still think this is the USA you remember?

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:17:05 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> jaybird wrote:
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge
>>> >>>> him
>>> >>>> with
>>> >>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason
>>> >>>> publically,
>>> >>>> just
>>> >>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what
>>> >>>> it
>>> >>>> sounds like from my experience.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
>>> >>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't
>>> >>> be
>>> >>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>>> >>
>>> >> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the
>>> >> cops
>>> >> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>>> >
>>> > Being taken away to the police station against one's will is arrest no
>>> > matter how you choose to redefine terms.
>>>
>>> Right, but no one knows what the actual charge was.
>>
>> exactly.
>>
>>> The guy is claiming
>>> that it was cell phone related, but that's just his side.
>>
>> exactly. If the police had presented their side then we'd be able to
>> evaluate the claims of each side on their own merits. But when they're
>> not so forthcoming, it's natural to be suspicious. I'm guessing that
>> the guy was a minority living in a minority neighborhood, so probably
>> all in the area are somewhat distrustful of the police anyway.
>
>The police aren't required to present their side to you. Do an open records
>request if it's bugging ya.

Since no charges were filed (because a supervisor wan't on duty(!)),
open records don't help at all.
The fact that the police and city are not making an explanation even
after it's been made clear that no further action is forthcoming is
strange, don't you think? It's reasonable to conclude that they are
hiding something.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:18:56 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>
>>>> Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>>> defending the cops?
>>>
>>>We have all of the facts that are currently available. There is a story
>>>from the accused, and then two sentences quoted from the police. We're
>>>working solely off of that.
>>>
>>>> Oh, that's right, it's because you don't believe in justice, only in
>>>> your
>>>> badge.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily my badge, but in all of the badges when the media reports
>>>a
>>>defendant's story as fact when they have nothing other than his word to
>>>work
>>>from.
>>
>> The reason we only have the defendant's word to work from is because
>> the cops are taking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to incriminate
>> themselves.
>
>Not really. We just have only one news story as a reference. No one here
>is from the area so they haven't heard anything more. Again, an open
>records request is all that is necessary to get the information.

You keep assuming there's an arrest report somewhere.
At the most, there'd be an incident report, since a supervisor wasn't
on duty(!). According to the police.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
>>>> No, that's called probable cause. You have that right under the
>>>> Miranda
>>>> act.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Not answering a cops questions is reason for suspicion alone.
>>
>> Suspicion, perhaps. I wouldn't be able to list it as a means for
>> probable
>> cause for an arrest though.
>
> I'm sure you could think of something if you put your mind to it.

I can only work with what you give me.

>
>>>> No, it's a statement. Why are you only willing to listen to one side
>>>> of
>>>> the story?
>
>>> Side 1: Detailed story.
>>> Side 2: 'That didn't happen'
>>>
>>> Hmmm....
>>
>> Sounds good to me; to the point.
>
> There isn't another 'side' because it lacks any kind of detailed story.
> It's just a denial.

Call it what you want. All of their reports will be available for the court
case.

>
>
>>>> Nope. Again, read up on the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>>>
>>> Document on Albert Eistein's participation in a scientific project in
>>> the
>>> 1940s.
>>>
>>> FBI document on Nicola Tesla.
>>> These men were scientists / inventors. They've been dead for decades.
>>> Note the date on the Telsa document, 1943.
>>> The freedom of information act is a farce.
>
>> I guess that's all that was supposed to be public.
>
> That's government ruling _over_ the people, not the government by the
> people
> for the people.

Some things may not be public record.

>
>
>> Out of these last five paragraphs, only the lastone has any
>> merit. I've been a cop for many years now and I can say with confidence
>> that I've never done anything job related that I knew to be wrong.
>
> Of course, you define right and wrong the way the government tells you.
> You've made that clear many times. You fail my test because you allow the
> government to define it for you. (on that point you've been clear, that
> your view of right and wrong is what government tells you the law is) In
> doing so, there essentially isn't a sense of right and wrong. If the
> government wants you to do something wrong, it just tells you it's
> right. The history of man consists of great evils being carried out by
> men who were told by their governments those actions were right.

That's true to a point. I define right and wrong by how our laws are
written. For me to do otherwise would invalidate the oath that I took.

>
>> We do think for ourselves
>
> Your posts don't give that impression.

Sure they do. Everything I post is either my opinion, or backed up by our
laws and/or case law.

>
>> and we think that we are helping to make people accountable for their
>> actions
>
> I'd love to be able to hold cops accountable for theirs.
>
>> and help out those who would be victimized by others.
>
> Rarely. A person has to protect himself in this nation.
>
>> It's a difference and a purpose that not many people can say is a
>> result of their profession. Just because you don't agree personally
>> doesn't change those facts.
>
> I don't know how bad things have to get before you wake up and realize
> what's going on. Driving is just an illustration of a much greater
> problem.
> The subservision of your profession is key to the success of ending this
> late 18th century experiment in liberty. The next is turning people
> against
> each other and not having them understand what liberty is. To finishing
> changing the minset such that obeying is a greater virtue than free
> thought.


--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> With cops like you it's a wonder we aren't already
> in a nation where people just disappear for political reasons.

What makes you think that doesn't happen now...? I don't know if
you've noticed, human life isn't all that important to our
government...

ISTM, the people who always seem to think the worst of other people,
are the worst sort of people. You seem to be a woman trapped in a
man's body. All your judgments seem to be based on emotion, logic
takes a back seat... if you haven't locked it in the trunk.

I'm a fan of the law, but I'm no real fan of law enforcement officers.
I have my own horror stories.

But I also have stories of where a cop let me go when he could've hung
me. I like to think that's because I treated them with same respect I
would have demanded if I were in their positions and demonstrated that
I understood that they were just doing their jobs, and that I knew what
that job was, and my position in that scenerio.

Cops are not "bad" because they will write you a speeding ticket and
don't cite the offenses *you* think they should. I think I've pointed
out in no uncertain terms... your reasoning isn't exactly top-notch.

Jaybird seems okay to me, seems pretty well versed making rational
rather than emotional decisions... like you. If you think that's being
a drone, well... you don't think all that good. That's what keeps a
cop from beating the **** out of a guy like you, just because you
probably deserve it, he feels like it, and can get away with it.

A guy like you ought to be thanking his lucky stars that acop like
Jaybird is willing to share his perspective and expertise and stop
thinking all cops and all your government is "bad". Some is bad, most
is good.

If you think for a second, the government built the roads you drive on
and supply the water than comes from your tap. No small
accomplishments, just those two.
-----

- gpsman

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:21:34 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>>>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you
>>>>> think
>>>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer?
>>>>> Be
>>>>> honest now, officer.
>>>
>>>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>>>
>>> Translation: automatic arrest.
>>
>>Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need a
>>statement unless you want to give one.
>
> Don't you mean, "*IF* I have enough to arrest you on"?

Doh... yeah, I left out the "f".

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:17:05 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"N8N" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>>>
>>> jaybird wrote:
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article >, jaybird
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge
>>>> >>>> him
>>>> >>>> with
>>>> >>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason
>>>> >>>> publically,
>>>> >>>> just
>>>> >>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you
>>>> >>>> what
>>>> >>>> it
>>>> >>>> sounds like from my experience.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they
>>>> >>> can
>>>> >>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it
>>>> >>> won't
>>>> >>> be
>>>> >>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the
>>>> >> cops
>>>> >> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>>>> >
>>>> > Being taken away to the police station against one's will is arrest
>>>> > no
>>>> > matter how you choose to redefine terms.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but no one knows what the actual charge was.
>>>
>>> exactly.
>>>
>>>> The guy is claiming
>>>> that it was cell phone related, but that's just his side.
>>>
>>> exactly. If the police had presented their side then we'd be able to
>>> evaluate the claims of each side on their own merits. But when they're
>>> not so forthcoming, it's natural to be suspicious. I'm guessing that
>>> the guy was a minority living in a minority neighborhood, so probably
>>> all in the area are somewhat distrustful of the police anyway.
>>
>>The police aren't required to present their side to you. Do an open
>>records
>>request if it's bugging ya.
>
> Since no charges were filed (because a supervisor wan't on duty(!)),
> open records don't help at all.

Remember, that's what the defendant said. The cops said that the did make
an arrest, he wasn't on his property, and it had nothing to do with a camera
phone.

> The fact that the police and city are not making an explanation even
> after it's been made clear that no further action is forthcoming is
> strange, don't you think? It's reasonable to conclude that they are
> hiding something.

Not really. They don't have to make a statement until the trial.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:18:56 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>
>>>>> Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start
>>>>> blindly
>>>>> defending the cops?
>>>>
>>>>We have all of the facts that are currently available. There is a story
>>>>from the accused, and then two sentences quoted from the police. We're
>>>>working solely off of that.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, that's right, it's because you don't believe in justice, only in
>>>>> your
>>>>> badge.
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily my badge, but in all of the badges when the media
>>>>reports
>>>>a
>>>>defendant's story as fact when they have nothing other than his word to
>>>>work
>>>>from.
>>>
>>> The reason we only have the defendant's word to work from is because
>>> the cops are taking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to incriminate
>>> themselves.
>>
>>Not really. We just have only one news story as a reference. No one here
>>is from the area so they haven't heard anything more. Again, an open
>>records request is all that is necessary to get the information.
>
> You keep assuming there's an arrest report somewhere.
> At the most, there'd be an incident report, since a supervisor wasn't
> on duty(!). According to the police.

No, that's according to the arrestee...

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>> You used the word "contrary," and yet you agreed with what I said.
>>>
>>> WTF?
>>
>>Yeah, it looks like I did. I must've been sleepy.
>
> You putting in lots of overtime so you can pull down six figures this
> year?

I wish!... hehe.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> I can only work with what you give me.

Cops seem to always be able to figure out a charge. Hell normal daily
life is impossible without there being some probable cause for some law
that's on the books. It might be something from 1892 that's obsolete, but
the law is the law....

>>>> Side 1: Detailed story.
>>>> Side 2: 'That didn't happen'
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm....
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me; to the point.
>>
>> There isn't another 'side' because it lacks any kind of detailed story.
>> It's just a denial.
>
> Call it what you want. All of their reports will be available for the court
> case.

There will be no court case obviously, well except maybe a civil one.


>>>>
>>>> Document on Albert Eistein's participation in a scientific project in
>>>> the
>>>> 1940s.
>>>>
>>>> FBI document on Nicola Tesla.
>>>> These men were scientists / inventors. They've been dead for decades.
>>>> Note the date on the Telsa document, 1943.
>>>> The freedom of information act is a farce.

>>> I guess that's all that was supposed to be public.
>>
>> That's government ruling _over_ the people, not the government by the
>> people for the people.

> Some things may not be public record.

Nonresponsive.

>>> Out of these last five paragraphs, only the lastone has any
>>> merit. I've been a cop for many years now and I can say with confidence
>>> that I've never done anything job related that I knew to be wrong.
>>
>> Of course, you define right and wrong the way the government tells you.
>> You've made that clear many times. You fail my test because you allow the
>> government to define it for you. (on that point you've been clear, that
>> your view of right and wrong is what government tells you the law is) In
>> doing so, there essentially isn't a sense of right and wrong. If the
>> government wants you to do something wrong, it just tells you it's
>> right. The history of man consists of great evils being carried out by
>> men who were told by their governments those actions were right.

> That's true to a point. I define right and wrong by how our laws are
> written. For me to do otherwise would invalidate the oath that I took.

Exactly my point. If a law was written to put people of certain political
views into internment camps, I don't see you standing up for what is
right and not helping round up the people if so ordered.

>>> We do think for ourselves
>>
>> Your posts don't give that impression.
>
> Sure they do. Everything I post is either my opinion, or backed up by our
> laws and/or case law.

Most everything you post is party line 'just following orders'.

>>> and we think that we are helping to make people accountable for their
>>> actions

>> I'd love to be able to hold cops accountable for theirs.

>>> and help out those who would be victimized by others.
>>
>> Rarely. A person has to protect himself in this nation.
>>
>>> It's a difference and a purpose that not many people can say is a
>>> result of their profession. Just because you don't agree personally
>>> doesn't change those facts.
>>
>> I don't know how bad things have to get before you wake up and realize
>> what's going on. Driving is just an illustration of a much greater
>> problem.
>> The subservision of your profession is key to the success of ending this
>> late 18th century experiment in liberty. The next is turning people
>> against
>> each other and not having them understand what liberty is. To finishing
>> changing the minset such that obeying is a greater virtue than free
>> thought.
>
>

Still think the government doesn't want secret trials and is trying to
dismantle all the protections of our rights?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0101334_2.html

Basically all the government has to do under these rules is declare
someone a terrorist then say something like this: "We know you're guilty.
We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told
us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."