Lol.
And who is it that's actually USED vehicles in attacks again?

I'm shocked they admitted it was so they could impound and illegally search legally parked cars....they're really getting bold these days.

Anger/hatred is only step one, maybe even a precursor to step one, which is devising and taking action to oppose the wrongs that pissed you off. You're making assumptions again....what did Mptions do to deserve being made an ass of? ;-)

The roads to hell (and by your theory, back out) are infinite, and usually paved with good intentions (but poor premeditation and/or ongoing examination).

The abuse I speak of was the illegal search and the aggressive, disruptive, stress-causing intrusion into his private room, and he had no choice in that. He also had no choice but to waste his time with them. He could have made it easier and more pleasant for them by letting them violate him silently, but he chose not to capitulate without resistance....what little he had to offer. I support that wholeheartedly.

Trust doesn't expose truth, it hides it, obfuscated it, twists it, colors it.....Trust is antithetical to finding "truth", and today is a terrible idea as more than half of all circulating information is not trustworthy by far. (""Truth" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person, you don't need to know the "truth" to not lie."-my father.
.....what I really mean here is "fact" Not "truth".)

Only truly blind infatuation fits that model, I love with eyes open. If you love someone blindly you really love a concept of them you created, not the real person. I think love is much stronger and real when you love the whole person, scars and blemishes included, not some idealized version without the normal human flaws. It leads to far less disappointment.

Having worked in retail, I know that to accuse a person, you better be damned sure you're 100 per cent right or you just open yourself up to lawsuits.
A wrongful accuseal is considered just cause - not to mention illegal searches.

what are you talking about? did we watch the same video? Have you read my previous comments? I feel like there a ton of anti-establishment Americans in here that don't even read what I wrote and get all up-in-arms just because of the subject matter.

I never said the cops were right to arrest, or that she should cooperate with an illegal search or detainment. In fact I said the opposite. But, I am saying her ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior upfront exposed her to a much greater chance of being harassed by inexperienced/incompetent cops.

I have no sympathy for people who instigate to seek out conflict just as in my previous example which does apply.

you say "She clearly told them what she was doing", but no, she does the completely unnatural and suspicious silent treatment from the get-go, when pulled over for a routine-appearing traffic stop.

You start your response with "you are wrong". That is a pretty close-minded statement. Especially when you make so many incorrect assumptions and missed so much of what I've already said? I'm not going to assume you are wrong about this encounter because we don't have all the facts about what caused the stop, but I can say you (and a few others here) are getting what I'm saying wrong.

Almost downvoted your comment..but instead I'll kindly ask you to....
Please read the link above provided by @speechless

He could NOT have defended his actions under ANY circumstances. Physically abusing citizens and denying them their guaranteed rights against illegal search and seizure can NEVER be defended...and that's exactly what he did, he does not deny it, and said he would do it again, unless on camera, because he knows it 'looks' bad...(maybe because it IS bad?).
What happened was they saw 2 kids come out of the woods (from a party nearby) and saw what they thought was a gun in the back of the car the kids were approaching. For some reason, he thought that gives him the right to search the car, and beat the kids until they comply (or until he can snatch their keys). There was no report of any incident, he just needed to be a bully in hopes of finding something to screw them for, apparently because they didn't bow down and kiss his asshole (in their defense, they couldn't tell where to kiss since his entire being is asshole). (the gun was a .22, purchased that day, unfired, in box, with receipt, perfectly legal and never seen outside the car)

Knowing they were being recorded by their own cameras has not stopped MANY a cop from behaving atrociously in recent times, they just don't care most of the time, and get away with it nearly all of the time.

Those adorable read headed moppets will charm any jury. Those cops better settle and Fast.

Seriously what the fuck is going on? You perform an illegal search and then try to disappear the video evidence? We've had this shit happening in Seattle where Dash Cam videos are constantly "Going Missing" it was a giant scandal.

It's going so far as to tell me that Dash Cams need to be unfuckwithable and only available to a person OUTSIDE the station who is elected by the public as the must trustworthy person in all of the area can be the one to take and file those videos. Also get some fucking GoPros, this resolution is shit.

They're not illegal searches, a warrant isn't needed if it's under exigent circumstances (i.e. Martial Law, manhunt, etc).
If this were under different circumstances, then yes, I'd be upset, but they're looking for someone who's already killed, and injured people, and who's already shown behavior that they will attack on a whim.

Wouldn't this fall under illegal search and seizure? Or at least search.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kpbusters, reality, show' to 'kopbusters, reality, show, cannabis, illegal search' - edited by Boise_Lib

Granted, the moron driver should have "fought" to inform the officer that he was carrying, but that guy (the main officer) must have a 2 inch dick to be shouting like that the entire time. LEOs should always be courteous and professional unless they need a commanding voice to issue lawful orders. This guy needs some SERIOUS training, or a simple removal from duty. No one with this much unwarranted aggression should be a cop. Also, (illegally) searching a vehicle with people still in it? Is he fucking retarded?

>> ^conan:

very clever idea to bring their point across.
plus: i'd really like to see how i'd look with bewbs.
:-P


To be honest, I found the message a bit stupid. If it's not mandatory, there's no violation of rights or illegal search going on... it's all voluntary. Of course, who's to say it won't become mandatory any second now.

In Arizona, one can now be stopped, and forced to prove their innocence to a law enforcement offical.....unless they are white. Because if they are white, then its assumed they are in the country legally.

Yeah, I see this law not lasting very long. It fails on two seperate laws at the federal level:

A) The 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure. An officer must show the burdern of evidence that a Latino-American is NOT a US Citizen, BEFORE, the Latino-American has to prove their innocence of the charge. A person is INNOCENT, until proven guilty. I would have thought those conservatives would have studied the US Constitution better then that.

B) The 1964 American Civil Liberity Act, Title 7. That's the one that talks about what you CAN'T discriminate over: like one's race.

Finally, I'm abit amused the Tea Baggers aren't complaining about the waste of money. After all, this and the 'birthers' law will get struck down in courts (that one, for failing over the 1st Amendment). Just think, of the amount of money it takes to move a bill from concept to being voted on in both the House and Senate of Arizona. Then it has to be signed in to law by the Govenor. After that, it has to be defended in EVERY court case. So yes, where are the Tea Bagggers bemoaning goverment waste? Hypocrits!

The birther bill fails, in that, it just takes one Arizonian Democrat to say "I would like this person's name on the ballot, as I believe based on the information, he/she is a US Citizen".

>> ^entr0py:

Cost him his job? That would make perfect grounds for a wrongful termination suit?

A friend of mine lost her job (pizza delivery) because she was arrested for possession of paraphernalia (weed pipe with no weed in it) found during an illegal search. Of course it's NC so they aren't required to give a reason for firing you.

She was found not guilty due to the illegal search, but the arrest was still on her record, preventing her from getting a teaching job after the incident. She had to get it expunged before the state would even consider her for a job.

I would think that arrests wouldn't affect such things since it isn't a statement of guilt, but apparently it can still be a problem.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
2009? That part right there is the epitome of politics in any time or place. It's why nobody in their right mind believes that politicians can make the world a better place. These are people who've dedicated their lives to playing these games in order to see how long they can be the center of attention.



I disagree. I think that the following all made the world a better place:

• Child labor laws
  
• Minimum wage laws
  
• Worker safety laws
  
• Car safety laws
  
• Environmental protections (ranging from national wildlife preserves, to endangered species protection to various Clean Air & Water bills)
  
• SNAP (aka Food Stamps)
  
• Unemployment benefits
  
• Civil Rights legislation
  
• Social Security
  
• Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP
  
• FDA, FAA, FCC, FEC, FDIC, FTC, NLRB, NOAA, NASA, ARPA
  
• National Guard, Coast Guard, Peace Corps, Americorps
  

And that doesn't even cover the most basic legislation laid down by "politicians" in the Constitution, establishing things like free speech, protection against illegal search and seizure, the right to a trial by peers, the right to habeas corpus, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and the guarantee of equal protection of laws.

If our elected representatives don't live up to the standards of the above, it's our fault for having sent them there, and we need to do better.

Acting as though it's impossible to improve the situation is exactly the kind of thinking that got them elected in the first place. In fact, there's a whole party dedicated to intentionally fucking up government, then saying to the electorate "vote for me if you think the government sucks!"

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the other party is dedicated to. Seems to me they're dedicated to promising good things, then making excuses about how the other party stopped them from getting them done. I'm hoping eventually they wake up and start fighting for what they supposedly believe in.

>> ^Diogenes:
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Interesting, so it had more to do with migration of power from the legislative branch to the executive for "national security" than anything else.

It's more directly supportive of my argument than I thought.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the more likely scenario, black helicopters and stormtroopers or some bureaucrat deciding you go to the back of the waiting list for a heart transplant?

In Franklin's time? Redcoats with general warrants; the black helicopter stormtroopers of the day.

Reread the 3rd amendment, and try to imagine a time when that shared parity of importance with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

>> ^quantumushroom:
To the contrary, I know EXACTLY what is being said here.

No, you really don't. Let me try to clarify the central misunderstanding you have about us that seems to be a running thread to all of your critiques of Democrats: we think the strategy of accusing a loyal opposition of disloyalty is a slippery slope to the end of what this country stands for.

It's what's galvanized our side against people like you.

We think this country is as much about ideals as it is about the land and people. By dismantling the ideas in the misguided attempt to safeguard the land and people you are destroying the country.

When you disregard the values set forth in the Constitution, like habeas corpus, and protections from illegal search and seizure (which covers both torture and wiretapping), we object, strongly.

When you then question our patriotism for speaking out against your destruction of our country, you are just shredding one more of our ideals we hold sacred (that whole 1st amendment thing), while trying to justify the shredding of others.

I will gladly say that your ideas and goals will destroy the country; but I won't accuse you of hating the country and attempting to intentionally destroy it the way you do of me.