Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is what I am prepared to recite with a police officer.

"Am I free to go?"
'No.'
"Then am I being detained?"
'No.'
"So am I free to go?"
repeat ad nauseam

'Can I search your belongings?'
"Is that an order, sir?"
'No.'
"I have not consented to any searches."

At 7/24/08 05:50 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Not every police officer is fucking captain america.

Of course not, I don't think even Captain America is that virile.

At 7/23/08 07:13 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:05 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: They shouldn't over-respond to this degree - ten officer chasing somebody for shoplifting cannot feasibly be justified, as it is a waste of resources. Two should be more than enough to take care of the situation.

It is the unknown, maybe the individual has a gun, maybe he has some friends he is running to, maybe he is wanted and considered armed and dangerous. YOu want back up to help catch him, and also to find him if he gives the slip. In some areas it is a felony to flee the police.

If everything was "the unknown", then you may as well require three police officers for every member of the population in order to be sure. If one person does a bit of shoplifting and runs, you DO NOT need ten officers chasing him - even with the paranoiac theories, he'd need at least five well-armed friends with a car to justify that level of over-responding.

It depends - if said person was from an area where it is indoctrinated into you that the police are after you no matter what (most likely a council estate), they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

Irrelevant, you still are required to obey a police officers instructions. Besides, if you are a shop lifter running, you know you have done something wrong already, you are not worried about being framed, you know you broke the law and you know exactly why you are being chased.

I repeat, they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

I.E. if there's been a spate of shoplifting in the area lately, most people will know that they were caught for the one offence. However, if you have police hate indoctrinated into you, you're going to believe you'll have more pinned on you.

Strangely they never wade into self-parody: "Wayne, if you get caught the pigs'll say you're Jack the Ripper."

So, to sum up: a solitary officer (when they should always patrol in pairs) got beaten up by a 15-year old girl, before some bystanders saw it as an opportunity to get in a few free kicks on a local officer. In the middle of the afternoon.

I read you link, it actually says that there were two unarmed police officers who were beat up, one 34 years old and one 29. So they were patrolling in pairs.

When the story broke, it was just the one - somehow the second one was missed, even in the local press. Hmm...

At 7/23/08 10:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So what about the concept that instituting a police force automatically gives the assumption that you NEED to be watched. That you aren't good enough to survive on your own.

We do fucking need to be watched. We are watched and people still get killed, robbed, raped, scamed. If no one was watching we wouldn't be able to walk outside our front door.

At 7/24/08 03:50 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/23/08 07:13 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:05 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

If everything was "the unknown", then you may as well require three police officers for every member of the population in order to be sure. If one person does a bit of shoplifting and runs, you DO NOT need ten officers chasing him - even with the paranoiac theories, he'd need at least five well-armed friends with a car to justify that level of over-responding.

So 5 armed men with a car requires only 10 police officers? SWAT Teams can be 8-12 officers, often for just one guy in a house with a gun. Is this an over-reaction, or should they just send 2 guys and hope everything turns out ok?

There was an incident in Canada where 4 armed police officer from the RCMP were sent to secure a property while investigators were in-route to go over a chop shop and grow op on the property. The man who owned the property hated cops and had guns, but was chased off the property earlier and was at large. He came back and killed all 4 officers before killing himself. So was 4 armed officers to guard a farm that was believed to be empty at the time an over-reaction, or under reaction? Mayerthorpe Incident

I.E. if there's been a spate of shoplifting in the area lately, most people will know that they were caught for the one offence. However, if you have police hate indoctrinated into you, you're going to believe you'll have more pinned on you.

So believing the police will try and pin other crimes on you, ontop of the crime you just committed excuses running from them?

When the story broke, it was just the one - somehow the second one was missed, even in the local press. Hmm...

That link you posted was written 48 hours after the incident happened and repeated refers to "officers" and mentions two people attacked, two officers on sick leave and that one officer was talking about how his colleague was attacked first then him. I think you just are trying to cover your mistake.

I think I should also point out that this incident was linked to street gang called Don't Say Nothing. This article also mentions it was two constables, not one as you allege, as part of some cover-up.

At 7/24/08 09:39 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So what about the concept that instituting a police force automatically gives the assumption that you NEED to be watched. That you aren't good enough to survive on your own.

We do fucking need to be watched. We are watched and people still get killed, robbed, raped, scamed.

I realize this indeed happens, and I understand the role a police force plays. I aso understand who foots the bill for local, state and federal agencies.

Jack was probably alluding to establishing a better precedent for crime prevention and victimization. Everyone knows criminals disobey laws meant to protect the rights of people, in order to raise the standard of living and make the world a better place to live in. It's good to know that if you're under duress, you can call upon a third party to act outside the laws that contrain "regular" citizens.

He was saying, in his own way, that an individual could be responsible for his or her own safety. It's a concept, JoS, and it has legs in that a knowledgable, aware, prepared citizen is every bit as capable to defend themselves as someone who may or may not be there when the time for conflict arises.

Over-reliance on police is a stupid gamble in the first place, so why not shoot for education aimed at training everyone to be ethical and in control of the scenarios they put themselves in?

If no one was watching we wouldn't be able to walk outside our front door.

That's a bold fucking statement.

Thank God and the majority opinion of the SCOTUS we have an inalienable individual right to possess and bear the tool best proven to protect the ethical, non-felon everyone starts out as.

At 6/22/08 01:59 PM, SevenSeize wrote: and if you guys wanna scream conspiracy and hate on a group of powerful people for being corrupt, you need to look toward your politicians, local, state, and federal because those fellas have far more control over you than police.

Most people who are out after the police feel the same way about politicians, but the police are involved in their everyday lives. I sometimes see my local politicians, rarely see my state politicians, and never see my national politicians - I see police everyday. Now I'm not against the police force; I think that the work they do is often very honorable, but I do have to be suspect of people given power over others. Officers deserve the same decency that every other person deserves, but when you give a person power, you need checks to ensure that he or she does not abuse that power.

At 7/24/08 09:39 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So what about the concept that instituting a police force automatically gives the assumption that you NEED to be watched. That you aren't good enough to survive on your own.

We do fucking need to be watched. We are watched and people still get killed, robbed, raped, scamed. If no one was watching we wouldn't be able to walk outside our front door.

;;;
I posted this elsewhere here today...
But it certainly deserves to be posted here, & is one of my many reasons why I disagree with Jos.

Police maybe necessary, I won't argue that.
But we are being 'watched ' by GOONS & CRIMINALS who are the POLICE & they can do it with complete immunity , because they are the police....and that my friends is WRONG & it is what is fundimentally wrong with a system where the people who investigate criminal acts, investigate themselves , when a criminal act takes place by one of their own !

LINKY
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/2 3/police-montebella.html

Forgot to add, no charges were ever laid.
Some went as far as to say "No wrong doing was apparent"
Cops disguised as protestors are attempting to cause violence ....& NO wrong doing is the outcome of Police investigating Police ?!?!?!?!?!
Surprise, surprise !

I hate broken/ fucked links.
See if this works
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/2 3/police-montebello.html

At 7/24/08 09:39 PM, JoS wrote:

We do fucking need to be watched. We are watched and people still get killed, robbed, raped, scamed. If no one was watching we wouldn't be able to walk outside our front door.

Wow.

You should elaborate a bit with less hyperbole :P

So I can like. Respond in some fashion.

At 7/25/08 09:10 AM, morefngdbs wrote: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/2 3/police-montebello.html

That's messed up. The video on the 'tube confirms it too. What a brilliant reason to hate the police right there, if you're Canadian.

At 7/25/08 11:13 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 7/25/08 09:10 AM, morefngdbs wrote: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/2 3/police-montebello.html

That's messed up. The video on the 'tube confirms it too. What a brilliant reason to hate the police right there, if you're Canadian.

;;;
What really bothers me is they were the first to pick up a stone to egg the crown into attacking.
That is in this country a criminal offense... intent to commit !
No charges were ever made, hell how can there be any charges when those in charge get those under them to do criminal acts !
When the police go bad (and they often do) there is little or nothing done about it .
Hell when they get caught stealing, using prostitutes, drunk driving...they get suspended WITH FULL PAY ! ! ! ! Fuck that's like being given a paid vacation as a reward for getting caught .

But those who suck hard on the big blue dick will of course disagree with me.

At 7/25/08 11:57 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Hell when they get caught stealing, using prostitutes, drunk driving...they get suspended WITH FULL PAY ! ! ! ! Fuck that's like being given a paid vacation as a reward for getting caught .

But those who suck hard on the big blue dick will of course disagree with me.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Besides, police are often accused of doing things they did not do (probably more often then they get accused of something they actual did do) by people try to get back at them or get off the hook. People in trouble with the law will say anything to get out of it. Suspension with pay is to protect those wrongfully accused officers.

At 7/25/08 11:11 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: You should elaborate a bit with less hyperbole :P

So I can like. Respond in some fashion.

Thomas Hobbes wrote that life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. I have made this argument several times in the thread, so I won't go into too much detail, but without police to enforce the social contract made between citizens and the state, there is no reason to follow the contract, since there would be no consequences (other than a break-down of society) for violating it. Human nature is not one of being nice to everyone, its looking out for number 1.

Look at Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, when there were no police to enforce the laws, looting and lawlessness. Look at Katrina, lawlessness, looting and chaos. Look at the black out a couple of years back, looting, speeding and mayhem.

Sure there are cases where the community investigates crimes against their members, sans police, but that system only protects those who belong to the community, and have no checks and balances, and is limited in its ability. How does a community investigate large scale crimes/criminal organizations and complex fraud, which require significant amount of resources. What difference is there between the community, and mob or vigilante justice?

What's the difference between cops and appointed vigilantes?

At 7/25/08 07:52 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What's the difference between cops and appointed vigilantes?

Cops can get away with murder.

At 7/25/08 07:52 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What's the difference between cops and appointed vigilantes?

Professionalism? Training? Abilities? Dedication? Fairness?

Vigilantes work for a cause, police officers uphold the law of the land. The justice system is a set of checks and balances police, balanced by courts and various failsafes (though some people still fall through the cracks), a vigilante is judge, jury and executioner.

Of course the point of police is to provide better protection than people can do for themselves.

Imo they're DEFINITELY not doing that well enough.

I think the whole psychology of it needs to be looked at.

It's the, "don'go in the basement johnny"

Johnny, is going to go into the basement. If all you do, is tell him not to.

At 7/25/08 07:19 PM, JoS wrote: What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

;;;
IT is impossible to be proven guilty in this country....IF YOU ARE NEVER CHARGED !

So maybe for you that's great & the way it is. But for others, myself included, just because there were no charges laid, does not mean a crime hasn't been commited. Which means as the video of the 3 pigs pretending to be protestors show, police were attempting to get a crowd OF PEACEFUL protesters to escalate into a violent confrontation.

A deliberate act of intentionally trying to get others to follow your lead & throw rocks at police , while you who are doing the leading are undercover police is WRONG. Not only is it wrong, it is clearly a criminal act.
I know this to be true because other people who have protested & attacked police at other rallies ,have been charged , in Canada, Mexico, The United States , In Europe.
It is an act of violence & provoking violence....but these police are never charged !
Instead the 'powers that be' AKA their (undercover cops ) bosses say there is no 'evidence of wrong doing. If that is so, why not get them before a court & let the court decide ?

Because it is possible that they would be found guilty... & they may then come forward with testimony that they were ordered to infiltrate & cause a riot.
The Bosses can't have any light like that thrown in their direction....give away the entire corrupt system.

The Crown Attorney's and the Solicitor General also decided not to press charges. They are independent of the police.

At 7/26/08 11:07 AM, JoS wrote: The Crown Attorney's and the Solicitor General also decided not to press charges. They are independent of the police.

Not really, they are all part & parcel of the same organization...the Government appointed people who work extremely close with the countries Police Forces...& they wouldn't want the boat rocked and people in charge possibly uncovered either.

At 7/24/08 03:50 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/23/08 07:13 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:05 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

If everything was "the unknown", then you may as well require three police officers for every member of the population in order to be sure. If one person does a bit of shoplifting and runs, you DO NOT need ten officers chasing him - even with the paranoiac theories, he'd need at least five well-armed friends with a car to justify that level of over-responding.

So 5 armed men with a car requires only 10 police officers? SWAT Teams can be 8-12 officers, often for just one guy in a house with a gun. Is this an over-reaction, or should they just send 2 guys and hope everything turns out ok?

So, one unarmed man running due to being spotted shoplifting requires up to 10 police officers? Keep on topic, please.

Yoou're throwing so many paranoiac "what if"s out at this moment in time it seems like a better idea to have 8 officers per member of the population, which would require half the population of India or China to move over here and join the police force.

There was an incident in Canada where 4 armed police officer from the RCMP were sent to secure a property while investigators were in-route to go over a chop shop and grow op on the property. The man who owned the property hated cops and had guns, but was chased off the property earlier and was at large. He came back and killed all 4 officers before killing himself. So was 4 armed officers to guard a farm that was believed to be empty at the time an over-reaction, or under reaction? Mayerthorpe Incident

Sounds more like a topic for the gun control topics to me.

Also, ever heard the phrase "freak occurance"? What're the odds of somebody who fled a crime scene returning, fully-armed, and gunning down the officers there? Or is this a case where 20 officers should've gone, and whoever was left would be able to tackle him to the ground and arrest him when he was reloading?

I.E. if there's been a spate of shoplifting in the area lately, most people will know that they were caught for the one offence. However, if you have police hate indoctrinated into you, you're going to believe you'll have more pinned on you.

So believing the police will try and pin other crimes on you, ontop of the crime you just committed excuses running from them?

Oh for fuck's sake, will you read what I'm writing.

When the story broke, it was just the one - somehow the second one was missed, even in the local press. Hmm...

That link you posted was written 48 hours after the incident happened and repeated refers to "officers" and mentions two people attacked, two officers on sick leave and that one officer was talking about how his colleague was attacked first then him. I think you just are trying to cover your mistake.

The initial story stated one - then again, the number of the mob has also been changed from four/five in the initial story to 30.

I think I should also point out that this incident was linked to street gang called Don't Say Nothing. This article also mentions it was two constables, not one as you allege, as part of some cover-up.

Cover up? OK, what in the name of fuck are you babbling about now?

As for DSN, their name is one of the most retarded in gang history (apart from another Croydon gang, Shine My Nine) - Don't Say Nothing? Fine, I'll say that you don't live in Compton - get used to the fact next time you're waiting in the Job Centre.

At 7/26/08 12:36 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: So, one unarmed man running due to being spotted shoplifting requires up to 10 police officers? Keep on topic, please.

How do they know he is unarmed?

Yoou're throwing so many paranoiac "what if"s out at this moment in time it seems like a better idea to have 8 officers per member of the population, which would require half the population of India or China to move over here and join the police force.

No but I do argue that you should have back-up, especially if a person is fleeing or could be armed. Its better to have too many officers than not enough IMO.

Sounds more like a topic for the gun control topics to me.

No, its rebutting your argument that 10 officers for one man was unnecessary. I was simply pointing out when you deal with unknowns, its better to be safe then sorry.

The shooter in that incident was hit by two investigators who had pulled up to the farm just as the shooting began. So perhaps if a tactical unit (they have higher grade body amour that can stop rifle rounds) had been deployed, or more officers to secure the whole perimeter, this would not have happened. So in other words, if they had deployed 8 officers to a supposedly empty farm they may have all come back alive. But your argument is that it would be unnecessary. The problem with your argument (also with mine) is that you only know if it was unnecessary after the fact, aka Monday morning quaterback.

Also, ever heard the phrase "freak occurance"? What're the odds of somebody who fled a crime scene returning, fully-armed, and gunning down the officers there?

I am sure that is real comforting to the families of the slain officers. Would you be saying that if it was your father, brother etc that was one of the people gunned down?

Oh for fuck's sake, will you read what I'm writing.

Sorry if I have misinterperted what you are saying. I will try and summarize what I believe youa re saying, and the other interptation you may be going for.

In some areas, cultures, social groups, people are more likely to run from the police due to previous bad experiences, or a perceived bias against them, regardless of whether or not they have actually done something.

Now here comes the interpretation part, I feel you are excusing them for doing so, however it is possible that you may be simply implying it is understandable, but not excusable.

Cover up? OK, what in the name of fuck are you babbling about now?

By posting "hmmm....." at the end of your post, it implies there is something suspicious about the facts you were representing, that the number of officers changed 48 hours later, as well as the size of the mob. Something like they changed the numbers to make themselves not look as bad, or that policy was followed, ie covering up that an officer was paroling alone and got beat up by just a couple of people.

However we are both in definite agreement that DSN is the fucking stupidest gang name in the history of gang names.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10015231 ?source=most_emailed

Kinda scary that this happened 20 minutes away.

Basically, the police story is that a man was driving poorly, so an officer pulled him over and shot him when he tried to run. However, a witness to the even says that the police officer pulled over and shot at the man for driving poorly, at which point he ran, at which point the cop shot him some more.

Either way, when some unarmed guy in the Ghetto is shot by cops over poor driving, it lowers the level of trust for the police.

I saw people at a bar today. Some guys were walking out, being kicked out of a bar. Another man happened to exit the bar after them. The police jump on this last man, who is drunk and innocent.

"I did not do anything."

"Get the FUCK OUT OF MY BAR, YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL."

Yeah so fair.

Honestly i don't trust them either, whenever i walk past them i'm like "oh shit...please don't let them hurt me." most officers abuse their power, and even though i know nothing will happen i still feel nervous, maybe some people just naturally feel scared around authority figures? what i do know is that people should stop telling kids to go to a officer if they are lost > : ( i was lost once and i asked a cop, he didn't know so he looked at a map. Ya like i couldn't do that my damn self!

It's not that I don't trust them, I hate what they do.

People speed. We all do it. I do it, you do it, cops do it. It is very rarely enforced, so we all keep speeding. Then every now and again, you get a ticket. It's just luck, and cops are always bad luck. If you need to protect people, make the driving test harder, don't limit capable drivers.

Secondly, I hate how they all buddy up. If you are a cop, related to one, or have military background, you're safe. If not, you're fucked. I listen to people talk about how to avoid cops all the time, how PBA cards aren't enough anymore, and now you need more than that. It's disgusting how selective they are about who they ticket.

Maybe it's just that are a form of authority, but every time i see one pull a car over that was only going 5 mph faster than everyone else, I just wish there were someone who could snipe them and protect us civilians.

If they just went after murderers and rapists, fine, but that's not the case.

Fuckin' pigs.

One always has to remember...catching criminals & putting them in jail costs money & it costs big money. Pulling over speeders & my favorite writing multiple tickets for being "parked" for too long, brings in money...brings in BIG money.
So that is why 80% of what police really do is 'Traffic crimes' because that's how you MAKE MONEY !
Fighting & catching real criminals costs money....Do you understand now the real focus of police forces.

On a side note anyone here who has a firearms offense, is banned from using firearms ,usually for life. But if your a cop, like this one here, you get a slap on the wrist & a nod & a wink...your back to work.
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/NovaSco tia/1070280.html

At 7/30/08 08:55 AM, morefngdbs wrote: One always has to remember...catching criminals & putting them in jail costs money & it costs big money. Pulling over speeders & my favorite writing multiple tickets for being "parked" for too long, brings in money...brings in BIG money.
So that is why 80% of what police really do is 'Traffic crimes' because that's how you MAKE MONEY !
Fighting & catching real criminals costs money....Do you understand now the real focus of police forces.

Oh, I know all too well. But wouldn't it be nice if they just raised taxes to pay for it, so I can get where I need to go. Also, understanding doesn't make me hate them any less.

On a side note anyone here who has a firearms offense, is banned from using firearms ,usually for life. But if your a cop, like this one here, you get a slap on the wrist & a nod & a wink...your back to work.
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/NovaSco tia/1070280.html

Lol for the people who get caught. Wise-up, cops can't search anything without consent. As for the nod and wink, *sigh*

Jos wonders why people like myself are so against police...check this out.
THis type of thing happens here CONSTANTLY !
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/10702 60.html