Seriously, F the Police

TheBodyGuard · July 28, 2011, 3:24am

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

I did read that. Cops are given the right to investigate suspicious activity. If they see a glass pipe and a bag of green stuff in a locked car for example, they can bust a window, confirm pot and make an arrest. If they see a potentially drunk driver they can investigate.

If, on the other hand, they see a car with no visible suspicious evidence but want to search it any ways, they have to get a warrant. This of course leaves a lot of grey area for a cop to use personal judgement but that is the nature of the human beast, which must be regulated.
[/quote]

You’re wrong. Where do you get your information. You need PROBABLE CAUSE for a search warrant. Please tell me you’re trolling. You cannot possibly be this ill-informed yet at the same time offering opinions that are completely wrong.

BlakeAJackson · July 28, 2011, 4:34am

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Because they actually don’t list all the ethnicities. Did you actually read the post where they jumped to Asians at 3.6 percent?

And… ALSO they do not state population anywhere in their statistics.
I am going to keep with my interpretation which makes more sense as they only purport to be addressing ACTUAL DRUG USERS.

And regarding the tables… did you notice they actually noted that it was the population?

I could be wrong but did you see this part?
During FY 2007, there were 25,457 Federal defendants charged with a drug offense whose race was reported to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Approximately one quarter (24.3%) of these defendants were white, 29.5% were black, and 42.7% were Hispanic. Individuals of another race made up 3.5% of these drug cases. Hispanic defendants were sentenced for the majority of powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana cases. White defendants were sentenced for the majority of methamphetamine cases and blacks were sentenced for the majority of crack cocaine offenses.11

It look like the the only folks with a shining halo are Asians.

[/quote]

Check the citation for that survey, then look at the survey. I think we are over-complicating this. The key term is “rate of use,” which implies percentage of a given population using drugs. If you look at the rest of the survey, it’s all about rates of drug/alcohol use broken down by gender age groups, etc. Nowhere in the actual survey does it imply that they have broken down the arrested population on racial lines. Here’s a link directly to the survey:

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#7.1.4[/quote]

No… you are inferring that they mean the population. It does not state as such in the previously posted link and now you are posting a brand new link.
And your own link SAYS it is only regarding those drug users

This report presents the first information from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older. [u]The survey interviews approximately 67,500 persons [/u]each year. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons in this report described using terms such as “increased,” “decreased,” or “more than” are statistically significant at the .05 level.

Soooo yah… not related to population.
And shame on you, that was in the very beginning of your link.
[/quote]
Noninstitutionalized means no in jail to me.

HeavyTriple · July 28, 2011, 5:07am

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Because they actually don’t list all the ethnicities. Did you actually read the post where they jumped to Asians at 3.6 percent?

And… ALSO they do not state population anywhere in their statistics.
I am going to keep with my interpretation which makes more sense as they only purport to be addressing ACTUAL DRUG USERS.

And regarding the tables… did you notice they actually noted that it was the population?

I could be wrong but did you see this part?
During FY 2007, there were 25,457 Federal defendants charged with a drug offense whose race was reported to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Approximately one quarter (24.3%) of these defendants were white, 29.5% were black, and 42.7% were Hispanic. Individuals of another race made up 3.5% of these drug cases. Hispanic defendants were sentenced for the majority of powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana cases. White defendants were sentenced for the majority of methamphetamine cases and blacks were sentenced for the majority of crack cocaine offenses.11

It look like the the only folks with a shining halo are Asians.

[/quote]

Check the citation for that survey, then look at the survey. I think we are over-complicating this. The key term is “rate of use,” which implies percentage of a given population using drugs. If you look at the rest of the survey, it’s all about rates of drug/alcohol use broken down by gender age groups, etc. Nowhere in the actual survey does it imply that they have broken down the arrested population on racial lines. Here’s a link directly to the survey:

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#7.1.4[/quote]

No… you are inferring that they mean the population. It does not state as such in the previously posted link and now you are posting a brand new link.
And your own link SAYS it is only regarding those drug users

This report presents the first information from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older. [u]The survey interviews approximately 67,500 persons [/u]each year. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons in this report described using terms such as “increased,” “decreased,” or “more than” are statistically significant at the .05 level.

Soooo yah… not related to population.
And shame on you, that was in the very beginning of your link.
[/quote]
Noninstitutionalized means no in jail to me. [/quote]

Yea I’m not following her. It seems pretty clear that it was a survey of the general population, but she’s hanging on pretty stubbornly.

And shame on me? Lulz.

OctoberGirl · July 28, 2011, 5:15am

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Because they actually don’t list all the ethnicities. Did you actually read the post where they jumped to Asians at 3.6 percent?

And… ALSO they do not state population anywhere in their statistics.
I am going to keep with my interpretation which makes more sense as they only purport to be addressing ACTUAL DRUG USERS.

And regarding the tables… did you notice they actually noted that it was the population?

I could be wrong but did you see this part?
During FY 2007, there were 25,457 Federal defendants charged with a drug offense whose race was reported to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Approximately one quarter (24.3%) of these defendants were white, 29.5% were black, and 42.7% were Hispanic. Individuals of another race made up 3.5% of these drug cases. Hispanic defendants were sentenced for the majority of powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana cases. White defendants were sentenced for the majority of methamphetamine cases and blacks were sentenced for the majority of crack cocaine offenses.11

It look like the the only folks with a shining halo are Asians.

[/quote]

Check the citation for that survey, then look at the survey. I think we are over-complicating this. The key term is “rate of use,” which implies percentage of a given population using drugs. If you look at the rest of the survey, it’s all about rates of drug/alcohol use broken down by gender age groups, etc. Nowhere in the actual survey does it imply that they have broken down the arrested population on racial lines. Here’s a link directly to the survey:

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#7.1.4[/quote]

No… you are inferring that they mean the population. It does not state as such in the previously posted link and now you are posting a brand new link.
And your own link SAYS it is only regarding those drug users

This report presents the first information from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older. [u]The survey interviews approximately 67,500 persons [/u]each year. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons in this report described using terms such as “increased,” “decreased,” or “more than” are statistically significant at the .05 level.

Soooo yah… not related to population.
And shame on you, that was in the very beginning of your link.
[/quote]
Noninstitutionalized means no in jail to me. [/quote]

Yea I’m not following her. It seems pretty clear that it was a survey of the general population, but she’s hanging on pretty stubbornly.

And shame on me? Lulz.[/quote]

shame on you to IGNORE the statistics posted in YOUR LINK

=)

DeterminedNate · July 28, 2011, 5:32am

I’ve also been pulled over after leaving a restaurant for absolutely no reason at all. And it was 8pm. The cop’s reason was that I had tinted windows. I called him on his shit, and dude didn’t have the BALLS to give me the ticket.

Come to think of it, I’m surprised I didn’t catch a nightstick to the kidneys, and a good ole’ fashioned side of the road beat down.

Fuck the police!

HeavyTriple · July 28, 2011, 5:37am

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

shame on you to IGNORE the statistics posted in YOUR LINK

=)

[/quote]

Which indicate that this was not a survey of people arrested for illicit drug use (your position as I understand it), but rather a random sample reflective of the population at large (my position)? I don’t see what you’re arguing.

Assuming it’s representative, that survey suggests that x percentage of whites, blacks and so forth participate in the use of illegal drugs. Which brings us all the way back to the original point, namely that statistically there are many more white drug-users than any other ethnicity.

OctoberGirl · July 28, 2011, 5:42am

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

shame on you to IGNORE the statistics posted in YOUR LINK

=)

[/quote]

Which indicate that this was not a survey of people arrested for illicit drug use (your position as I understand it), but rather a random sample reflective of the population at large (my position)? I don’t see what you’re arguing. Assuming it’s representative, that survey suggests that x percentage of whites, blacks and so forth participate in the use of illegal drugs. Which brings us all the way back to the original point, namely that statistically there are many more white drug-users than any other ethnicity.[/quote]

Could you not try and back track? You were all up in the whole white people population thing.
You also just demonstrated the worst case of understanding the drugs and users.

But hey… whatever you need to do to make you feel okay with you.

HeavyTriple · July 28, 2011, 5:51am

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

shame on you to IGNORE the statistics posted in YOUR LINK

=)

[/quote]

Which indicate that this was not a survey of people arrested for illicit drug use (your position as I understand it), but rather a random sample reflective of the population at large (my position)? I don’t see what you’re arguing. Assuming it’s representative, that survey suggests that x percentage of whites, blacks and so forth participate in the use of illegal drugs. Which brings us all the way back to the original point, namely that statistically there are many more white drug-users than any other ethnicity.[/quote]

Could you not try and back track? You were all up in the whole white people population thing.
You also just demonstrated the worst case of understanding the drugs and users.

But hey… whatever you need to do to make you feel okay with you.
[/quote]

I’m back-tracking? Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about right now. I was all about the fact that the stats Blake originally posted represented the population at large, and they were NOT a breakdown of arrested drug users along racial lines.

So if 66% of the 300 million people in the US are white (200 million), and 9% use drugs, that makes roughly 20 million white drug users. Do the math similarly for the other races and tell me what you think I’m missing. I’m interested to hear just what in the world you mean by those last two sentences though.

OctoberGirl · July 28, 2011, 6:02am

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

shame on you to IGNORE the statistics posted in YOUR LINK

=)

[/quote]

Which indicate that this was not a survey of people arrested for illicit drug use (your position as I understand it), but rather a random sample reflective of the population at large (my position)? I don’t see what you’re arguing. Assuming it’s representative, that survey suggests that x percentage of whites, blacks and so forth participate in the use of illegal drugs. Which brings us all the way back to the original point, namely that statistically there are many more white drug-users than any other ethnicity.[/quote]

Could you not try and back track? You were all up in the whole white people population thing.
You also just demonstrated the worst case of understanding the drugs and users.

But hey… whatever you need to do to make you feel okay with you.

[/quote]

I’m back-tracking? Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about right now. I was all about the fact that the stats Blake originally posted represented the population at large, and they were NOT a breakdown of arrested drug users along racial lines. So if 66% of the 300 million people in the US are white (200 million), and 9% use drugs, that makes roughly 20 million white drug users. Do the math similarly for the other races and tell me what you think I’m missing. I’m interested to hear just what in the world you mean by those last two sentences though.[/quote]

Your own link posted that the percentages were based on

The survey interviews approximately 67,500 persons each year. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons in this report described using terms such as “increased,” “decreased,” or “more than” are statistically significant at the .05 level.

I dunno… that is not the whole population, what else do you want? This was your link.

Fella, show me a 2010 percentage of arrested drug users and then tell me what is happening.
Even then you will STILL be out of touch with day to day stuff.

kinda done with all this. Obviously you want to cherry pick statistics even when you are shown you are wrong.

HeavyTriple · July 28, 2011, 6:10am

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

shame on you to IGNORE the statistics posted in YOUR LINK

=)

[/quote]

Which indicate that this was not a survey of people arrested for illicit drug use (your position as I understand it), but rather a random sample reflective of the population at large (my position)? I don’t see what you’re arguing. Assuming it’s representative, that survey suggests that x percentage of whites, blacks and so forth participate in the use of illegal drugs. Which brings us all the way back to the original point, namely that statistically there are many more white drug-users than any other ethnicity.[/quote]

Could you not try and back track? You were all up in the whole white people population thing.
You also just demonstrated the worst case of understanding the drugs and users.

But hey… whatever you need to do to make you feel okay with you.

[/quote]

I’m back-tracking? Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about right now. I was all about the fact that the stats Blake originally posted represented the population at large, and they were NOT a breakdown of arrested drug users along racial lines. So if 66% of the 300 million people in the US are white (200 million), and 9% use drugs, that makes roughly 20 million white drug users. Do the math similarly for the other races and tell me what you think I’m missing. I’m interested to hear just what in the world you mean by those last two sentences though.[/quote]

Your own link posted that the percentages were based on

The survey interviews approximately 67,500 persons each year. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons in this report described using terms such as “increased,” “decreased,” or “more than” are statistically significant at the .05 level.

I dunno… that is not the whole population, what else do you want? This was your link.

Fella, show me a 2010 percentage of arrested drug users and then tell me what is happening.
Even then you will STILL be out of touch with day to day stuff.
[/quote]

LOL, I got the “Fella” comment. Here’s what we know: That survey is very clearly not a survey of all arrested drug users, which is what you claimed it was. You should have figured that out in the first link…again, the races described represent at least 95% of the population, but the percentages barely added up to 50%. Unless numerous random minorities make up 50% of the people who are arrested for drugs, it can’t be what you said it was.

Now here’s what we can infer: Since it doesn’t state otherwise, we assume the linked survey is a random sample…that’s SOP for a census survey. By definition, a random sample is an accurate cross-section of the population, i.e. the results we see in the 67,500 actually questioned will be similar to the results we would see if we surveyed every single person in the US. I made no claims about anything else.

Now if you want me to make some sort of political statement, I will. Since we know that there are more than twice as many white drug-users as black drug-users, we should expect twice as many whites be arrested. This is not the case, suggesting some sort of institutionalized racism.

spenserd · July 28, 2011, 6:53am

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]Vash wrote:
FUCK YOU, you clearly worthless and valueless enforcer of a law for which you have no respect.

And good day.
[/quote]

Lol - dude, that’s an edited version of Jack Nicholson’s speech at the end of “A Few Good Men”. I can’t imagine he’s serious… [/quote]

I wasn’t serious. I should have placed “/sarcasm” at the end of the speech, my apologizes. (:

On a serious note, I have been both local and federal LE. Unfortunately this sort of thing seems to happen way too often. The personnel involved will be investigated and dealt with accordingly, I am sure. The title of this thread is a bit offensive. The majority of LEO’s are fine, upstanding individuals. The institution of LE does, in many ways, need an overhaul.

gregron · July 28, 2011, 6:53am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
Maybe not everyone, but the person who started the thread, TheBodyGuard, clearly hates any and all cops.
[/quote]

You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about so please refrain from speaking on my behalf.
[/quote]

“If you’re LEO, watch this, then go fuck yourself.”

Seems pretty clear to me.
[/quote]

Well that was intelligent.
[/quote]

edited for brevity and the lulz

spenserd · July 28, 2011, 6:58am

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Wow. Some of those other races need to step up their tactics for not getting caught.

Anyhow, I’ve had a festering anger since Saturday night.

The wife and I were leaving Applebees after hanging out with some friends. 1:20 in the morning, and as we leave the lot, a cop is heading up the driveway in the opposite direction. He turns and follows us down the driveway, and a couple hundred yards out lights us up. Standard pull over, except that we had not committed any moving violations. I say “What the fuck?” as my wife pulls over. Cop approaches, we wind down the window, license, registration, and all that jazz. We hand it over and he says he’ll explain why in a moment. Comes back to the window and says that he was investigating a call about a domestic dispute at the location we just left from, and we matched the description. He added that we both seemed O.K., and sorry for the inconvenience.

Heres the rub. He had no lawful reason to stop us. There was no domestic dispute at the location we just exited, and I know this because I was there. What he actually did was a fishing expedition on the good chance that he would catch a DUI in progress disguised with a lie. When my wife opened the window and there was no waft of booze fuming from the passenger cab, the cop needed a legitimate sounding reason for having violated our right to pass freely, so he had to make up a reasonable cause.

So, yeah, Fuck the police, and their idiotic, lying, thug tactics to impose fear and erode civil liberty.

From the mouth of my very wise and experienced attorney- “Cops are liars. They all do it. Fortunately for us, they are also idiots.”.
[/quote]

The officer in question did have a lawful reason to stop you. It is called a reasonable suspicion stop. Because you fit the description of the suspects and were leaving the area of the suspected crime, the officer had enough reasonable suspicion to believe y’all were the suspects. I would have made the same stop. The officer did apologize for the inconvenience, so I am at a lose as to why you are so upset by this.

spenserd · July 28, 2011, 7:06am

[quote]DeterminedNate wrote:
I’ve also been pulled over after leaving a restaurant for absolutely no reason at all. And it was 8pm. The cop’s reason was that I had tinted windows. I called him on his shit, and dude didn’t have the BALLS to give me the ticket.

Come to think of it, I’m surprised I didn’t catch a nightstick to the kidneys, and a good ole’ fashioned side of the road beat down.

Fuck the police![/quote]

I am not sure what state this occurred in, but different states have differing statutes as to what violation an officer can conduct a traffic stop to check on. There are certain traffic offenses that an officer shall not stop a vehicle for and check if the equipment meets regulations. There are some offenses that an officer may stop just to simply check if the equipment meets regulations. Just depends on the state and its traffic code.

spenserd · July 28, 2011, 7:14am

[quote]Vash wrote:

[quote]spenserd wrote:
You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has sheep and those sheep have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You! You BodyGuard! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for criminals and you curse the police. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that criminals getting the shit kicked out of them by the police probably saves lives, and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth cause deep down inside places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me with that badge, you need me with that badge. We use words like honor, code, and loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something; you use them as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just say thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and walk a beat. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you know.

Did you whip that piece of shit’s ass?

I did the job I was told to do.

Did you whip that piece of shit’s ass?!

You goddamn right I did!

-As a federal LEO, and on behalf of all LEO’s; go FUCK yourself.

/thread[/quote]

This was not directed at me, but sir, I mean this with as much respect as is possible -

Go

Fuck

Yourself.

Every shithead deserves a beating, huh? What about every video that’s been posted of unwarranted, BLATANTLY ILLEGAL attacks, threats and harassing of private citizens?

“Fuck 'em, collateral damage?”

How about this, OFFICER:

Your kid gets pulled over.

Cop works his ass over.

Cop cracks a few of his ribs.

Threatens to kill his little brother, your other son, and his mother, if he tries to do anything about it.

Lists off their names, address.

Your son, seeing as you’ve raised him to be a fine, upstanding gentleman, just like yourself, has no criminal history.

Fuck him, that’s the cost of the freedom that fine, upstanding officer guarantees and provides?

I sincerely hope, this is an actual wish, that every single dirty fucking cop in this world catches what the throw out there, a thousand fold.

FUCK YOU, you clearly worthless and valueless enforcer of a law for which you have no respect.

And good day.
[/quote]

I understand you did not know I was simply kidding, so I will not take your statements as a personal attack.

You are correct when you say many LEO’s have a God complex. This is quite true many times. This stems from ignorance of the law and the general orders of the department an individual officer works for most of the time. Officers should be held to a higher standard, simple as that.

With that being said, if an individual fights the police, they need to have the shit kicked out of them. If you are illegally arrested or harassed, you should hit the officer and the department where it hurts; in court.

angry_chicken · July 28, 2011, 7:39am

[quote]spenserd wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Wow. Some of those other races need to step up their tactics for not getting caught.

Anyhow, I’ve had a festering anger since Saturday night.

The wife and I were leaving Applebees after hanging out with some friends. 1:20 in the morning, and as we leave the lot, a cop is heading up the driveway in the opposite direction. He turns and follows us down the driveway, and a couple hundred yards out lights us up. Standard pull over, except that we had not committed any moving violations. I say “What the fuck?” as my wife pulls over. Cop approaches, we wind down the window, license, registration, and all that jazz. We hand it over and he says he’ll explain why in a moment. Comes back to the window and says that he was investigating a call about a domestic dispute at the location we just left from, and we matched the description. He added that we both seemed O.K., and sorry for the inconvenience.

Heres the rub. He had no lawful reason to stop us. There was no domestic dispute at the location we just exited, and I know this because I was there. What he actually did was a fishing expedition on the good chance that he would catch a DUI in progress disguised with a lie. When my wife opened the window and there was no waft of booze fuming from the passenger cab, the cop needed a legitimate sounding reason for having violated our right to pass freely, so he had to make up a reasonable cause.

So, yeah, Fuck the police, and their idiotic, lying, thug tactics to impose fear and erode civil liberty.

From the mouth of my very wise and experienced attorney- “Cops are liars. They all do it. Fortunately for us, they are also idiots.”.
[/quote]

The officer in question did have a lawful reason to stop you. It is called a reasonable suspicion stop. Because you fit the description of the suspects and were leaving the area of the suspected crime, the officer had enough reasonable suspicion to believe y’all were the suspects. I would have made the same stop. The officer did apologize for the inconvenience, so I am at a lose as to why you are so upset by this. [/quote]

Read his post again. He was JUST leaving. I doubt the domestic dispute happened and the police were called with enough details and a description to convey that to a local unit and have that unit respond in the time it took him and his wife to walk from the restaurant, start the car and pull out.

Get it? There WAS no “domestic dispute”. He was there. The cop just LIED TO HIM because he didn’t catch him drinking and driving. At the time, could he prove that there was no call? So he left and went home. But make no mistake about it, this was a cop who saw a guy leave a restaurant at 1:30 and rolled the dice and came up short, so he dipped into his little bag of tricks and covered his ass.

I have several friends and a cousin who are cops. One of them is one of my best friends IRL. I used to steal car stereos with him when we were kids (he eventually went into the Marines, and I eventually went to prison, but we grew up doing the same shit, I just took it to the next level). THAT fucker ain’t a saint, that’s for sure! He’s a DC cop now because he lost his Baltimore City gig because he was fucking this whore while on duty and the bitch took his gun! He didn’t realize it until after he left LOL. So he got fired for that and then went to be a DC cop because they’ll take anybody who is ex-military.

He knows I don’t like cops. He says he doesn’t blame me. In fact he’s the one that told me to just stay the fuck out of PG county because “those mutherfuckers are off the hook over there”. I don’t think he does anything like what we’ve seen in the vids, but I’m sure he’s cracked a few heads in his day. But he’s getting his paycheck and getting his pension and still fucking whores while on duty. He’s also one of my few childhood friends who isn’t dead or in jail, so I keep him around. LOL

I don’t HATE all cops. I do hate getting my ass kicked by them. I do hate seeing them caught on camera doing it to someone else because I know the beatings caught on tape are just a FRACTION of what really goes on. I also find it reprehensible that SOOO much power is given to what is essentially a blue collar guy with a blue collar mentality. And the way officer’s cover up each others shit is very typical tribal behavior. The same way any blue collar guy would cover for a coworker if asked to. The problem is that these “mistakes” have serious impacts on other people’s lives.

It won’t change. If anything with all the inevitable budget cuts it will get worse as states look more and more to law enforcement to invade our pockets every chance they get with their tickets, fines and illegal searches to help make up for the shortfall in state and local coffers. And I’ll continue to write, “FUCK THE POLICE” every chance I get because what’s going on is nothing but a travesty. Justice - HA! Protect and serve - give me a fucking break!

And I damn sure won’t be driving in PG county at night any time soon.

spenserd · July 28, 2011, 7:49am

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Agreed. I really don’t think some of these people understand the implications of giving these people this much power.

I’m a grown man. Why can’t they speak to me like one?
[/quote]
I know this Persian body builder out here that drives a 5 series coupe. He is only 5"9 176 pounds, but looks huge. He got pulled over by a cop on the way back from the gym for no seat belt, the cop felt threatened and had him get out of the car and on his knees and cuffed him for a seat belt violation. [/quote]

They take one look at me and one hand goes and rests on their gun. try to be calm minutes after leaving the gym when that happens and the reason they pulled you over is because the car was too nice. I had that cop act like I was on drugs because my hands were shaking a little…but that was because I just finished a whole routine and had enough adrenalin running through me to fuel the Olympics.

The more they feel threatened, the more of an ass they act like…and I always get the little ones for some reason.[/quote]

Many officers place their hand on their weapon for every traffic stop they conduct. When I was local LE I did not, but some feel the need to. Most officers are shot on traffic stops.

With that being said, I do understand where you and Blake are coming from. Unfortunately there are many LEO’s who have no business being on the street. Many of them could not fight their way out of a wet paper sack. Some officers feel a false sense of security because of their weapons.

spenserd · July 28, 2011, 8:04am

[quote]angry chicken wrote: