Oh, well let's clear up that confusion. I was talking specifically about you. There is not conspiracy to use the term when it is only you using it. Glad we could clear that up.

So you're one of the anti-police types.

Have a nice day then.

Glad we could clear up your confusion. Well, it would have, had you read the second (of just two) sentence in my post and understood it. Instead of not reading it, misinterpreting something else and writing what you did.

Good day sir.

Oh no, I think you're confused. I think having a police, that is accountable for their actions, is fundamental to a functioning society. Where did I get confused?

Pretty much everywhere in the above post--that is, thinking that I'm confused.

I'm not sure why you're making a big deal about it...Nitpicking a single word is pretty LOL

Nitpicking is the point of this subforum imo.

Heinous ****. Not crimes. For the most part cops do not get in trouble for breaking the laws. They have other cops to lie for them to make sure they get away with the heinous **** they do.

You're simplifying the issue greatly. I have concerns that police have too much power over the common man and are great infringers upon individual freedom. I think that we should be able to go about our lives with freedom from being searched for drugs. I think we should be free from having the intimate details and goings-on of our daily lives intruded on. I am concerned that the police force has grown increasingly militarized. And I think the police force is excessively aggressive and antagonistic towards the population and should be more focused on protecting people from the aggression of others and protecting property. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and that greatly bothers me. None of this makes me anti-police.

Nothing I said address any of the issues in your post.

Is there any cite whatsoever for any of this or is it just supposed to be Prima facie?

Are we discussing actual criminal acts such as murder for instance, or things you find morally repugnant such as drug arrests? I'm confused as to actually what your accusation is here.

You didn't address my post...

And if you don't disagree with any of the points I just listed, then you agree with me that the state of the police force today is pretty bad and me expressing frustration with such - even to the point of disgust with all police at some particularly awful actions committed by an officer - should be understandable on some level. If the police force conducted itself differently, I would have a much different attitude towards it, naturally. Thus, my problem is with their conduct and role, not the police themselves.

Do you guys think people empowered as police officers should be open to concerns that some of the things their profession does, even lawfully, can be detrimental to the individual rights of the people of their country?

I think they, as the actors responsible for enforcing the rules, should be concerned above all others.

Because I didn't care to.

Is this really something you need me to provide a citation for? You've responded to every post in all of the police threads, so there is nothing I can show you that you have not already seen. You've worked in the field, so I find it hilarious that you don't think that police get special treatment. Occasionally cops do get in trouble, yes that is true. But for the most part cops get away with criminal behavior and other cops are completely willing to lie on behalf of their cohorts.

To be clear we are talking about otherwise criminal acts that would get officers in trouble if they did not have the blue shield of lies to protect them.

Cops sometime get a pass on minor traffic infractions, sometimes not. Anything further up the ladder than that, nope. Domestic Violence, DUI, etc arrests happen all the time.

The whole "thin blue line" thing you guys drone on about is essentially a brotherhood thing, much like a fraternal organization, nothing more. There are no lies, no grand schemes to cover up criminal acts. We're cops FFS, not the Illuminati.

Fair enough. This is incredibly wrong and out of line with what actually happens in the real world. I cannot do anything to convince you otherwise. Enjoy your bubble of protection, until it hopefully stops in the near future.

Well I've spoken at great lengths about my experience in this particular "real world". Do you have any further experiences than cherrypicking (via google) stories that paint law enforcement in a negative light?

Unless I am remembering your background incorrectly you've worked in the law enforcement field for your adult life. You've seen far more than I have I have seen up until this point my life. I am not going to give you examples. You need to search your own background. This is open an obvious, if you cannot understand your own elevated position after all of this then I don't know what to say. This is on you.

I know friends of cops who get passes on DWI's and AandB on a not infrequent basis. Do the cop friends of these cops get passes on this same behavior LESS often???

Things may not happen in your circle, that doesn't mean that they are not uncommon in other parts of the country and in other dept's, etc.

I speak from my experiences. Then again my experiences are probably tainted greatly by the fact that we're A) Non Union and B) work for an elected official, who'll can you with a startling quickness for any dishonorable behavior.

I work for a Dept that would be considered medium sized, in a suburban area. We're rather high paying, have an extremely good relationship with the local citizens, and a great reputation in the area. We have no need to hire candidates who do not fit in. As for the friends of friends getting out of DWI's thing, I live in Ga. Ga has locked up ATL Braves SS's, UGA Athletic Directors, several noted politicians, and a Chief of Police for DUI. It's taken extremely seriously here, as it rightly should be IMO.

We're talking about traffic violations itt??

Gotta throw respect when someone owns multiple people in a thread, wp dbj.

Not at all Ikes, just answering questions and providing commentary.

DblBarrelJ is one of my favorite posters. Sometimes he alleviates my fears and sometimes he confirms them. He always post with a great deal of respect, even if some of the people that disagree him show him none.

Quick question to any ACists; in a hypothetical ACland, how would we approach issues currently covered under the 4th amendment regarding search and seizures?

I assume refusing consent to search after a valid warrant is signed by the contracted judge/DRO of the suspect is considered a violation of contractual obligations? Can force be used to conduct the search for evidence if the suspects DRO agrees I've gathered probable cause that their client committed this act?

Here's an example. Suppose I am an investigator contracted by an individual to solve the case of his wife's murder. After interviewing several people, I discover that Mrs Client had a co-worker who had a deep seated grudge against her. This individual was also seen just down the street very near the time of the murder. I have sworn affidavits from three individuals who state my suspect has a 9mm handgun he keeps on his nightstand. A coroner has already stated the murder weapon was a 9mm.

With this information in hand, where do I as an investigator for my clients DRO go from here?

I ask because I don't think I've ever seen a discussion regarding criminal procedure, specifically evidence collection vs personal property rights and the NAP.

It would be a lot more fun if we did it that way though