To Protect and to Serve II

#6,451
#6,451
Cdywolfe said:
So the other day I took care of 2 LEOs (1 local and 1 federal) and I have to say that both seemed to be exceptional people. In fact, the federal guy was one of the nicest patients I’ve dealt with in some time. I probably spent half my day in their room just shootin the s**t. He was one of those patients that I wonder who got more out of the interaction, him or me.

Not that it’s really relevant but I’ve always said that as critical as I am of LE most of the time that it’s only fair when I take note of the positive experiences.
Click to expand...
This thread and the discussions have made me be more observant of the police and their behavior. I was at a rec league BB game last week and the ref started yelling and pointing at one of the kids.....11-12 year old boy.... telling him to be quiet and "you need to calm down!"..... but the kid wasn't even doing anything even remotely close to deserving it... well the kids dad told the ref he was the one that needed to calm down ..... which prompted a dad from the other team to make a comment I couldn't hear.... the first dad responded and told the other dad and the ref that he needed to get control of the game..... the cop that was there walks over and straight out of the gate acted like a complete dick. The kids dad held his composure but I'm afraid I'd have had to say enough to get myself removed from the gym. The cop made a really bad impression and an ass of himself.... several people made comments to him about him acting foolish
 
#6,452
#6,452
Cdywolfe said:
So the other day I took care of 2 LEOs (1 local and 1 federal) and I have to say that both seemed to be exceptional people. In fact, the federal guy was one of the nicest patients I’ve dealt with in some time. I probably spent half my day in their room just shootin the s**t. He was one of those patients that I wonder who got more out of the interaction, him or me.

Not that it’s really relevant but I’ve always said that as critical as I am of LE most of the time that it’s only fair when I take note of the positive experiences.
Click to expand...
I've been in and around law enforcement for a decade now. Although I think exceptional people like the individual you mentioned are rare in the human race in general, the majority of the people I've met in LE are good people. A few assholes, a few idiots, sprinkled with a couple of people who I wonder ever made it beyond a background check.

But I've met more people who give more than they get, who serve rather than enforce, who show compassion instead of berate and who truly deserve it when someone says "thank you for your service."

Thanks for the story, Cody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and marcusluvsvols
#6,453
#6,453
Grand Vol said:
Not even remotely the same.
Click to expand...

California Democrat Threatens "Nukes" If Americans Don't Hand Over Their Guns

In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons - and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
Click to expand...
 
#6,455
#6,455
Great, yeah, let’s nuke millions to save hundreds. And while we’re at it let’s nuke the rural agrarian parts of the country where we grow our food.

Democrats getting an early start on shouting themselves in the foot for 2020. Pun intended.
 
#6,456
#6,456
RockyTop85 said:
Great, yeah, let’s nuke millions to save hundreds. And while we’re at it let’s nuke the rural agrarian parts of the country where we grow our food.

Democrats getting an early start on shouting themselves in the foot for 2020. Pun intended.
Click to expand...

It's a bad pun.

Everyone knows liberals hate guns.
 
#6,457
#6,457
Cdywolfe said:
So the other day I took care of 2 LEOs (1 local and 1 federal) and I have to say that both seemed to be exceptional people. In fact, the federal guy was one of the nicest patients I’ve dealt with in some time. I probably spent half my day in their room just shootin the s**t. He was one of those patients that I wonder who got more out of the interaction, him or me.

Not that it’s really relevant but I’ve always said that as critical as I am of LE most of the time that it’s only fair when I take note of the positive experiences.
Click to expand...

Explains why I wait three hours in the waiting room, and another two in the exam room after getting my blood pressure taken. lol
 
#6,464
#6,464
InVOLuntary said:
A KPD friend of mine said the guy they questioned was a Aryan Nation Gang member.
Click to expand...
But they let him go already. Obviously whoever did it had it planned. They seem to be sending a message with the attack. Thankfully the officer wasn’t killed.
 
#6,465
#6,465
davethevol said:
But they let him go already. Obviously whoever did it had it planned. They seem to be sending a message with the attack. Thankfully the officer wasn’t killed.
Click to expand...
They suspect him or someone associated with him. Just not enough evidence to charge hm, yet.
 
#6,467
#6,467
Reply All covers the story of how NYPD officer Jack Maple created CompStat and used innovative strategies to reduce crime. Giuliani swooped in, taking all the credit with bad ideas that led to the corruption of CompStat.

#127 The Crime Machine, Part I
 
Last edited:
#6,469
#6,469
Looks like the Civil Forfeiture might be in the sights of the SCOTUS.

High court likely to say states can't levy excessive fines

The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

A decision in favor of 37-year-old Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana, also could buttress efforts to limit the confiscation by local law enforcement of property belonging to someone suspected of a crime. Police and prosecutors often keep the proceeds.

Timbs was on hand at the high court for arguments that were largely a one-sided affair in which the main question appeared to be how broadly the state would lose.

The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard.
Click to expand...

It's turned for the surreal when I agree with Sotomayor over something...

It was unclear whether the justices also would rule to give Timbs his Land Rover back or allow Indiana courts to decide that issue. Some justices seemed willing to take that additional step.

“If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today ... many of them are grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#6,470
#6,470
#6,471
#6,471
davethevol said:
Sotomayor has surprised me with a few things. She definitely leans to the left, but I don't think she's anywhere near as bad as most of us expected.
Click to expand...

I think the civil forfeiture is something every American should be against. Asset seizure prior to a conviction? To me, it does violate the Bill of Rights in a big way since it's a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. (of course, as of late you are already presumed guilty of a great many things...anyway).

I have no problems if a person is convicted and the assets used in or related to the commission of crimes are seized. However, you have to have that trial, have to find that guilty verdict and have to prove such property was used in or is related to that specific crime. And no transfer of property to .gov control until all appeals have been exhausted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush, davethevol and hog88
#6,472
#6,472
Grand Vol said:
I think the civil forfeiture is something every American should be against. Asset seizure prior to a conviction? To me, it does violate the Bill of Rights in a big way since it's a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. (of course, as of late you are already presumed guilty of a great many things...anyway).

I have no problems if a person is convicted and the assets used in or related to the commission of crimes are seized. However, you have to have that trial, have to find that guilty verdict and have to prove such property was used in or is related to that specific crime. And no transfer of property to .gov control until all appeals have been exhausted.
Click to expand...

I've always had a bit of WTF with CF when the 5A includes "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Many places are operating under basically telling the Constitution to "hold my beer" and proceed with some variation of "reasonable suspicion of guilt" being sufficient. We can't get rid of it fast enough IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#6,473
#6,473
Grand Vol said:
I think the civil forfeiture is something every American should be against. Asset seizure prior to a conviction? To me, it does violate the Bill of Rights in a big way since it's a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. (of course, as of late you are already presumed guilty of a great many things...anyway).

I have no problems if a person is convicted and the assets used in or related to the commission of crimes are seized. However, you have to have that trial, have to find that guilty verdict and have to prove such property was used in or is related to that specific crime. And no transfer of property to .gov control until all appeals have been exhausted.
Click to expand...

If SCOTUS rules against IL it will be interesting in how the word the ruling, could have major 2A implications for states like CA, NY,CT and such.
 
#6,474
#6,474
davethevol said:
Sotomayor has surprised me with a few things. She definitely leans to the left, but I don't think she's anywhere near as bad as most of us expected.
Click to expand...

I’m glad to see these posts, I was planning to write a new thread about this case tonight showing that the court is absolutely not Republican and Democrat.

For once, totally agree with @Grand Vol . I think with Gorsuch seemingly on board, it goes the right way. Breyer, RBG, and Kagan at the least should vote with them.

I would almost guarantee that Thomas will dissent. Alito and Kavanaugh will also be in the minority, but that’s more of confident guess.

Not sure about Roberts. He’s said to want more consensus and the precedent is not on the government’s side in this, but he’s also written some 4th amendment cases that really stretched the government’s authority to catch and prosecute people that I thought were pretty ******.

I have to give Trump some credit. I think Gorsuch may be the single human being in the government who beat represents me, since Kennedy retired. I’ve appreciated his willingness to tell our government overlords “no.”
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top