning it.
 
2013-07-05 05:29:37 PM

Mock26: Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.


Yes. Also, the Supremes haven't had opportunity to rule whether the 3rd applies only to enlisted military or to any armed government agents commandeering your home for their official purposes. It's by no means clear what they would do.
 
2013-07-05 05:29:53 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the other stuff that's in there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Feel free to get yourself a soapbox to stand on and enjoy your freedom of speech.  But don't you dare publish anything.  You are demanding the strictest use of word definitions when referring to the 3rd, so let's apply YOUR rules to the 1st.

Here's a clue. When deciding how things should go with the Constitution, always error on the side of freedom.
 
2013-07-05 05:32:35 PM
Uniform
Medals
Guns
Auxilliary weapons
Communications
Looting
Demanding to be quartered on private property
Central command unit
Lots of money behind them
Shooting people
Immune from prosecution.

Soldiers.
 
2013-07-05 05:34:18 PM

Mock26: Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.


Exactly.  Are you starting to get a farking clue?  The Supreme Court prefers to go with the INTENT of the Constitution, not the strictest definition of words.  So they interpret freedom of press as the right for EVERYONE to publish, not just "official journalists".  When looking at the 3rd, what is the intent?  The intent was to prevent the government from forcing private citizens from having to support the government in way that grossly violates the privacy and the sanctity of the home.  Which is EXACTLY what the Henderson police did.
 
2013-07-05 05:49:23 PM

Befuddled: The cops in this situation need jail time as they went way, way too far.


Same solution should be used for both fake rape victims and rogue cops.

If you falsely accuse somebody of rape, you should get, a minimum, the sentence that a convicted rapist would.

If you abuse your position of authority, you should get the same sentence that a criminal would have gotten.  For instance, illegal search and seizure would be the same penalty as armed robbery.  Breaking and entering would be, well, breaking and entering. Assault would be assault.  Really, I don't know why I'm itemizing these things.  The crime committed by a cop on duty or off duty should carry the same sentence as an MS-13 member committing it.

Oh, and you should be banned from public service forever.
 
2013-07-05 05:52:22 PM

hardinparamedic: TV's Vinnie: So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?

[freedomfeens.com image 640x510]


How can it be "straw man" when that was exactly what they did to their house?
 
2013-07-05 05:58:32 PM
A straw man argument is one wherein one attempts to assert that his opponent has a given position that they imply through inference and false deduction and then they pivot on "Well, if you think that!" and then refute the implied position via admonishing the opponent of the foolish stance therein.  Of that position.  That they never took, asserted or stated.  See- 11th grade, FARK, political debate.
 
2013-07-05 05:59:34 PM
"Cops kicked my door in, threatened my well being and stole my sh*t" isn't a straw man.
 
2013-07-05 06:00:11 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the other stuff that's in there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Funny, you have no problem calling online communications "the press", and saying that sailors, marines, and airmen are "soldiers", but you have this problem with saying that one group of armed government enforcers (police) are completely distinct for Amendment III purposes from another group of armed government enforcers ("soldiers")

Amendment III specifies only soldiers.  The USMC and USN existed at the time Amendment III was enacted, and they weren't literally included.  Now, reasonably and sensibly you could easily see the framers intent was to protect the sanctity of the home from government occupation.  I'd think that the framers would be facepalming at the idea that it's not against Amendment III for a constablulary to forcibly quarter themselves in someones home, but for the Army it's not.

You seem to have it in your head that Amendment IV makes Amendment III obsolete, since police doing the same thing would be an Amendment IV violation, but it's an Amendment III violation if done by the Army.  Since they are separate amendments, passed at the same time, presumably there was an intended distinction there by the framers.

Then again, you seem to think that Amendment III only applies to Officers, and not Enlisted since you keep using the word "commissioned", that or I need to get out the Inigo Montoya "you keep saying that word" .jpg.

The ONLY Federal Court caselaw on the issue, from Engblom v. Carey, ruled on just 3 things (at the Appellate Court level)
1. The Army National Guard counts for Amendment III purposes.
2. Amendment III is incorporated to the states.
3. Houses that the occupants have legal tenancy to are protected under this right, they do not have to own the home outright.

Everything else is wholly debatable, since we have no other relevant Federal case law.  If you've got some mysterious Federal case that establishes that Amendment III applies to the USAF, USMC, USN and USCG but in no way to law enforcement, please cite it.

I'm debating from a framer's intent perspective, the idea that the whole reason Amendment III was passed was to protect the sanctity of the home from armed occupation and the ensuing loss of privacy, use of ones own house, and general imposition of armed government authority into ones home.

The police count just as much as the military.  In fact, I'd say that police with duty sidearms and arrest authority count for that purpose even more than military servicemembers without arrest power (and may well not even be issued firearms).
 
2013-07-05 06:42:16 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."

Actually, you are condoning it.


I don't like the guy, and I don't agree with his argument.  However, he isn't condoning it.  He's saying it isn't a violation of the 3rd.

It is not a violation of the 1st or 2nd.  Does saying that mean that I am condoning the actions?  Similarly, he feels it isn't a violation of the 3rd.  That doesn't mean he considers the actions legal, just that they didn't violate the 3rd.
 
2013-07-05 07:02:31 PM

JuggleGeek: TV's Vinnie: Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."

Actually, you are condoning it.

I don't like the guy, and I don't agree with his argument.  However, he isn't condoning it.  He's saying it isn't a violation of the 3rd.

It is not a violation of the 1st or 2nd.  Does saying that mean that I am condoning the actions?  Similarly, he feels it isn't a violation of the 3rd.  That doesn't mean he considers the actions legal, just that they didn't violate the 3rd.


Even if it's not the Third by definition, there's plenty of other violations these pigs had committed. They wanted to use the guy's place for a stakeout? Bad enough. Now, would some Fark Apologist please explain why the porkers smeared mustard and mayo all over the place? AFAIK, they were asking to use the property for a while, not conducting a search warrant. If they weren't hiding behind their badges, this would be a home invasion, plain & simple.
 
2013-07-05 08:10:39 PM

OgreMagi: Here's a clue. When deciding how things should go with the Constitution, always error on the side of freedom.


The freedom of speech is not absolute. It never has been. It does not extend to the victimization or incitement of violence towards others. It does not protect you from mediums which also do so, such as child pornography.

It also is not an absolute protection from non-Governmental sources.

You have the freedom to say what you like. However, your freedom to swing ends where my nose begins, you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you do NOT have the freedom from professional and interpersonal consequences for saying things that are unpopular or offensive - only from Obama's evil jackbooted thugs.

Of course, this all detracts from the fact that we're debating whether this is a third or forth amendment violation, not that it's a violation of his rights, which we've already established.

TV's Vinnie: Even if it's not the Third by definition, there's plenty of other violations these pigs had committed


No one in this thread is defending these idiots, you daft troll. We're debating constituional nuances.
 
2013-07-05 09:00:21 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.

Exactly.  Are you starting to get a farking clue?  The Supreme Court prefers to go with the INTENT of the Constitution, not the strictest definition of words.  So they interpret freedom of press as the right for EVERYONE to publish, not just "official journalists".  When looking at the 3rd, what is the intent?  The intent was to prevent the government from forcing private citizens from having to support the government in way that grossly violates the privacy and the sanctity of the home.  Which is EXACTLY what the Henderson police did.


When looking at the 3rd Amendment the INTENT is SOLDIERS, as in members of the MILITARY.  Do you remember your history?  Do you remember why this Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights?  It was because the British forced colonials to house SOLDIERS (a.k.a. members of the military) in their homes.  The British were NOT forcing the colonials to house POLICE OFFICERS.
 
2013-07-05 09:07:48 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."

Actually, you are condoning it.


Care to quote where I said that I was condoning what I did?  Go on, quote me.

In the mean time contemplate this hypothetical situation.  Bob is walking down the street while wearing a "Government sucks!" t-shirt.  To police officers see this, stop Bob, and force him to remove the shirt because it is offensive.  Sally witnesses all of this and then gets up on her soap box and starts yelling, "This man's 2nd amendment right has been violated!"  If someone steps up tells her, "Excuse me, Ma'am, but that is a violation of his 1st Amendment right" how is that condoning what the police did?  Care to explain that?
 
2013-07-05 11:28:53 PM

Mock26: When looking at the 3rd Amendment the INTENT is SOLDIERS, as in members of the MILITARY.


I disagree. I think the intent was armed agents of the government.
 
2013-07-05 11:55:51 PM
For the "police are/are not soliders" debate:

How about the police JUST NOT FARKING DO ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY CAUSE THIS FARKING DEBATE?

Isn't anyone horrified that it anything like this happened at all? Who gives a crap if it's constitutional or not, it's farking WRONG! Why is the biggest reaction shrugging our shoulders and going, "Well, yeah, that's cops these days." FFS.

/rant off
//yeah yeah, I know, ITGirl here. . . still pisses me off
 
2013-07-06 01:21:29 AM

Peki: How about the police JUST NOT FARKING DO ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY CAUSE THIS FARKING DEBATE?


In an ideal world, we also wouldn't need a third and fourth amendment.

Peki: Isn't anyone horrified that it anything like this happened at all? Who gives a crap if it's constitutional or not, it's farking WRONG! Why is the biggest reaction shrugging our shoulders and going, "Well, yeah, that's cops these days." FFS.


No one is defending their behavior. Despite what the trolls seem to suggest. Even people who generally try to go out on a limb and explain why something might have happened. There is absolutely no defense for this. This is the very basic definition of abuse of power, and the very problem that demonstrates the system needs fixing.

However. That doesn't detract from the fact we can have a discussion on constitutional nuances on FARK and why or why not a civilian police officer might meet the definition of a soldier or military regular.
 
2013-07-06 02:40:35 AM

TV's Vinnie: Even if it's not the Third by definition, there's plenty of other violations these pigs had committed.


I agree.  And it appears to me that Mock agrees.  And the "you are condoning these actions" nonsense that you are spewing is, as someone pointed out before, nothing but a strawman argument.

I don't agree with him about whether this is a 3rd amendment issue.  I believe the intent of the 3rd is essentially "the gov can't just take over your house when they feel like it".  I made an argument above about the local mayor taking your house.  Nobody responded to that.  I believe the gov needs some sort of eminent domain system for certain things, like roads and lakes.  In order to do that, there should be discussion and court rulings ahead of time, which obviously did not happen here.  Short of those court rulings, I believe the 3rd makes it clear that the gov can't just come and kick you out of your house and start using it as their own. Despite the wording that says "soldiers", I believe it's clear that the intent is that the gov can't just kick you out at will and take over.

But the fact that he takes a more literal stance doesn't mean that he condones what happened.  The fact that he has said he does not condone it should be the end of your "he condones it" argument.  But you keep pushing it.
 
Displayed 372 of 372 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report