Corrupt Cops

[bikeguy]

The point (of this thread) is that laws exist that allow personal property to be confiscated without any charges whatsoever. I expect that most of us have read articles in our own local newspapers where money, cars, boats, airplanes, and even real property have been confiscated by law enforcement agencies and no charges were ever filed against those from whom the property was confiscated. All that was needed was the suspicion that drug related activity was involved.

Cotton

A few forays above the posted speed limit and maybe being a day or two late returning a book to the public library is about the extent of my prior criminal activity. I'm 76 years old, white, and, besides my Spyder, drive an 11 year old ford Taurus and a 12 year old Ford Excursion so I'm about as far from a drug dealer's profile as I can get. Most of us fit in that category so it's easy for us to ignore the fact that laws exist that allow personal property to be confiscated merely on the suspicion of illegal drug activity. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore them. For one thing, the fact that it isn't likely to affect us doesn't make it right. And beyond that is the fact that the government, at all levels, always needs more resources. Confiscated property is a way to acquire resources without taxes increasing. Right now druggies have lots of resources for the government to confiscate. That may not always be the case. We may be next.

Missouriboy, I wasn't aware that drug tainted money had pretty much been dismissed in court and I'm glad to hear that, however, remember that the property confiscation we're talking about here happens without any charges having been filed. Courts would only be involved if the injured party attempts to recover the property. The dismissal of any tainted money evidence might result in the property being returned but the injured party is still out the expense of lawyers and taking the case to court.

Cotton

 

[Gray Ghost]

:agree: Live your life right, and you'll never have a prblem with Law-Enforcement folks! :2thumbs:

You may want to do a bit more research on that. 90 year old lady in Atlanta shot by cops because an informant had given up her address as being a drug place. No knock warrant and an innocent old lady was killed as a result. That was bad enough but then the cops attempted to cover it up by slandering her name and character.

Cop searching for a kid that is supposedly missing enters the backyard of an unrelated family (w/o permission or warrant) and shoots the family pet. Kid was found at home.

Officers conduct a no knock raid on the home of a former Marine. He was on his way to investigate the people around his house with his rifle when the deputies barge in. One trips and triggers a round. The rest assume that the homeowner is firing and shoot him down. IIRC he was hit over 70 times. His rifle had not been fired and in fact was on safe. They were actually looking for a relative who didn't live in the house.

A swat team from department of education (why do they need a swat team) breaks into a home on a no knock warrant terrorizing the man and his children. They were looking for his ex-wife who had defaulted on student loans.

But I guess they all deserved it.

 

[Bob Denman]

You may want to do a bit more research on that. 90 year old lady in Atlanta shot by cops because an informant had given up her address as being a drug place. No knock warrant and an innocent old lady was killed as a result. That was bad enough but then the cops attempted to cover it up by slandering her name and character.

Cop searching for a kid that is supposedly missing enters the backyard of an unrelated family (w/o permission or warrant) and shoots the family pet. Kid was found at home.

Officers conduct a no knock raid on the home of a former Marine. He was on his way to investigate the people around his house with his rifle when the deputies barge in. One trips and triggers a round. The rest assume that the homeowner is firing and shoot him down. IIRC he was hit over 70 times. His rifle had not been fired and in fact was on safe. They were actually looking for a relative who didn't live in the house.

A swat team from department of education (why do they need a swat team) breaks into a home on a no knock warrant terrorizing the man and his children. They were looking for his ex-wife who had defaulted on student loans.

But I guess they all deserved it.

I'll stand by my statement...
Lightning, and Bee Stings; kill innocent people every year also. :shocked:

 

[robmorg]

You may want to do a bit more research on that.... A swat team from department of education (why do they need a swat team) breaks into a home on a no knock warrant terrorizing the man and his children. They were looking for his ex-wife who had defaulted on student loans.

You may want to check your sources on some of these. I'm familiar with that last story. It came from the "Cato at Liberty" blog, published by the CATO Institute, a well known radical civil liberties organisation. If, in fact, it's based on truth, the truth is likely slanted with implications to support their ideological mindset, just as the Verge did with the Washington Post piece that started this thread. I believe there are "more reliable" internet news sources than the National Review, the Verge, and the CATO at Liberty blog.

As we all know... "You cannot believe everything you read on the internet" (a quote attributed on the internet originally to Thomas Jefferson). Here is a famous photo of Adolf Hitler with his iPhone (perhaps taking a selfie). When the poster was accused of posting a picture that had been photoshopped, his reply was, "Thats rediculous! There WAS no Photoshop back in Hitler's time." :sour:

​

 

[Bob Denman]

:roflblack:

 

[Gray Ghost]

You may want to check your sources on some of these. I'm familiar with that story. It came from the "Cato at Liberty" blog, published by the CATO Institute, a well known radical civil liberties organisation. If, in fact, it's based on truth, the truth is likely slanted with implications to support their ideological mindset, just as the Verge did with the Washington Post piece that started this thread. I believe there are "more reliable" internet news sources than the National Review, the Verge, and the CATO at Liberty blog.

I was in Atlanta when the lady was murdered by police officers. I remember the coverage back and forth on what are considered reputable news sources. If you do a search on no-knock warrants you can find several cases where the process resulted in the injury or death of innocent people or destruction of property where no evidence of crime was found.

A simple search on asset forfeiture will also reveal that it is often used in questionable situations and results in severe hardship for citizens trying to recover their property from police departments that use the tactic to gain funds.

If anyone wants to believe that all those folks had it coming that is their right. I, however, am mighty fond of the rights the Constitution says we have and am concerned that too often they are being ignored.

 

[robmorg]

I was in Atlanta when the lady was murdered by police officers. I remember the coverage back and forth on what are considered reputable news sources. If you do a search on no-knock warrants you can find several cases where the process resulted in the injury or death of innocent people or destruction of property where no evidence of crime was found.

A simple search on asset forfeiture will also reveal that it is often used in questionable situations and results in severe hardship for citizens trying to recover their property from police departments that use the tactic to gain funds.

Cliff, I'll concede all of that. "Bad stuff" happens. But you cannot say that these kinds of instances are not rare exceptions to the hundreds of thousands of legitimate police interventions that occur every year in our country. Nor could anyone reasonably argue against the fact that there are numerous so called internet "news sources" who take advantage of these rare instances to promote their own ideology with slanted versions of such incidents.

I also agree with your statement about how certain agencies today can often be guilty of violating the rights of the public that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[SPYD3R]

70# girl

http://news.yahoo.com/super-tough-cops-down-70-pound-high-school-120408100.html

 

[Bob Denman]

She violated her School's policy regarding cellphone usage... :dontknow:
Did she THINK that it didn't apply to her? :gaah:

 

[mtdoragary]

I'll stand by my statement...
Lightning, and Bee Stings; kill innocent people every year also. :shocked:

I agree. When I was in the juke box business 50 years ago, I was run out by a Mafia run operator.. But that doesn't make all businessmen mafioso.

 

[Dan_Ashley]

There are about 1.3 million law enforcement officers in the US. Of these about 250,000 are employed by the Federal government. No work force that large, anywhere in the world, can exist without a few "bad apples." Similarly, out of 1.3 million people you will find some truly outstanding individuals.

Most large law enforcement agencies work very hard to eliminate the bad ones--before they even get started. For example, the Los Angeles Police Department has very strict recruitment practices. They hire only 1/4% of the original applicants. Of those 50% bust out of the academy. To be an LAPD officer you must attend the LAPD academy. So if Los Angeles needs 100 new officers, it must get (100/.0025)/.5)=80,000 accepted applications. For an application to be accepted you must be physically fit and pass a psychological test. Further physical and psychological assessment comes later--what is mentioned here is only the testing to get an application accepted for consideration.

LAPD has 10,000 police officers. Out of 10,000 employees you are going to have a few go bad, and a few become stars. The LAPD academy lasts almost six months, and 50% of the recruits do not have the combination of mental skills to make it through. After that there is an additional 18 month probationary period where the rookie can be fired for any reason at all.

interestingly the bad cops, making bad decisions, and using bad judgement, get most of the press coverage. Why? Because sensationalism sells papers. A story about someone who is entrusted by the citizenry to be good, just, and strong, is sensational when that person does some wicked thing. The stories about the lives police save, just in the day-to-day activities, and the good they do seldom get reported.

I am guilty of feeding that media monster, like everyone else. I would rather read about some rogue cop getting caught at something wicked, than read a story about an officer who took down a man who has both a gun and a psychotic break, or a story about how an officer prevented an elderly widow from investing her retirement savings into some "Nigerian" scheme.

If you think being an officer is easy, or that most cops are corrupt, then you should get involved either as a professional law enforcement officer, or as a volunteer. That is the only way you can improve things. After all, throwing spit wads on a motor cycle forum won't do any good...

 

[Bob Denman]

And that's how it is in here...
The BAD press; always gets the MOST attention. :shocked:

 

[dndfindley]

:agree: Live your life right, and you'll never have a prblem with Law-Enforcement folks! :2thumbs:

How naïve.

 

[dndfindley]

You may want to do a bit more research on that. 90 year old lady in Atlanta shot by cops because an informant had given up her address as being a drug place. No knock warrant and an innocent old lady was killed as a result. That was bad enough but then the cops attempted to cover it up by slandering her name and character.

Cop searching for a kid that is supposedly missing enters the backyard of an unrelated family (w/o permission or warrant) and shoots the family pet. Kid was found at home.

Officers conduct a no knock raid on the home of a former Marine. He was on his way to investigate the people around his house with his rifle when the deputies barge in. One trips and triggers a round. The rest assume that the homeowner is firing and shoot him down. IIRC he was hit over 70 times. His rifle had not been fired and in fact was on safe. They were actually looking for a relative who didn't live in the house.

A swat team from department of education (why do they need a swat team) breaks into a home on a no knock warrant terrorizing the man and his children. They were looking for his ex-wife who had defaulted on student loans.

But I guess they all deserved it.

Excellent post!

 

[dndfindley]

You may want to check your sources on some of these. I'm familiar with that last story. It came from the "Cato at Liberty" blog, published by the CATO Institute, a well known radical civil liberties organisation. If, in fact, it's based on truth, the truth is likely slanted with implications to support their ideological mindset, just as the Verge did with the Washington Post piece that started this thread. I believe there are "more reliable" internet news sources than the National Review, the Verge, and the CATO at Liberty blog.

As we all know... "You cannot believe everything you read on the internet" (a quote attributed on the internet originally to Thomas Jefferson). Here is a famous photo of Adolf Hitler with his iPhone (perhaps taking a selfie). When the poster was accused of posting a picture that had been photoshopped, his reply was, "Thats rediculous! There WAS no Photoshop back in Hitler's time." :sour:

​

EVERY single incident quoted in the referenced post is true and has been verified. We live in beginnings of a police state. Are all police bad? No, of course not - but many of the organizations they belong to and/or work for are and by that I don't mean they are on the take and are criminals. I mean many of them are jack booted thugs. You give yourself away when you call the Cato Institute "radical." Give me a freaking break. Some of the posts here are naïve and to some extent I understand that. You are not naïve, but your leanings are very evident.

 

[dndfindley]

I was in Atlanta when the lady was murdered by police officers. I remember the coverage back and forth on what are considered reputable news sources. If you do a search on no-knock warrants you can find several cases where the process resulted in the injury or death of innocent people or destruction of property where no evidence of crime was found.

A simple search on asset forfeiture will also reveal that it is often used in questionable situations and results in severe hardship for citizens trying to recover their property from police departments that use the tactic to gain funds.

If anyone wants to believe that all those folks had it coming that is their right. I, however, am mighty fond of the rights the Constitution says we have and am concerned that too often they are being ignored.

You are correct. Just do a search on a John Stossel on Fox News about the police.

 

[Bob Denman]

How naïve.

I've never had any trouble with law enforcement; I try to stay out of their way; and they leave me alone! :2thumbs:

 

[Gray Ghost]

I have family and friends that are LEOs, but in my mind, feeble as it is, allowing any agency to have the power to arbitrarily confiscate a citizens money or possessions without any oversight or ruling by a court is the sort of thing the founding fathers were so upset about with the English.

 

[missouriboy]

I read the Verge piece and thought it was awfully short and pointless. I didn't read the Washington Post article, but I did read a well-written and very long article about it in the Staunton VA local paper here.

The militarization of our local police these days is enough to make regular, honest folks sick! :barf:

 

[Cruzr Joe]

Wrong. As Spyder riders we come into contact with law enforcement types daily. This piece is a warning that all police are to be viewed with suspicion, especially on traffic stops.

"All Police are to be viewed with suspicion" :hun:, rather harsh statement towards the people that you look to for the protection of you and your family.


Cruzr Joe (Retired Law Enforcement and Father of two current Law Enforcement Officers)