or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 122

post #1816 of 6095
No-knock warrants are complete bullshit. The whole bullshit idea behind them is that the bad guys on the other side of the door are likely to destroy evidence by flushing it down the toilet. Well, big time drug dealers have too many drugs to flush down a toilet. Try stuffing 15 pot plants down a toilet, you'll be there for hours. They explicitly use these warrants against recreational users and small-time sellers because cops are fucking human garbage who can't wait to kill dogs and people. If the cops are afraid the guy has a bunch of guns, then you wait and arrest him when he's walking to the government store to get his monthly welfare check or put money on his EBT card. This is not New Jack City they're dealing with here. Fucking useless fascist pigs.
Quote:
The Ogden incident was among a growing number of no-knock police raids last year, a tactic that has grown in use from 2,000 to 3,000 raids a year in the mid-1980s, to 70,000 to 80,000 annually, says Peter Kraska, a professor of criminal justice at Eastern Kentucky University who tracks the issue.

http://www.policemag.com/blog/swat/story/2011/03/no-knock-searches-reasonable-or-deadly.aspx

From a time when crime has declined spectacularly since the 1980s there's simply no excuse for this abuse of power. No-knock warrants are in probably 99%+ of cases simply an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment and any evidence obtained therefrom should be suppressed. Fuck these pig cops, and these assfuck judges who rubber stamp these warrants.
post #1817 of 6095
Harvey makes some excellent points there particularly in that no-knocks would logically only be effective against folks with small amounts of drugs.
post #1818 of 6095
I guess it depends on what your idea of a small time dealer is. You can easily get rid of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, meth, herion, etc., in one flush. I agree that the guy with the pot plants is SOL.

And I'm sure Harvey knows that it's hard to prove constructive possession of drugs when you don't catch the bad guy next to them. Grab him outside the apartment and he points fingers at the girlfriend whose name is on the lease and who knows who else.
post #1819 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I guess it depends on what your idea of a small time dealer is. You can easily get rid of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, meth, herion, etc., in one flush. I agree that the guy with the pot plants is SOL.

And I'm sure Harvey knows that it's hard to prove constructive possession of drugs when you don't catch the bad guy next to them. Grab him outside the apartment and he points fingers at the girlfriend whose name is on the lease and who knows who else.

If you go by the government's vastly over-inflated values of street drugs, then sure.

You've already got evidence of possession, as well as distribution, if you've got undercover buys from the jackass - which the vast majority of the time is the justification for the warrant in the first place. If you don't have that evidence or something equivalent - say you've just got the word of some anonymous skell - then you should not get a warrant in the first place.
post #1820 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I guess it depends on what your idea of a small time dealer is. You can easily get rid of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, meth, herion, etc., in one flush. I agree that the guy with the pot plants is SOL.

And I'm sure Harvey knows that it's hard to prove constructive possession of drugs when you don't catch the bad guy next to them. Grab him outside the apartment and he points fingers at the girlfriend whose name is on the lease and who knows who else.

At that amount, you're talking a brick of cocaine or a kilo. It's actually pretty hard to bust open a brick cleanly and flush that amount down quickly. You're going to have residue everywhere and not to mention you can't just flush a solid brick down without breaking it up. A couple of ounces or a few 8 balls I would agree with you but then again at that quantity, you're still a small timer.

As for meth and heroin, I'm not as knowledgeable as I've never seen the stuff.
post #1821 of 6095
Quote:
The case involved a murder in Washington D.C. that year. The victim, a cab driver, was robbed and killed in front of his home. Before long, police centered upon Santae Tribble, then a 17-year-old local from the neighborhood, as a suspect.

Tribble maintained his innocence. But no matter what he said and how much his friends vouched, two FBI forensics experts claimed that a single strand of hair recovered near the scene of the crime matched Tribble’s DNA. Thanks to that evidence, which was groundbreaking at the time, Tribble was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison after 40 minutes of jury deliberation, reported the Washington Post.

He would go on to serve 28 years until the truth came out: an independent analysis found that the FBI testimony was flawed. Not a single hair that was found on the scene matched his DNA. After attorneys brought the evidence to the courts, Tribble was exonerated of the crime, though he’d already been released from prison. “The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit the crimes he was convicted of at trial,” a judge wrote in the certificate of innocence released at the time, in 2012.

It gets worse. Not only did none of the hairs presented as evidence in trial belonged to Tribble, the private lab found that one of the hairs actually came from a dog.

“Such is the true state of hair microscopy,” Sandra K. Levick, Tribble’s lawyer, wrote at the time, in 2012. “Two FBI-trained analysts… could not even distinguish human hairs from canine hairs.”

Your tax dollars at work. Convicting the innocent on your dime.
post #1822 of 6095
They claimed to have done DNA testing on his hair before DNA testing existed. That's remarkable!

That, or your source has botched the story.
post #1823 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Your tax dollars at work. Convicting the innocent on your dime.

"Better to convict a 1,000 innocents wrongly than to let a guilty faggot walk"

J Edgar Hoover, said on his deathbed.
post #1824 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

They claimed to have done DNA testing on his hair before DNA testing existed. That's remarkable!

That, or your source has botched the story.

That, or as usual, the FBI lied about everything.
post #1825 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasmade View Post

At that amount, you're talking a brick of cocaine or a kilo. It's actually pretty hard to bust open a brick cleanly and flush that amount down quickly. You're going to have residue everywhere and not to mention you can't just flush a solid brick down without breaking it up. A couple of ounces or a few 8 balls I would agree with you but then again at that quantity, you're still a small timer.

As for meth and heroin, I'm not as knowledgeable as I've never seen the stuff.

So, have you handled bricks of cocaine?

BTW, are you active in the 3rd or 5th Wards?
post #1826 of 6095
No but in my younger days in high school, I knew some small time drug dealers who were supplied by some mid level guys. Most I ever held in my hand was a few ounces. That amount is flushable because it's not a giant brick. It's just a zip lock bag.

I live in 1st Ward in a town house. I was never active in drugs. Just wasn't my thing.
post #1827 of 6095
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/nypd-assault-arrest-man-filming-officer-inappropriately-touching-woman/
Quote:
NYPD Cop Tries to ‘Cop a Feel’ on a Woman, Her Friend Tries to Film it, So they Assault and Kidnap Him

New York, NY– A video released last week has once again caught the police in a lie. Two NYPD officers were caught assaulting a man for filming an officer who was inappropriately touching his female friend during a stop and frisk.

Jason Disisto and his friends were hanging out on a sidewalk on March 12, 2014, when Officer Jonathan Munoz walked up to Disisto’s female friend, grabbed her wrist, and began to put his hands inside her sweater. Concerned about what he is seeing, Disisto borrows a cellphone and attempts to begin filming the interaction. This is something that we are all well within our rights- and frankly morally obligated- to do.

Seeing that he is about to film, another officer on the scene, Edwin Flores, confronts Disisto. The situation escalates very quickly as two officers are seen assaulting the man and attempting to steal his phone. Disisto is then arrested, as the police claimed that he had lunged at the officers and attempted to punch them with a closed fist.

The blatant lies by the NYPD officers are completely disproved by three security cameras that captured the incident from multiple angles.

After the officers handcuff Disisto and put him in the back of the police vehicle, they throw the cellphone out of the window and break it. He was charged with obstructing governmental administration, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

Criminal charges against Disisto were ultimately dropped, yet no charges seem to have been filed for the officers who assaulted, kidnapped, and destroyed the property of an innocent man.

Unfortunately, it’s more than “just a few bad apples” as the police and their supporters like to claim.

In 2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board investigated 42 cases of individuals recording the police over the course of just six months, in 27 of the cases, police were accused of reacting inappropriately to the camera presence.

On Tuesday, a civil rights law firm, Rankin and Taylor, filed a lawsuit against Officer Munoz, Officer Edwin Florez, a third unidentified officer, as well as the NYPD on behalf of Disisto. The firm is also representing six other cases of police misconduct in response to being filmed.

The lawsuit accuses the department of having a “de facto policy” of “making retaliatory arrests against people who lawfully photograph, document or record police activity.”

Just a few thousand bad apples.

Video at the link.
post #1828 of 6095
If those police are not charged with something we are in trouble. Fucking stormtroopers there.
post #1829 of 6095
She immediately puts her hands in her pockets when the cop approaches. Cops don't like that.

His interest obviously seems to be in whether she hid something in her pocket when he came up, and not some kind of sexual thing.
post #1830 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

She immediately puts her hands in her pockets when the cop approaches. Cops don't like that.

His interest obviously seems to be in whether she hid something in her pocket when he came up, and not some kind of sexual thing.

So that obviously justified the false arrest, lying, and wanton destruction of property the three police offers commit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?