Police are gamers too!

The BBQ Pit
81

I’d rather that the bad guy gets away than the the cops think they’re some kind of soldiers who get to color outside the lines. The ‘bad guys’ are not ‘guerillas’, and you are not a soldier.

Of course you understand that the example of soldiers and guerillas was meant to draw a parallel between people who are trained and sworn to follow the rules of both society and their jobs and those who operate every single day refusing to adhere to any rules other than gravity and the laws of physics.
To say nothing of the innocent people who are harmed, imprisoned or killed in the process.

This happens, it’s horrible, but if you can think of a better system, please, come on down

What actually happens is that the blue wall shows up to protect the cop and he gets a paid vacation for gunning down a 90 year-old grandmother who did nothing more wrong than try to defend herself from a home invasion because the cops lied about an informant so they could get a no-knock warrant.

Stop with your histrionics already, a cop took an Xbox from a known felon who now likely has it back, nobody shot down an innocent grandmother :rolleyes:

Yet here you are, basing your opinions on what you take as facts from a pro-cop message board.

You’re believing the news, I’m taking BOTH into account. Just because the message board is pro-cop, that doesn’t make it automatically wrong, does it?

So is it OK if I grab some of your property that I think you should prove you didn’t steal, throw it in the trunk of my car and forget about it so that you can’t have it back?

If you are in a position to do so and I am in possession of materials that are suspicious in nature, that would be your right. As far as forgetting about it, let’s just say that’s the case, are cops human? Are they not entitled to forget things? Jesus

I see how it is. The notion that Hillman is presumed innocent of this crime goes out the window for you because he’s been previously convicted of other crimes. Yes, you are supposed to take Hillman at his word, unless you have actual evidence that in this case he is lying. You don’t. I don’t give a shit if he took a shit on a cop’s head 7 years ago. That doesn’t mean he stole an Xbox last week.
[/QUOTE]

Listen, I didn’t say he wasn’t, just that I’m inclined to take the word of a police officer over the word of someone who’s been in jail three times for everything from battery to a police officer to posession of cocaine. I don’t trust people with an extensive and/or violent criminal history not to lie to me, in an official capacity or not. I don’t know your background, but you sound like you have absolutely NO situational awareness at ALL about surviving on the street. Tell you what, we’ll both go to florida, I’ll find the cop and give him my xbox to hold onto, you find Hillman and give him one of your posessions you like, let’s see who gets theirs back

82

You don’t remember the 90 year old grandmother who got shot down because of a no-knock warrant on her house? Asika’s neighbor?

83

With civil forfeiture, it doesn’t even have to be your property. In the case of John Bennis, he was convicted of solicitation of a prostitute from a car belonging to his wife. The State of Michigan has a forfeiture law which says that an automobile used to solicit prostitution can be seized by the state. His wife took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that it was wrong for the state to seize property belonging to her when she was not involved in the commission of the crime. The Court, in effect, basically said that she should be more careful who she loans her car to, and that the state was within its rights to seize the car.

Cite: http://www.answers.com/topic/bennis-v-michigan

84

It’s kind of funny how I knew who wrote that before I glanced up at the name.

85

Actually, I didn’t, but tragedy though it was, it’s not germane to this case, Not saying there isn’t a LOT of room for improvement in LE, but this is a molehill made a mountain by those who already have their minds made up.

86

You do remember that the no-knock warrant was on information that a snitch gave the cops, that the cops told the snitch to give them?

87

That was never conclusively shown. And her age and gender is meaningless, as she managed to shoot down a number of cops before they killed her. A elderly woman with a gun is as dangerous as a fit young man with a gun.

Not to mention that there were some drugs there, IIRC. If you read Freakonomics you discover quite a few young drug dealers live with their (non-dealing) Mothers: *"So why do drug dealers still live with their mothers? Because most of them don’t make much money. Based on unbelievably detailed records of an actual Chicago neighborhood gang, Levitt found that, while the leader (who’s now in jail) made $100,000 a year (tax free) over four years, his officers made only $700 a month and his foot soldiers made only $3.30 an hour, less than the minimum wage. “They had no choice but to live with their mothers.”
*

88

I may be wrong here, but as I understand it, she never actually shot at a cop. All the injuries were from ricochets from police bullets.

But I’d have to find that thread to verify. I’m pretty sure that the no-knock was spawned out of complete fabrications, though.

89

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/51151/

Might I inquire as to where you got your information, DrDeth?
Buttonjockey, I think this explains why some people might not trust policemen. What do you think?

90

From the very link you provide:

(Emphasis added).

91

Why am I thinking that a government that can invoke the commerce clause to jail people for growing marijuana for personal medical use in a state where that activity is legal will have little problem justifying seizures of property under the statute you quote, Bricker?

92

I don’t know.

I can’t decide how many ways the apparent assumptions you’re making are wrong. You’ve connected two widely dissimilar issues with groundless analogy.

The issue of medical marijuana is consistent with a much older decision with respect to growing wheat for personal, in-state use – Wickard v. Filburn.

I’m not aware of any cases of seizures under the statute I mention that have placed the onus on the owner instead of the government. Are you?

93

I think this is a great example of bad behavior by bad officers in one department, not an example of all officers everywhere. I think that drawing paralells between the shitheads from Georgia whose lies caused the death of that woman and the cop that took the poor felon, er, fella’s Xbox invites the broad brush committee to paint until they’re satisfied with the delivery of their message of how bad and evil the police are.

The facts are that most cops are honest people. If all cops were as corrupt and dirty as the people in this thread seem to suggest, things would be a LOT different for the average person who doesn’t interact with the police on a meaningful level but once, perhaps twice in their lives. The bad guys, on the other hand, interact with the police almost daily. They know the game, they know the system, they know the rules and what it takes to survive on the street. Most importantly, they know how to make people pity them and their poor situations that they created and they perpetuate. The bad guys know you better than you do and can play you for all you’re worth, and will do so if given the opportunity.

94

It’s a common tactic with police to try and get people to see a black and white dichotomy. There are ‘bad guys’ and there are ‘cops’, who must then be ‘good guys’ if they are the opposite of ‘bad guys.’

Only that’s not really true. The ‘bad guy’ isn’t always wrong, and the cop isn’t always a ‘good guy’. It’s evident from your posts that you’re trying to do exactly this with regard to Hillman by bringing up his prior bad acts. It doesn’t matter that he’s been previously convicted of other crimes. That has no bearing at all on this case.

He’s a drug addict or she’s a prostitute so obviously you better listen to the cop, because the cop is a fine upstanding citizen who only tells the truth.

Give me a fucking break. Cops lie and cheat all the time to get what they want. Many of them are proud of it, and will boast about their interrogation techniques. The bad guys will play you at any opportunity, huh? Isn’t that exactly what cops do when they lie about evidence, or witnesses?

Trust the police? Not on your life.

95

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath;10514110
Might I inquire as to where you got your information, DrDeth?
[/QUOTE]

What information? I said “IIRC” and evidently I mixed up that case with another after several years.

96

:rolleyes:OK, you got me. I was using my words in a cunning and manipulative attempt to convince you of something my 18 years of experience and training tells me is true more often than not; that it’s better to trust a cop than a drug dealer or crack head or thief or rapist or mugger or…

The difference in your jilted and twisted view is that I not only see some cops as the “good guys” but I see Joe/Jane Citizen as the “good guys” too, worthy, in fact entitled to all the protection I can give them. I see people like Hillman as “bad guys” who need a constant reminder that the wolves are at the door and to keep his toes on the line.

There IS a “black and white” dichotomy with shades of gray, if you regularly do things that are so against the law you do not one, not two, but three turns in jail, you are a bad guy. If you sell some dope to feed your family because you can’t find a job, you get out, work your way back into society and redeem yourself by going and staying straight and on the right side of the bars, you’re a good guy who did a bad thing. Shades of gray. I has them. Hillman is at least too stupid not commit crimes to stay out of jail and at most a career criminal. In either case, I don’t trust what he says. Sue me.

Do the cops always tell the truth? Nope. Know why? They’re people. People lie which means cops lie. Sometimes it’s for a horrible reason and horrible things happen as a result. Sometimes though, it’s to catch a bad guy. See, it’s a tried, true and may I add Supreme Court approved tactic to lie to a suspect, to trick him or her into confessing something they obviously did. Dirty trick? Maybe. Does being able to do so give the police an [gasp] advantage over lawless criminals and societal malcontents? Sure does. So what? The criminals are ALREADY breaking the law, lying, scheming, whatever, sometimes you’ve got to reach down to where they are to get ahold of them. Sometimes not, but you’ve got to have the option if you’re going to effectively pursue the bad guys.

Good to know the law enforcement community can put you on the pay no mind list, next time you’re in trouble, call a crack head.

97

" think this is a great example of bad behavior by bad officers in one department, not an example of all officers everywhere"

We also have to think that there is quite a lot of leeway between what you say, and what you are defending against.

Those particular officers in that particular case did not just wake up one morning and decide how they were going to obtain the warrant on this one unique occasion.
More likely, they knew all the steps they needed to ensure they got the no-knock warrant through having done this before, it would probably not be far from the truth to find that this was not an irregular ocurrance, and definately not the first time they had played fast and loose.

Seizure of a persons assets without justifiable cause is also playing fast and loose with the law, is exactly why the police have constraints placed upon their behaviour, it would not be a stretch to say that every single silly little technicality that has been put in place, was done so to protect the public from police who have played fast and loose.

The more you push the envelope boys, the harder the walls become, because ultimately the police themselves can also break the law in their enforcment of it.

If you want the police to have greater flexibility when enforcing the law, then the ones who push that envelope are also your enemy, because they will be the ones who ensure measures are brought in to control you - simply becuase you cannot be trusted to control yourselves.

Suspicion, even extreme suspicion, is not evidence.

98

Why should we believe that Mr. Hillman was a thief?

99

Groovy, all good. Sorry, I get a bit pedantic sometimes. The specifics of the case are as clear an account of systematic and planned misuse of police powers as I can think of, and, as I’m always listening for something new, I want to have all my ducks in a row before I cited it again.

100

Nope, I’m not aware and I’m not gonna research it atm. I’m busy frying other fish.

I’m just saying that an organization that will twist words and logic the way the feds have with respect to the commerce clause would have little trouble finding ways to get the result they want re: seizures and forfeitures with (or despite) the statute you cited, IMO.