Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Police Questions

Police Questions

12AX7 - 5-12-2007 at 14:47

I posted this in response to: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=9590

The following is a true story, lacking details so as to remain general. After a while I'll fill in the details.

-=-=-

I was raking leaves the other day. Some officers found a curiosity across the street. After checking it out, one came over to me and asked some questions.

Am I a suspect?

evil_lurker - 5-12-2007 at 15:33

Until your ruled out, then you, along with everyone else is suspect.

Magpie - 5-12-2007 at 15:34

I don't think you have given us nearly enough information to make a judgement.

Sauron - 5-12-2007 at 20:07

Like, what was the curiosity next door and, what questions did they ask you?

Did they question anyone else?

The_Davster - 5-12-2007 at 20:13

You might want to be more direct about what the curiosity was...

bag of drugs?
porn?
bag labelled "Tim's chlorate sack, 5kg"?

Something nice in the neighbors trash pile that thought they had a use for and wondered if you thought the neighbors would mind them taking it.

[Edited on 5-12-2007 by The_Davster]

chemrox - 5-12-2007 at 22:00

Never answer questions from policemen unless they are, "where is the nearest donut shop?" or "when did you shoot your wife?"

Rosco Bodine - 6-12-2007 at 00:45

Nooooo of course you're not a suspect , you are a possible "material witness" or otherwise "a person of interest" , get it ? And of course it's all very routine ,
and you don't need a lawyer , because only a person
who is guilty of something or has something to hide
would need a lawyer .......right ???

Oh they are soooo slick , got their rap and their act down pat , and believe me it's a routine that's all good for them ,
and all bad for anybody they want to make it bad for .
They will make up shit they will swear you said , when you said no such thing , have you confessing to crimes that
you don't even know about , and secure warrants based
on their own lying affidavits . By the time you get through
paying lawyers to fight some bullshit charge , you will be bankrupt and homeless , and by the time you have gathered the evidence to successfully appeal a rigged trial
that wrongly sent you to prison , you will have already served your sentence , so it will be a new round of civil suits and good luck suing the state , where the state of course runs the courts

Getting the picture on how the scam works ?

And last but not least , if you say the wrong thing , or even nothing at all , you might just be "obstructing justice"
or "interfering with a police officer" , those are always
good spur of the moment false charges which may conveniently be used as a pretext for throwing somebody in jail , when witnesses are around that would make it hard to make up any other bullshit charge .

Everything gets upgraded to a felony and multiple charges
that are double to three times the actual offense being
charged in the beginning .

Now don't you sleep better at night knowing you are so well served and protected ?

If cops are generally such fine examples as to merit
their status as worthy of being moral governors of
the rest , then why do you suppose it is a felony to
even publish one of their home addresses ? If they were
fair and square in how they treat folks then why would they worry about any dissatisfied customers paying them
a visit at their own home ?

MagicJigPipe - 6-12-2007 at 01:02

That reminds me! I was pulled over and searched a few years ago. At the time I was delivering pizzas for a local pizza place. I had a notebook that I kept track of tips in. Usually, I would write the address, amount, tip and sometimes a little note about how (not) polite the person was.

It just so happened that the cop that pulled me over recognized one of his buddy's address' and it just so happened that I wrote by it "what an asshole!" I was arrested (without telling me what I was charged with. I didn't even know they could do that), my car was towed and I was taken to the station where I was questioned for an hour about what I was going to do with this "cop hit list" (there were 2 that I can remember). THEY WERE PISSED! Finally, they mustered the intelligence to figure out what was REALLY going on and they let me go and left me to get my car out of impound without them even apologizing to me. They still kinda acted like they were right and I was wrong.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Rosco Bodine - 6-12-2007 at 01:18

First understand that cops view themselves as some sort of supersoldier and you are a lowly civvie who is supposed
to act like an obsequious subordinate , yes sir and no sir ,
absolute unquestioning obedience . The moment you get the attitude that you are a citizen taxpayer and they are a public servant who works for you , that you have rights
and choices , then you have an attitude problem in need of an attitude adjustment and they will try to find a way to stick it to you .

Whether or not you want to play that game is your choice
too . I generally never do , but then I am an old fart and I have no more patience with the aggravation .

One thing you need to keep in mind is that a huge percentage of people in prison never actually completed
an actual crime , but were arrested and convicted fully on
some "crime prevention" sort of scenario like a "conspiracy to commit crime XYZ " , basically where the law has become
a "thought police" which judges "intent" as a crime itself ,
and "in the interest of public safety" has locked a person
up in "anticipation" of an actual crime which of course has been prevented . The problem is that there is so much room for interpretation , and many people actually scheme and contemplate things that are never followed through to completion . But much of law enforcement truly is premature intercession , so the threshold can be way too low for
where they prosecute , for "intent" as if their ability to
even read minds was so godlike as to judge . This is
where the home experimenter could have huge problems ,
never having done any actual crime , but by having materials
that may be misconstrued as intent or as paraphernalia ,
as much as a machinist could be misconstrued to be in
possession of "burglary tools" . Got a lab , then you are a suspected dope chemist , yeah boy you must be a meth cooker , having all that "unlicensed" equipment . Likely story that you are a scientist .

[Edited on 6-12-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Sauron - 6-12-2007 at 07:07

The crime of conspiracy requires as part of the prosecutorial burden of proof, that at least one party to the conspiracy has made an overt act toward completion on the conspiracy.

And almost invariably, at least one conspirator is a state's or government witness, ratting out the others to save his own skin orThis is not the "thought police" get a reduced sentence.

This is not Orwellian "thought police" but a crime with a long history in English common law.

And it is simply not true that any large proportion of today's US prison population were railroaded under conspiracy charges. Fact is that prosecutors tend to shun conspiracy cases because they are rather difficult in court, juries do not much like them, and often the jury can tell a rat when they see one and do not put much faith in their testimony.

Rosco Bodine - 6-12-2007 at 08:16

Criminal attempt and conspiracy to commit and accessory
charges as well as posession charges are highly ambiguous charges that are brought sometimes collectively , along with obstruction of justice , by zealous prosecutors who hurl an assortment of shit at once hoping
they will find something that will stick . And there are many laws which "presume" guilt of certain crimes when
other collectively specified conditions have been met which are not themselves individually crimes . Certain separate
"components" for example collectively constitute a crime
when common to the same person . And this is in no
way limited to destructive devices but extends to an assortment of other things where not just attempt is
presumed , but actual *guilt* is presumed and any *proof of innocence* is impossible to provide . Literally
being charged alone for some offenses are matters where no defense is possible given the way the law is written .

[Edited on 6-12-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

Sauron - 6-12-2007 at 10:07

Federal gun laws are mostly originally under the tax code, ATF used to be part of the IRS. So many of those crimes are non-intent crimes, meaning that criminal intent need not be proven, and is not part of the prosecutorial burder.

However, apart from those, there are very few federal crimes that do not require proof of mens rae (criminal intent). And no state laws that I am aware of.

How is posession of a controlled substance ever a thought crime? Likewise no one can be charged much less convicted of being accessory to a crime for THINKING. There must be action and the action must be proved.

You seem to think that most people in prison are innocent and should not be incarcerated. I think most people in prison are guilty as hell, and probably deserve worse than what they are getting. And a lot more people ought to be incarcerated who are roaming the streets of our cities and making life miserable, and often short, for honest law abiding citizens.

Rosco Bodine - 6-12-2007 at 10:25

You must have led a charmed life not to be aware of the
everyday police tramplings of citizens who are
"honest law abiding citizens" while the millions of illegal aliens get a pass to do just about as they damn well please .

You must have never had the experience yourself of any adversarial situation with the authorities or observed
some of the abuses that arise involving friends or family ,
and further you must not have been personally acquainted
with any but the noblest of policemen , or else you would know better just exactly how the story goes concerning
the "justice system" . It's big business and its a dirty business . And indeed there are many people imprisoned
who are wrongly imprisoned . There's more than a few that have been wrongly executed for crimes they didn't commit . The state sets the bar very low for what is
required to prosecute , and if you think a presumption
of innocence applies , that is your illusion too .

BTW , in the county where I live there have been nearly three hundred federal civil rights lawsuits and criminal complaints filed and pending settlement *against* police officers , this year alone . And these are *not* unfounded nuisance suits .

[Edited on 6-12-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

YT2095 - 6-12-2007 at 11:00

I see there`s a new Poll been added to this thread with a Yes and No option, and that`s Nice, no really that`s Nice!

but, What`s the question?

JohnWW - 6-12-2007 at 14:13

"What's the question"? I would suggest one of my own, regarding Pig questions allegedly in enforcing the drug laws, which is the excuse they most often use for trampling on peoples' civil liberties, in two parts:
(a) Do you think that the whole criminalization of drugs business, including of alleged precursors (the purchase of which at least is liable to bring oneself to the notice of the Pigs), which has been around only since about the 1950s, is a massive multinational conspiracy by the tobacco and alcohol industries, to maintain their monopolies on recreational drugs?
(b) Do you think that, in lobbying congresses and parliaments to get them to outlaw drugs, the alcohol and tobacco interests bribed law-makers, and continue to do so by way of donations to right-wing political parties and bribes paid to Pigs?
If drugs were legalized, it would destroy the lucrative black-market for it, from which criminal gangs profit enormously, and so make them less available, not more available.

Sauron - 6-12-2007 at 20:36

The issue is not whether or not the draconian drug laws are proper. I suspect most of us would like to see them abolished. I know I would, but perhaps for different reasons that some of you. I have stated my logic elsewhere and will not repeat myself.

Rosco Bodine did not say that the drug laws are inherently unjust and and that therefore most of the people imprisoned for drug offences are "innocent".

That would be a political argument not a legal one.

No, Rosco said that the police are imprisoning peopole for thought crime. That's false. He said that a large segment (vague term) of the prison population were convicted for what amounts to mopery with intent to gawk. That is not true either.

Having fucked up he now wishes to switch to an ad hominem attack, accusing me of being naive, inexperienced, or somehow insulated from social realities. Well, balls, Rosco. I am a former deputy sherrif and longtime private investigator in one of the most corrupt cities in one of the most corrupt states in the union. There is very little I have not seen, or heard about. One of my immediate family was city attorney and chairman of the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee of New Orleans. Other family members were police officers. One cousin is presently special agent in charge of the DEA office in Jackson, Mississippi. I lived through the whole Jim Garrison foolishness and let me tell you, Oliver Stone got it all wrong. Another of my cousins was lawyer forn the Marcello crime family. (Oldest Mafia family in the US, predating any of the NYC families.)

I moved on to the international arena for thirty years and saw what governments do to each other, and what the UN does, and that sickened me even more. Sickened me so much I quit.

And I STILL say that most convists are where they ought to be and deserve worse.

markgollum - 6-12-2007 at 21:29

It is my opinion that for a significant portion of the police, there is essentially no difference between them and many of the criminals they are supposed to be taking off the streets.
I would like to share an experience a family member had, for the purposes of this discussion I will call him “Bob”.
Bob is a very well respected businessman with an exceptional character, whom I regard as completely trustworthy.
However he did go through a difficult period in his life approximately 25 years ago when this was not true (but he was never a liar), during this period while he was battling depression he did some foolish things such as taking his brothers car without permission and driving around the county til he ran out of fuel (all without a drivers licence). These escapades resulted in him being “known” by the local police. One day a few years later he bought new trike, paid for the insurance, and bought a licence plate, in his excitement upon reaching home he decided to take it for a spin in the back alley, when he had just finished putting the trike back in the garage a police cruiser drove by and noticed the tracks in the snow, the officers asked him what he thought he was doing and he replied that he had just bought a new trike and wanted to see how it ran so he only drove it up and down the alley and parked it in the garage. The officers asked for his insurance and asked if he knew had broken the law, Bob replied that he knew he wasn’t supposed to drive trikes in the city and gave his insurance. The officers told him to get into the cruiser, Bob told them he would as soon as he locked up the garage and told his fiancé where he was going.
The moment Bob reached over the fence to open the latch one of the officers struck him and threw him to the ground where he was handcuffed, kicked and punched by both officers, he was then thrown in the back of the cruiser and started to be driven to the station, while on route dispatch reported an armed robbery in progress at a convenience store and the cruiser was ordered to the location, after a brief chase of the suspects, the car stopped and the police ran up to it where they recognized the occupant and told him to go home, Bob saw a sawed off shotgun in the car before they drove away, Bob was driven to the station, locked in a holding cell for half an hour then released, he ended up having to walk home.

I have known several police officers to a degree, one of them a member of the RCMP told me that I would be shocked to know some of the things the RCMP do, he refused to tell me what they were because “I would prefer to not have to worry about this kind of thing coming back to me ”.
I know the family of another, they frankly tell me that they never have to worry about getting speeding tickets or any traffic violations because “that’s just common courtesy for members families”. Sometimes if a child of a member is caught committing a crime he is just let go, even for drug offences.

MagicJigPipe - 6-12-2007 at 22:17

I am inclined to disagree with you on your last statement Sauron. I agree that most convicts are guilty and should be in jail. As far as MOST of them deserving worse... Not so sure. No one (aside from rapists and murderers) should ever have to live in fear of being raped. Especially people who are in prison for mere POSSESSION of drugs. With some obvious exceptions I think when someone does drugs it is a single victim crime. On par with masochism or suicide. Mandatory minimum sentencing is wrong and I think it would benefit society more if drug addicts were "helped" rather than being thrown in jail only to become a real criminals.

These are all just my personal opinions and I am, in no way, meaning to say your opinions are wrong. Let us remain on this path of civility.

[Edited on 7-12-2007 by MagicJigPipe]

Rosco Bodine - 7-12-2007 at 01:35

Personally I don't believe in the punitive or correctional value of locking up a human being to rot in a cage for years , when the humane thing to do with those who really can't be let out , is to put a bullet through their head .

So I fundamentally differ with the whole concept
of the "prison system" as long term punishment .
And even on short term confinemnts those prisoners
should be working a full work week doing something ,
not laying in a bunk , or sitting in a dorm watching TV .

Most of the truly hardcore criminals are products of
the environment and system which has made them what they are , although I do believe some people are just plain evil for no assignable reason .

Sauron - 7-12-2007 at 01:56

Some will get raped and some will do the raping, the law of the jungle applies in a prison. If a convict isn't mobbed up, or can get associated with a prison gang, then he has to rely on his own ability to defend himself. And assaults are often not done one on one.

Anyway, I actually agree with a lot of what Rosco says in his last post. A bullet in the head would be more humane. And cost the state a lot less.

I also am in utter accord with osco with regard to illegal immigrants. Both political parties are selling out all Americans, and most especially those who worked hard to emigrate to the US legally and get naturalized.

I have very good friends living in Mexico and what they tell me is that the Mexican middle class, those who are educated and employable, have no interest in moving to the US. Those who illegally migrate are Mexico's underclass, uneducated and unemployable. Our politicians want to make the problem go away by waving their hands and making the illegals citizens. But, more illegals will come. And the US is the poorer for it. All the political parties want to do is to attract these people to become voters for THEM. To hell with what is good for the country. THAT is a sellout. If we started shipping our underclass to Mexico, the Mexican government would not like it very much, I reckon.

12AX7 - 7-12-2007 at 04:27

Before you people drag this too far off topic (Sauron, you should know by now that any argument with Rosco is a futile attempt at education), I shall fill in the missing information:

I was raking leaves the other day. Earlier that morning, the mailman had come by and emptied the mailbox across the street. He found a bullet lodged in the unit, and came back later with some police to investigate it. After they finished, an officer went around to ask the neighborhood questions: being nearby, raking outside, I was the perfect place to start. He mentioned the bullet appears to have come from the street, as if a drive-by shooting had occurred. I hadn't heard anything that night, not much help.

Since I was outside by coincidence, not questioned at my home, I would be inclined to answer the general question as "no". That 66% of voters have chosen "yes" implies to me that this forum contains a number of paranoid (or if "they ARE out to get me", merely cautious) members.

Tim

Sauron - 7-12-2007 at 05:54

As you were not the only person questioned, just one of several neighbors, there is no reason at all to regard yourself as a suspect. You were just a potential witness.

urbs - 7-12-2007 at 07:25

I have been reading this thread with quite some interest (not that many other threads are not interesting) since I am an attorney who has been in practice for some 20 years, and a good portion of my week is spent in criminal defense. I also spent about 2 years as a prosecutor so I have worked both sides of the fence.
From my perspective, Sauron is right on the mark. In criminal prosecution, the burden born by the state is not to be trivialized. The state must prove each element to a very high degree of certainty, and a reasonable doubt is not that hard to create if there is a bit of room to wiggle.
As far as whether criminals deserve prison or not, it has been my experience that prison (as opposed to county jail) is generally a last resort, having exhausted probation, intensive probation, drug courts, or other means, and is usually for serious offenses or repeat offenders. Of course, these remarks should be considered in the context of a state prosecution rather than a federal prosecution where formerly the federal sentencing guidelines applied. Those guidelines were ruled unconstitutional in about 50 federal district courts before a case finally made it to the Supreme Court who agreed.
Generally I feel that "criminals" fit into about 4 different broad catagories:
1. good normal people that do something stupid.
2. Stupid people that act in accordance with their nature.
3. people who by virtue of drug addiction or another disability, do something out of step with the rest of society.
4. sick bastards who are truly evil and see the rest of us as their playthings.
Out of the four possibilities, only the last category deserves to rot in prison suffering rape and sodomy.

Sauron - 7-12-2007 at 07:39

Or inflicint rape and sodomy.

Thanks, urbs, for the kind words.

Phosphor-ing - 7-12-2007 at 09:16

I do not think you are a suspect, unless the path of the bullet is inline with your house. If it is not, there is no reason you should consider yourself anything more than just a potential witness as Sauron stated earlier in the thread.

Rosco Bodine - 7-12-2007 at 09:18

With regards to an attack by an unknown armed perpetrator upon a mailbox

, well that is a federal matter where postal inspectors get involved . They
are sort of like US Marshals or secret service , their
jurisdiction is everywhere , and they are good at catching the perpetrator of any crime involving mail . Neither rain nor snow nor dark of night will stay them from their appointed rounds busting lowlife scumbags

With regards to urbs four offender categories ,
there absolutely are some offenders that are four for four
on that score , and that's where internal affairs has to earn their pay

Edward Elric - 7-12-2007 at 14:32

Quote:

Originally posted by chemrox
Never answer questions from policemen unless they are, "where is the nearest donut shop?" or "when did you shoot your wife?"

Wrong, the second one could be considered a paradoxical question by the innocent. In any regard, take a Confucianist approach with a bit of sophistry.

MagicJigPipe - 7-12-2007 at 15:07

Oh no! A bullet lodged in a mailbox! Call the national guard! Upgrade to DEFCON 1! Evacuate all major cities! Stock up on canned food! THERE IS A BULLET LODGED IN A MAILBOX! I think this is an overreaction. Probably just some drunken redneck shooting off his .38 special at signs/mailboxes out of his Tahoe's window.

12AX7 - 7-12-2007 at 15:19

Nah, we're not in redneck territory. There is some drug activity here, though I wouldn't expect to see it in this area. Usually, drug / gang violence occurs in the north and west areas (why is it always the "west sayeede"?).

Tim

MagicJigPipe - 7-12-2007 at 16:06

HAHAHAHA!! Oh well, I wouldn't be concerned about it if I were you anyway. In fact, I would be more weary of the police. At least the "gangbangers" usually go after their own people. That's just me though. I'm always distrustful of the police because of my past experiences.

The_Davster - 7-12-2007 at 17:06

You are fine as long as your raking picked up the empty brass

In all seriousness, you are fine.

[Edited on 7-12-2007 by The_Davster]

Pig Questions

JohnWW - 7-12-2007 at 17:59

I agree with Markgollum.

Far too many poor inmates end up in jail as the result of being framed by corrupt Pigs desperate to obtain promotion (or else by Pigs who solicited bribes which they could not pay), either for alleged offenses they did not commit, or for much more serious offenses than what they really did commit. And this is also as the result, especially in the U$A, of harsher and harsher sentences being passed into law by corrupt politicians for cheap vote-catching purposes (which effectively makes many inmates "political prisoners"), even for simple possession of drugs for personal use (which is the largest category of jail sentences in the U$A), and because (especially in the U$A) they have been bribed by the jail construction firms, security firms, and electronics and clothing manufacturers. The latter people stand to gain from there being large jail populations, either from building and running the jails and ancilliary services such as prisoner transport, or from exploitation of cheap prison labor (which also serves to undercut union-negotiated fair wages on the outside).

And on top of that, there are the "extraordinary rendition" detainees and accused "terrorism" detainees, in Guantánamo Bay, secret CIA jails in foreign countries, and military lockups within the U$A, who are being held without charge or trial for purely political reasons, just on Bu$h's say-so, being denied either a fair trial as required by the U$ Constitution, or else prisoner-of-war status and the special internationally-supervised rights (e.g. Red Cross visits and assistance) that go with that.

If Urbs is really an U$ attorney who has been practising criminal law for some 20 years, he must surely know by now what I am talking about. The whole legislative, law-enforcement, prosecution, Court/judicial, and prison system, in nearly all countries but by far the most so in the U$A (which has by far the highest per capita rate of imprisonment in the world, in spite of employing 70% of the world's lawyers to serve only 5% of the world's population), is ROTTEN TO THE CORE WITH CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY! This, plus the astronomical and accelerating gap between rich and poor (also entrenched by the system), is why I predict REVOLUTION, led by armed militia and a horde of destitute homeless, and supported by mutinous local cops and military personnel who will turn on their commanders, will break out in the U$A within 5 years, and probably sooner rather than later, no matter who is in power.

[Edited on 13-12-07 by JohnWW]

12AX7 - 7-12-2007 at 18:20

John,

You're about 40 years behind the times. We called those times the 70's.

Tim

JohnWW - 7-12-2007 at 18:38

12AX7, - On what planet have YOU been for the last 40 years, then? I remember the '70s, alright, but I wonder if you were even around then.

Sauron - 7-12-2007 at 21:05

I would have dated your attitudes from the 60s, John, not the 70s.

More of an SDS, Abbie Hoffmann, Chicago 7, Angela Davis sort of riff. Burn, whitey, burn!, Down with the Pigs!

That's you.

By the way there are at least two former law enforcement officers on this forum, and while I can only speak for one of them, I am quite sure that both are less than thrilled about your concistent use of "pig" in this context. You don't like cops, I could give a damn. But kindly keep your expletives to yourself.

Enough with the farcical anachronistic far left dialectical assault on the United States. You are a kiwi and know NOTHING of the United States. What threadbare left wing rag do you get your opinions out of? The Bolshies or the Troskyites? Wake up and smell the borscht, tovarich. Communism is DEAD. And if you want a serious exemplar or real corruption, go have a look at the former Soviet Union. Remember "We will bury you"? Well, we buried THEM.

[Edited on 8-12-2007 by Sauron]

urbs - 7-12-2007 at 22:05

Hmmm, I generally have a great deal of respect for those who are Kiwis, and, and always considered it rather enlightened country, albeit with it's own brand of rebelliousness and self reliance. I may have to re-think that.

Indeed, I am what I stated, and am in the middle of the USA. I know that there are many things done by both Federal and State officials which make the news and are less than exemplary, but in my own two decades, I have had the good fortune to become acquainted with quite a number of law enforcement, lawyers, judges, and others who are doing a pretty thankless job every day and are being spit upon by narrow minded shit who haven't done an honest day's work in their entire miserable existence.

I do not intend to flame or point fingers, but to cast such a broad net that you catch people who try to do what is right and honest; who attempt to make a positive difference in the small area of the planet that they inhabit, and clothe them them in the guise of "pig" or "corrupt" does not indicate any particular insight into who the individuals are.

Frankly, feel that people are filthy, rotten and mean to the core;

A person can be delightful, articulate, insightful, and generous;

...unless you are a kiwi.

[Edited on 8-12-2007 by urbs]

Sauron - 7-12-2007 at 22:31

Nothing wrong with kiwis, I know many of them JohnWW I am happy to say is rather atypical in his vitriolic denunciation of the US.

The only New Zealand former police officer I know personally is a bar owner in Cambodia who is now in prison there for paedophilia. Those charges are probably false. On the other hand he was tossed off the Willington PD where he was an auto-theft detective. Why? He was running an auto-theft ring at the same time.

His name is Graham Cleghorn. In case anyone wants to check out this anecdote.

I do not extrapolate Graham's character or behavior to all New Zealand police officers or indeed kiwis in general. One rotten apple does not require setting the torch to a whole orchard.

Rosco Bodine - 7-12-2007 at 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I would have dated your attitudes from the 60s, John, not the 70s.
[Edited on 8-12-2007 by Sauron]

Me too , the sixties was a time when a whole lot of people
got wise to a whole lot of things , started figuring things out

It was enlightenment that came with tear gas and split heads and dead bodies on college campuses ,
a state that declared it was playing hardball to a generation
who said great , that's our favorite game... so bring it on !

But then there's no need to get hysterical about
the realization that probably all government that
lasts for any length of time , starts devolving into
a sort of organized crime all its very own .
What happened to the silver certificates that used to be a dollar in the years since then and now , when one of those
makes fifteen of the dollars we have now ? Did wages
go up to cover the government counterfeiting ? Or did it just come out of the working mans ass?

And second only to the military industrial complex ,
is the "justice system" which seems curiously
preoccupied with throwing more American citizens
in jail with every new law it can pass and enforce ,
while at the same time curiously failing to enforce
the already decades old laws which has led to a
*resident population* of 13 million illegal aliens ,
who will gladly take the jobs vacated by citizens
thrown into jail . Most of the citizens are in jail on drug
charges and where do most of the drugs come from ,
across the same unsecured border as the illegals ,
but who gets locked up for it ? Isn't there something
way way wrong with that picture ?

As for lawyers and judges having thankless jobs ,
or law enforcement officers either , well their paychecks
certainly cover that thank you just fine especially
given the job they do . Every time I hear "press 1 for English" or see these illegals 10 at a time riding in
one van or pickup travelling our roads like tourists ,
while chain gangs of citizens work along the same
roadsides , it pisses me off in a way no words
can adequately describe , while looking forward
to the day when I will gladly speak another language
that needs no words for being past words with what I
have to say.

DerAlte - 8-12-2007 at 00:45

Sorry I can’t resist adding my 1.7 cents worth (taking into account dollar devaluation which costs my income dearly, but that’s another rant!).

First, on topic, 12AX7 said:

Quote:

That 66% of voters have chosen "yes" implies to me that this forum contains a number of paranoid (or if "they ARE out to get me", merely cautious) members.

Paranoia is rife, 12AX7. Youbetcha! And yes, you were absolutely right, and it is refreshing to realize that you are, considering your age. The media hype and other PC crapola has not affected your judgment.

Urbs said:

Quote:

(1)good normal people that do something stupid.
2. Stupid people that act in accordance with their nature.
3. people who by virtue of drug addiction or another disability, do something out of step with the rest of society.
4. sick bastards who are truly evil and see the rest of us as their playthings

Absolutely! I do not too often agree with lawyers, but here’s one who can see the wood for the trees.

For sheer paranoia and irrational hatred of the US and all who sail in her, plus oozing PC and liberal crapola rarely seen on this forum, try JohnWW:

Quote:

Far too many poor inmates end up in jail as the result of being framed by corrupt Pigs desperate to obtain promotion (or else by Pigs who solicited bribes which they could not pay), either for alleged offenses they did not commit, or for much more serious offenses than what they really did commit. And this is also as the result, especially in the U$A, plus another large load of crapola

Ever been in the USA, JohnWW? If so, were you busted for something? Smoked a joint, did you? Sniffed some coke in an unsafe location? Or are you just basing your obvious hatred on envy (a common fault among foreigners) or some misguided actions by the US such as unnecessary (I’d agree) foreign wars? Well, I wasn’t born here, I opted for this land and it has treated me well. I certainly don’t agree with all policies our governments have put in place since I first came here some 43 years ago, but I can live with it.

Isolated as you must be in Kiwiland, I wish you well in your socialist paradise. What I was escaping (I thought) those 43 years ago was galloping, rampant socialism (including the watered down version offered by the Conservatives). In the main, I achieved that.

To JohnWW’s rant, we got the following replies:

From 12AX7:

Quote:

John,You're about 40 years behind the times. We called those times the 70's

But Sauron is right:

Quote:

I would have dated your attitudes from the 60s, John, not the 70s

…but good try, 12AX7. You rise in my estimation daily!

I was in San Francisco in the 60’s. The last of the hippies were still there. A slightly deluded bunch, putting it mildly. But in general fairly innocuous – they really did believe in make love not war – through an LSD haze, of course. Since LSD is not addictive, if they were not tempted to try the opiates, narcotics, etc. and did not suffer psychological damage, they broke away and became useful citizens.

The real drug problem to society is not addiction per se, but the resultant organized crime and the not always petty crime indulged in by those addicts. The street price follows the laws of economics, i.e. whatever the traffic will bear. By making the drugs illegal, the government encourages this. Remember prohibition? Even I’m too young to be in that era but it spawned a thriving industry. And made the US the laughing stock of the civilized world… To say nothing of destroying the rising industry of excellent wine making in California, which took years to recoup.

Now Sauron really had me confused when he mentioned Mopery! It must be one of those English words that crossed the Atlantic and got lost back home (like 'honey' and a few others.) I had to look it up and I thought I was exceptional in the English language (I used Wiki, occasionally (88+%) right):

Mopery is a vague and obscure legal term, used in certain jurisdictions to mean "walking down the street with no clear destination or purpose". Like loitering and vagrancy laws, it is sometimes used by law enforcement to detain individuals seen as "unsavory", as the police believe they have prevented them from committing a clearer or more dangerous crime. (Wiki)
… just in case it confused you, too.

Magic-Jig had:

Quote:

Mandatory minimum sentencing is wrong and I think it would benefit society more if drug addicts were "helped" rather than being thrown in jail only to become a real criminals

I agree, but how? A dedicated addict becomes a criminal regardless, almost in spite of himself. Through sheer desperation and need. And, as such, is marred for life. If you have any sensible ideas as to how, run for office. Many would support you.

Quote:

(2)In fact, I would be more weary of the police

Weary? Had a few problems? Sorry, couldn’t resist. Typo, I hope!

And from our old friend Rosco:

Quote:

Personally I don't believe in the punitive or correctional value of locking up a human being to rot in a cage for years , when the humane thing to do with those who really can't be let out , is to put a bullet through their head

Absolutely. Incarceration for life is the worst type of cruel and unusual punishment. There is a current stay of execution in Florida due to a case where the current mode of execution is being so contested. Lethal injection using, I believe, a barbiturate to induce unconsciousness and some agent such as KCl to arrest the heart. This may be unusual but hardly ‘cruel’, if done properly. Perhaps the perpetrator should be offered hanging, or maybe we still have a few electric chairs available, and a bullet, as Rosco said, if aimed well (maybe a salvo) also does the trick.

Nevertheless, Rosco seems a bit confused on other topics, he almost ranted about pigs elsewhere. How do we catch our murderers without the pigs, Rosco? Vigilante? Back to the days of the Old South and West?

It's a question of law inforcement re illegals, Rosco. The laws are there and not applied. Remember, however, that under current law Puerto Ricans are legal, and many are from that country where we live. In this burgh and many in this state the gabble of poor Spanish is annoying, almost as bad as idiots with cell phones.. The Feds and the state should not encourage the use of any language but English. They do so by erecting notices in that language and encouraging applications for welfare in Espanol. C'est la vie! The world is so damned PC today....

And finally, urbs again:

Quote:

I have had the good fortune to become acquainted with quite a number of law enforcement, lawyers, judges, and others who are doing a pretty thankless job every day and are being spit upon by narrow minded shit who haven't done an honest day's work in their entire miserable existence

My regard for lawyers notched higher. And yes, I am damned sure all Kiwis are not as biased as JohnWW. We have several others here in the forum.

Regards, Der Alte

Rosco Bodine - 8-12-2007 at 01:09

You've not found me in some Orwellian trance ,
talking about cops as "pigs" or even referring to women
as "chicks" for that matter ...I'm no cop hater per se ,
even have a couple of the federal variety in the family .
Hell my cousin is a federal bank examiner , and here I am
talking about the debacle with the dollar like it's any mystery the nature of such things .
But I don't have any respect for the continually and
profligately corrupt who make the pretense of having any moral authority , much less any fitness to lord things
over me , in their illusion clueless they have met their better

It makes me want to introduce myself ,
walking tall , with an axehandle in my hand , clearing
the legislature , like Jesus running off the moneychangers
at the temple

Hey sheriff , yeah you fatso , there's a new sheriff in town

Sauron - 8-12-2007 at 04:08

DerAlte is as always a tough act to follow.

Kudoes, old man!

Jadebug - 10-12-2007 at 19:52

Um....did anyone mention the fact that a police officer has to have your permission to talk to you in the first place. Just say no....to cops. Just a thought. Forgive me for trying to avoid a situation alltogether.

DerAlte - 10-12-2007 at 20:03

Is that a fact? Nobody has to ask permission to talk to anyone. Yo' askin' fo' trouble, Boy! If he's polite, he might say "could I ask you a few questions, sir/madam?" but he must talk to you in the first place, must he not? IF your answer to his polite question is no, he may give the bum's rush right into the luxurious back of his cruiser...

Der Alte

12AX7 - 10-12-2007 at 22:44

If I wanted to get defensive, I'm sure that's my right. Actually in this case, I was curious and had half a mind to go over and ask.

Tim

Rosco Bodine - 11-12-2007 at 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DerAlte
Is that a fact? Nobody has to ask permission to talk to anyone.

A lot depends on who initiates contact and
under what circumstances .

Yes with some qualification , it *is* a fact .
Generally for a cop to even stop and talk to you
acting in an official capacity , there has to be
one of several legally defined good reasons ,
not just idle curiosity or "fishing" . It is *never* "routine"
in terms of being guaranteed to be inconsequential
for you , therefore there are restrictions which apply .
There is no legal difference between a "talk"
and an "interview" and an *interrogation* ,
past the point where the *first* question leaves the
mouth of the police officer . They can ask for name , identification , and have other authority that is
limited and defined for certain situations , and beyond
that Miranda v. Arizona becomes operative , along
with a long list of similar bill of rights related , supreme
law of the land kinds of restrictions on what is proper
police procedure , versus what is abuse of authority
and a violation of constitutional rights , both felonies
themselves . Different rules apply to different situations
but there are well defined scenarios depending upon where the contact occurs , on your own property being the place where police authority is generally most restricted .

Quote:

Yo' askin' fo' trouble, Boy! If he's polite, he might say "could I ask you a few questions, sir/madam?" but he must talk to you in the first place, must he not? IF your answer to his polite question is no, he may give the bum's rush right into the luxurious back of his cruiser...

Der Alte

Polite *begins* with a showing of proper identification including badge and a handing of a business card is good also , while concisely stating the nature of the business .
So many of them skip right past that and try to get right to business with people who don't know them from Adam , and that creates problems right from the start especially with
non-uniformed investigators . There's a right way and wrong way of going about such business .

In most situations it is not a crime not to talk to a police officer . Exceptions do exist , like if the police are chasing
a fugitive and observe that fugitive entering your property
and speaking to you , then you could be charged with obstruction for refusing to speak with them about it .

And out on the road , there is something called
"Terry stop" provisions which are guidelines for what
police may do .

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_stops.html

But if there is no *legitimate* probable cause for an arrest , then the civil liability is about 1.2 million dollars damages for that "mistake" , or for other violations of
rights which may occur even in connection with an
arrest where there *is* probable cause . That part of
the oath that involves "supporting and defending the constitution" is *not* a trivial matter . If the constitution
is an impediment to what the police are trying to do ,
almost without exception they are absolutely not doing the right thing . The few exceptions involve split second life and death situations and emergencies where such protocols
become insignificant because there is no time for them .

Otherwise they are expected to act professionally and
do things "by the book" . Part of the problem is that
some police training manuals seem to regard the constitution
as if it was some abstract foreign policy matter , instead
of their first loyalty . A lot of cops pretend the second , fourth,
fifth, and fourteenth amendments just don't exist since those things can make their jobs more difficult .
State and local agencies are worst about running roughshod over the constitution and do so routinely , considering themselves personally to be "the law"
instead of all that complicated legalese stuff that is written in the actual statutes , leaving the "perp" to "tell it to the judge" .

Not ever knowing whether the cop you may be talking to
is professional and honorable , or is one of the ego motivated tricksters , it isn't any wonder that people have
adopted a position of not being conversational with police
unless their lawyer is right there at the party to chaperone .

[Edited on 11-12-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

urbs - 11-12-2007 at 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DerAlte

Absolutely! I do not too often agree with lawyers, but here’s one who can see the wood for the trees.

I will consider that a high compliment. In point of fact, I am of the opinion that many attorneys whose sole raison de'etre is for lining their pockets should be horse whipped. I come from a family with 7 attorneys and 3 judges who are all within a first cousin's relationship to me. Growing up, it was reinforced that the reason that you do this is so that you can help people. They bring you their worst problem and then it is yours. Hopefully you can help them through it.

I suppose that living in a rural area with a relatively sparse population helps too.

Quote:

The real drug problem to society is not addiction per se, but the resultant organized crime and the not always petty crime indulged in by those addicts.

We have our problems with drugs too. I am not completely sure I agree after having seen the teeth on some of the meth freaks and the sores from picking at their skin, that and the fact that they generally are at best minimally productive members of society.

Quote:

Mandatory minimum sentencing is wrong and I think it would benefit society more if drug addicts were "helped" rather than being thrown in jail only to become a real criminals

Quote:

I agree, but how? A dedicated addict becomes a criminal regardless, almost in spite of himself. Through sheer desperation and need. And, as such, is marred for life.

That and the amazing societal burden of the "helping" . There are some programs that attempt this; the increase in drug courts, probation, government subsidized treatment programs, etc., but these are rarely successful. With a bit of thought, I could probably name the people that I have defended that actually managed to quit using (insert drug of choice) and got straightened out. (I'm talking here of the real junkies/alcoholics, not the high school kid with a joint)...... I am that proud of them.

How many times do you send that 28 year old meth addict to treatment? What do you do about him beating his old lady and neglecting his kids in the meantime? I am all for rehabilitation, and if it looks like there might be a chance that we can make a positive change, I can talk the judge and county prosecutor into it every time. Do you know how frustrating it is to defend/prosecute/sentence the same person time after time for the same stupid shit? Sometimes I just want to slap the shit out of them and tell them to grow the hell up. (actually I did yell at one of them using about that same phrase) "Do you know how many times most people get charged with assault? None! Most of the people out there don't even know where the f_____ing courtroom is" "Grow the hell up!" Kinda lost my cool in the hall outside the courtroom.

Quote:

The Feds and the state should not encourage the use of any language but English. They do so by erecting notices in that language and encouraging applications for welfare in Espanol. C'est la vie! The world is so damned PC today....

Agreed. A town 30 miles from here has officially become over 50% Hispanic, many of whom are not able to speak English. This has caused some of us to make some corrections such as interpreters, and the incidence of some types of crimes has increased, but for the most part, the individuals are pretty good folk, they have jobs, are VERY family oriented, and they pay their lawyer, usually in cash. More than I can say for some of the "po' white trash" around here. All of these comments should be taken to refer to the older Hispanics only, however, since they are typically first generation immigrants. The children of these folk speak excellent English, are generally good students, and are capitalists in the best sense of the word. My own ancestors were Irish, German and Swedish, who were all considered low life scum during that time period when they came to the US. In time, the melting pot amalgamated them all, the differences disappeared, and now they are just Americans.

Quote:

My regard for lawyers notched higher.

Again, thank you, not all of us are a Henny Youngman cliche'.

[Edited on 11-12-2007 by urbs]

Sauron - 11-12-2007 at 21:38

Take my lawyer. Please!

Rosco Bodine - 11-12-2007 at 23:01

You have seen those old steam locomotives that have
a plow shaped gadget on the front called a cow catcher .
A similar fixture is engineered into the diamond plate step bumper on the back of EMT paramedic vehicles , for deflecting the frequent high speed rear end collisions inflicted by personal injury attorneys in hot pursuit

markgollum - 30-12-2007 at 17:06

I am not filled with the vitriol That JohnWW is.
I don’t agree with John on many things, but I agree with him on some things.
The treatment of the detainees in Abu Graib, Guantánamo Bay, etc is abhorrent to me, holding someone without charges or a public trial for protracted periods of time is un justifiable.
But, in the proper context I don’t have a problem with doing terrible things to someone to save an others life. Let me lay out a scenario, you catch a serial killer suspected of kidnaping two people you go to his basement with a warrant and find one of the victims chained up and the personal items from the other missing person. The person found in the basement confirms the other victim was also there and the “suspect” claims that the other victim is chained up somewhere dying of thirst and exposure but he refuses to tell you where. In this case, there really is no amount of suffering that you could put the suspect through over the next 3-5 days, with the goal of rescuing the second victim, that I would find objectionable. It is understood that this would only be done if there was no other good way to find the victim within a short time.

The treatment of suspected “terrorist” detainees as occurred in Abu Graib etc is not an example of this because apparently it was known that something like 80% of the “detainees” did not posses meaningful intel. Also in my opinion in order to do something terrible to someone you need to show the following:

1) The intel he posses is essentially inextricably linked to directly saving someone’s life/preventing a murderous event.

2) The accountability, knowledge, and discretion of the interrogator. It is unacceptable for the interrogator to be wrong about (1).

I realize that in the real world the conditions will rarely ever be met but the intention is to prevent torture from running rampant as it tends to do once you “let the genie out of the bottle”.

I don’t agree that there are many people that have been imprisoned that don’t belong there, either because they have been framed by a cop or otherwise. I think many deserve much worse, but the rape, intimidation, etc that occurs in prison is also unacceptable. I think that prisons should be designed so that there is nowhere that anyone (including the guards) can go without being videotaped (the video would be recorded in a mainframe, operators only watch trouble areas) so that when a rape allegation arises the appropriate tapes are viewed and the rapist who has no means to conceal his identity is frog marched out into the courtyard to receive “two in the head”.
(of course if it doesn’t look like rape for sure, a better investigation is warranted).

And I don’t think that you can bribe a cop in North America with any real degree of success. But I do think that many selectively enforce the law and quite a few abuse their power and position to abuse civilians for a variety of reasons. And they defiantly will lie on the stand in a court of law to defend themselves or a fellow officer.

I definitely disagree with the idea that the USA or any western country will fall in the next few years it’s a waste of time for me to explain why.(sorry John, I hope you don’t take this badly)

chloric1 - 30-12-2007 at 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnWW
This, plus the astronomical and accelerating gap between rich and poor (also entrenched by the system), is why I predict REVOLUTION, led by armed militia and a horde of destitute homeless, and supported by mutinous local cops and military personnel who will turn on their commanders, will break out in the U$A within 5 years, and probably sooner rather than later, no matter who is in power.

[Edited on 13-12-07 by JohnWW]

I agree with JohnWW. The number of homeless has increased to a level I feel is unprecedented. WHen I grew up in my midwestern city you pretty much had to go downtown to find them, now they roam residential areas! Costs are going up rapidly but wages have been stagnant for nearly ten years. I have since given up on obtaining upward mobility with a traditional job per se. Working conditions are rapidly tanking and anyone with the vision definately should be looking for more enterprising solutions. The Revolution John speaks of might actually has a reallity that turns my stomach. If you think about it, The elite that control everything would be the only true beneficiaries. With this ensuing chaos, marshall law will be enacted and a police state will be in full effect.

This is all gruesomely grim and I am more than ready to entertain the idea I am incorrect. So please markgallop please explain what is wrong with my thinking.

[Edited on 12/30/2007 by chloric1]

[Edited on 12/30/2007 by chloric1]

Sauron - 30-12-2007 at 22:56

[Pointless bile deleted]

[Edited on 31-12-2007 by I am a fish]

JohnWW - 31-12-2007 at 00:24

Thanks, Chloric1. You have shown that I have a lot of support on this forum, despite what Sauron thinks.

Although this is getting away from the subject of this thread (Pig Questions), I foresee major economic collapse in the U$A by late 2008, no matter how much the Federal Re$erve (which BTW is neither Federal nor a Reserve) tries to stave it off by interest-rate cuts (which will in any case lead to collapse in value of the U$ dollar, and hyperinflation as prices of imports, including of many chemicals, spiral as the result). It is this - the "final straw the breaks the camel's back" - that will spark the violent revolution, due to many essential commodities becoming unaffordable, most likely in 2009 and much of 2010 (when I expect some pretty ugly things to happen, with about the middle of 2010 being especially hard economically).

[Edited on 1-1-08 by JohnWW]

chloric1 - 31-12-2007 at 03:26

@John-Exactly what I have been deaing with these last couple months. Don't forget rumors of plans to assassinate presidential candidate Ron Paul. This is also a hot button issue. Just remember all economic crashed are stage by the establishment along with most "supposed" enemy attacks.

@Sauron- Unfortunately I wish it was so simple that we could blame everything on the liberals but this is a bipartisan conspiracy I am afraid. It is easy to run with blinders when your path looks clear.

[Edited on 12/31/2007 by chloric1]

Sauron - 31-12-2007 at 04:39

[More pointless bile deleted]

[Edited on 31-12-2007 by I am a fish]

Please keep to the topic

I am a fish - 31-12-2007 at 06:20

Yet again, a chemistry related topic has degenerated into political bickering. Please keep to the original topic.

Sauron: Try to be civil.

Phosphor-ing - 31-12-2007 at 06:37

What do these end of the world conspiracy theories have to do with this thread? How do we get from, am I a suspect to THE SKY IS FALLING!?

12AX7 - 31-12-2007 at 09:30

Censorship. Why are Sauron's posts edited, but not chloric1 or JohnWW?

Lock it and save your favoritism, Fish.

Sauron - 31-12-2007 at 09:50

This topic was never chemistry related. This topic was "Hey, a postman found a bullet lodged in a letterbox across the street from my house and the cops talked to me."

Just what the fuck does that have to do with chemistry?

And as offtopic as this thread is, it is pure mainstream compared to the radical revolutionary garbage being put out over and over again by JohnWW, and now cheered on by another.

That claptrap has no place in this thread, this fforum or this board IMO.

JohnWW, go find a leftie forum somewhere to peddle your worn out marxism to.

[Edited on 1-1-2008 by Sauron]

I am a fish - 31-12-2007 at 10:42

The initial post involved the possibility of amateur chemistry attracting police attention. Therefore, it was a perfectly valid topic for the Legal and Societal Issues sub-forum.
I was not taking sides. In fact, I broadly agree with Sauron's point of view. The problem arises with his way of expressing it. The blanked-out posts did not contain opinion; they were just insults.
The thread has now degenerated beyond all hope. Therefore I am closing it.

[Edited on 31-12-2007 by I am a fish]