Deanimator
Member
I'm just wondering how you would describe Jon Burge, Jerome Finnegan and Alvin Weems if you DIDN'T use the term "evil"...
Officer's response to 911 call that wasn't made.
- Thread starter CheyennePilot
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
Running a home invasion ring doesn't typically count as a "mistake".
Neither does systematic use of torture to extract false confessions.
You need to live in Chicago for a while.
1911 guy
Member
Quote:
They do things that would get them life in prison if it occured in the U.S. But there is that pesky double standard thing
I'll not comment, to keep the discussion civil. Talking trash about a woman's husband while he's doing the job your government asks him to to is childish and cowardly. Attack the argument you disagree with, not the loved ones of someone who got your goat in a discussion.
Back on topic, I've got my own opinion and feeling on the issue and have been given food for thought, from both sides, about what I currently think. I agree with a little of both camps.
They do things that would get them life in prison if it occured in the U.S. But there is that pesky double standard thing
I'll not comment, to keep the discussion civil. Talking trash about a woman's husband while he's doing the job your government asks him to to is childish and cowardly. Attack the argument you disagree with, not the loved ones of someone who got your goat in a discussion.
Back on topic, I've got my own opinion and feeling on the issue and have been given food for thought, from both sides, about what I currently think. I agree with a little of both camps.
Jeff22
Member
Rogue cell phone has 911 on redial
Rogue cell phone has 911 on redial
Yahoo News Sunday Nov 18, 2007
WATERLOO, Iowa - A rogue cell phone is not accepting calls, but it sure likes to dial 911 operators in eastern Iowa.
Operators at the Black Hawk County Consolidated Communications Center said that they received about 400 calls from the same cell phone last week and that no one seems to be on the other line.
"That's it right now," said Dispatcher Chuck Hosier, as a phone rang in the background. "It will ring in, and it's an open line. Sometimes it rings in and drops off."
Officials can't locate the phone but have figured out that it is an old line not currently associated with a cell phone provider. Such phones, once charged up, can still place 911 calls under Federal Communications Commission rules set in 1994.
The cell phone can't receive calls, and emergency workers haven't been able to track the owner through service records, either.
"With this, we are pretty helpless," said Judy Flores, the center's administrative supervisor.
Officials are suspicious that it could be a prank — but they say it's not funny and potentially dangerous.
Until the source of the calls is found or they stop, dispatchers still have to answer every call just in case someone is on the line with an emergency
Rogue cell phone has 911 on redial
Yahoo News Sunday Nov 18, 2007
WATERLOO, Iowa - A rogue cell phone is not accepting calls, but it sure likes to dial 911 operators in eastern Iowa.
Operators at the Black Hawk County Consolidated Communications Center said that they received about 400 calls from the same cell phone last week and that no one seems to be on the other line.
"That's it right now," said Dispatcher Chuck Hosier, as a phone rang in the background. "It will ring in, and it's an open line. Sometimes it rings in and drops off."
Officials can't locate the phone but have figured out that it is an old line not currently associated with a cell phone provider. Such phones, once charged up, can still place 911 calls under Federal Communications Commission rules set in 1994.
The cell phone can't receive calls, and emergency workers haven't been able to track the owner through service records, either.
"With this, we are pretty helpless," said Judy Flores, the center's administrative supervisor.
Officials are suspicious that it could be a prank — but they say it's not funny and potentially dangerous.
Until the source of the calls is found or they stop, dispatchers still have to answer every call just in case someone is on the line with an emergency
Jeff22
Member
a discussion of "Exigent Circumstances"
Exigent circumstance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.
Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).
United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984): "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999) (citations omitted). There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991). In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary. See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).
Exigent circumstance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.
Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).
United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984): "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999) (citations omitted). There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991). In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary. See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).
Deanimator
Member
I don't have "police protection" as an individual. Unless you have a "special relationship" (a specific legal term) with the police, neither do you.
Expecting the police to protect you as an individual is firmly in tooth fairy territory.
1. The police have virtually NO duty to protect you as an individual. Absent a "special relationship" (confidential informant, in custody, etc.) you're on your own. That's settled law and has been for a LONG time. If the police fail to protect you from personal harm, unless they had some actual role in the attack (not an uncommon occurance in the Jim Crow South), you have NO recourse.
2. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE for the police to protect you as an individual in most cases. When my godsister's boyfriend stabbed her to death, the Chicago PD didn't protect her in ANY way. Of course unless they've purchased a matter transporter, I wouldn't expect them to.
3. In certain places, the police don't WANT to protect you. I've been refused police protection when friends and I were subject to terroristic threats by a drug dealer. Fortunately, after being turned down flat by the Fulton, MO PD, we got the wink and the nod from the Callaway County Sheriff's Dept. regarding self-defense in Missouri. We took the hint, armed ourselves and dealt with the problem face to face. Call the Chicago PD, report cops are currently engaged in a violent crime and see what happens. The perpetrators will wave the responding units off with their badges.
When it comes to your personal safety, you're ALREADY on your own, whether you know it or not. If you can't take care of business until you can BOTH contact the police AND get them to show up (and do something), you're toast.
Here is a link to an article on the "Computerworld" magazine website about an incident called "swatting"...making fake 911 calls resulting in the SWAT teams being dispatched...The article is a couple of pages long on the Computerworld website.
* Swatters tricked AT&T while making fake 911 calls
http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/2372879/294034/88035/2/
* Swatters tricked AT&T while making fake 911 calls
http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/2372879/294034/88035/2/
There is a substantial difference between what goes on in a war zone and what goes on back at home, and the rules and laws are different. I am quite proud of how well our military follows the rules of war, and that they deal pretty harshly with those few who chose not to.
I am not advocating a civilian review board, although that is essentially what happens in some jurisdictions where deadly force incidents go to a grand jury. the grand jury system mostly works pretty well, and it is all people who are neither criminals nor cops.
there needs to be a level of independence between those investigating an incident and those involved in it. there rarely is in alleged police misconduct cases.
if you look at cases where outside agencies have investigated alleged police misconduct (mostly because it occurred outside the cop's jurisdiction), the end result is often radically different then what would have happened if it was within his jurisdiction, and X100 if he/she was on duty at the time of the incident.
the reason for that is the system naturally wants to protect its own. just human nature.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
You're throwing the word evil around like it can have any meaning you feel like. Those things are necessary inconveniences. Not evil.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi taurusowner
If you read the letters sent back and forth between the Founding Fathers about the time they were realizing the Confederacy of States wasn't working you see the term 'necessary evil' used almost constantly.The Founders feared a strong central government and they feared the powers such a gov had. I don't know about you but I have it in mine those men are a bit smarter than I and tend to take their concerns to heart. I'm sorry, and just a bit concern, that you disapprove.
Selena
If you read the letters sent back and forth between the Founding Fathers about the time they were realizing the Confederacy of States wasn't working you see the term 'necessary evil' used almost constantly.The Founders feared a strong central government and they feared the powers such a gov had. I don't know about you but I have it in mine those men are a bit smarter than I and tend to take their concerns to heart. I'm sorry, and just a bit concern, that you disapprove.
Selena
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Opd743,
I see, if you truly believe the mission(s) of SF and the cop on the street are the same you have proved my point that the police need to have a much tighter rein.
So out of curiosity. Are you saying the enemies of the United States should automatically be granted Constitutional rights merely by our being there or the citizens of the US needed to be considered as enemy combatants?
Selena
I see, if you truly believe the mission(s) of SF and the cop on the street are the same you have proved my point that the police need to have a much tighter rein.
So out of curiosity. Are you saying the enemies of the United States should automatically be granted Constitutional rights merely by our being there or the citizens of the US needed to be considered as enemy combatants?
Selena
Blackfork
Member
How many lessons?
All I know about modern policing is what I read or see in the newspapers. I watched the Davidians gassed and burned. A Texas DPS officer friend of mine testified (with the jury absent) that he watched the FBI load BOTH metal doors on a truck and drive off. I read about 92 year old Kathyrn Johnson being killed by a SWAT team, drugs planted, informants threatened. I watched the Youtube of the policeman chewing out and threatening the kid in Missouri. I read the threats to the same kid posted on a police forum. I watched the Chicago policeman stomp a little woman bartender. I've seen the Youtube of the police mugging the skateboarders. I watched a California Highway patrolman assault Patricia Kronie in NO while enforcing a plainly illegal order. I watched everyone stand around and watch him without lifting a finger. I read about the local N.O. LEOs stealing cars and looting and leaving-the ones that actually existed, not the fake police on the rosters who were drawing paychecks. I read about the NJ SWAT speeding with their lights on through Georgia on the way home and threatening the policeman who pulled them over. I've seen the Hoboken SWAT guys with the Hooters girls waving guns around on the way home from Katrina. I read the about my local constable shop here in the county drinking beer out of the evidence room and getting caught when they showed up in court with a cheaper brand. (drugs and guns still missing but the case is now swept under the carpet) I saw the courtcase and guilty plea of the decorated local policeman who made a hobby of sexual assault. (several women still missing, a couple found dead) I followed Nifong. I followed the case where the SWAT team killed the gambling dentist who never owned a gun. I keep up with Cory Maye. I noted when the Dallas, Texas prosecutor Henry Wade say that if you hadn't sent a defendant to jail that you KNEW was innocent, you really weren't a prosecutor. I'm watching the FEDs ruin Red's and Richard Celata. I read about the TSA failing every test of their system at airports, virtually every time.
And on, and on, and on, and on. I'm not even mentioning the TIP of the iceberg.
If I have developed some slight scepticism and anxiety about modern policing and their "exigent circumstances", doesn't it seem like I am just paying attention?
All I know about modern policing is what I read or see in the newspapers. I watched the Davidians gassed and burned. A Texas DPS officer friend of mine testified (with the jury absent) that he watched the FBI load BOTH metal doors on a truck and drive off. I read about 92 year old Kathyrn Johnson being killed by a SWAT team, drugs planted, informants threatened. I watched the Youtube of the policeman chewing out and threatening the kid in Missouri. I read the threats to the same kid posted on a police forum. I watched the Chicago policeman stomp a little woman bartender. I've seen the Youtube of the police mugging the skateboarders. I watched a California Highway patrolman assault Patricia Kronie in NO while enforcing a plainly illegal order. I watched everyone stand around and watch him without lifting a finger. I read about the local N.O. LEOs stealing cars and looting and leaving-the ones that actually existed, not the fake police on the rosters who were drawing paychecks. I read about the NJ SWAT speeding with their lights on through Georgia on the way home and threatening the policeman who pulled them over. I've seen the Hoboken SWAT guys with the Hooters girls waving guns around on the way home from Katrina. I read the about my local constable shop here in the county drinking beer out of the evidence room and getting caught when they showed up in court with a cheaper brand. (drugs and guns still missing but the case is now swept under the carpet) I saw the courtcase and guilty plea of the decorated local policeman who made a hobby of sexual assault. (several women still missing, a couple found dead) I followed Nifong. I followed the case where the SWAT team killed the gambling dentist who never owned a gun. I keep up with Cory Maye. I noted when the Dallas, Texas prosecutor Henry Wade say that if you hadn't sent a defendant to jail that you KNEW was innocent, you really weren't a prosecutor. I'm watching the FEDs ruin Red's and Richard Celata. I read about the TSA failing every test of their system at airports, virtually every time.
And on, and on, and on, and on. I'm not even mentioning the TIP of the iceberg.
If I have developed some slight scepticism and anxiety about modern policing and their "exigent circumstances", doesn't it seem like I am just paying attention?
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Powderman,
Yes, and also in the wonderful city of Chicago. The perp was a foster parent and the worker in charge wasn't interested in moving me. Being 10 years old and being beaten with the full blessing of the state makes one distrust the state and it's agents. I guess it's different perceptions make people come to different conclusions.
Selena
Yes, and also in the wonderful city of Chicago. The perp was a foster parent and the worker in charge wasn't interested in moving me. Being 10 years old and being beaten with the full blessing of the state makes one distrust the state and it's agents. I guess it's different perceptions make people come to different conclusions.
Selena
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Deanimator,
With all due respect sir, that isn't very high road. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!
Selena
With all due respect sir, that isn't very high road. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!
Selena
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi 1911 guy,
In all things the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Sometimes people get so involved in their particular sacred cow they forget it's just beefsteak to someone else.
Selena
In all things the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Sometimes people get so involved in their particular sacred cow they forget it's just beefsteak to someone else.
Selena
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi MakAttak,
In my humble opinion your def of 'necessary evil' is far too broad. To me a 'necessary evil' denotes a act, item or entity with the potential of doing great harm that exests to prevent a greater harm.
Take the army for an example, without the ability to mount an armed defense a country would be attacked and conquered easily. The Founders feared a standing army, looking at history that fear is easily understood, thus the importance of the militia in early America.
Likewise the police force, I believe the civil rights violations in the deep south were mentioned. But, in order to maintain a peaceful society those that commit violence must be removed. (Straight out of Rousseau) Making the police a necessary evil.
Government itself can be a major evil without limits, Germany, the old USSR and various African countries in ancient times are the prime example. However, without government we wouldn't have the infrastructure necessary for a productive society.
But, and this is important, it must be remembered that the necessary evils are our servants. The moment they become our master they become the evil they exist to prevent.
This is what my Dad called civics 101 people, it's not rocket science.
Selena
In my humble opinion your def of 'necessary evil' is far too broad. To me a 'necessary evil' denotes a act, item or entity with the potential of doing great harm that exests to prevent a greater harm.
Take the army for an example, without the ability to mount an armed defense a country would be attacked and conquered easily. The Founders feared a standing army, looking at history that fear is easily understood, thus the importance of the militia in early America.
Likewise the police force, I believe the civil rights violations in the deep south were mentioned. But, in order to maintain a peaceful society those that commit violence must be removed. (Straight out of Rousseau) Making the police a necessary evil.
Government itself can be a major evil without limits, Germany, the old USSR and various African countries in ancient times are the prime example. However, without government we wouldn't have the infrastructure necessary for a productive society.
But, and this is important, it must be remembered that the necessary evils are our servants. The moment they become our master they become the evil they exist to prevent.
This is what my Dad called civics 101 people, it's not rocket science.
Selena
I lived in Chicago for six years. Back when they announced the handgun ban actually; 1979-1985. I am well aware of several (not all) of the scandals you talk about-the torture thing was going on when I was there. I don't agree with you the CPD is pure evil. I know that is your belief, I have read enough of your past posts on the Chicago Police to get your position. My opinion is different.
Anyway, what the heck does the alleged evil of the Chicago Police Department, or how rudely police treated me in the past, or debating the highly dubious proposition of whether we are in currently in a police state, or whether I go around in fear of cops, or the merits of civilian review boards for police, have to do with guns? Aren't there other fora to discuss these topics? The OP made a small link to guns but this thread seems to have drifted way off track.
Last edited:
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Blackfork
Keep in mind though that what you read in the papers are rare events, if they were commonplace they would no longer be news. In a way such reports are good news. Bad law enforcement, much like criminals, cannot stand the light of day. One of the reasons the 1st amendment wasn't concern with what style tops Betsy Ross was wearing or Ben Franklin's horn doggery but the abuses of a newly made government.
Selena
Keep in mind though that what you read in the papers are rare events, if they were commonplace they would no longer be news. In a way such reports are good news. Bad law enforcement, much like criminals, cannot stand the light of day. One of the reasons the 1st amendment wasn't concern with what style tops Betsy Ross was wearing or Ben Franklin's horn doggery but the abuses of a newly made government.
Selena
I greatly enjoyed my Chicago years. I look back on the time in my life (I attended the University of Chicago and stayed on before I left for the Navy) very fondly. I am now in that small minority of people who couldn't live there because of my guns, and think it is too bad they ban most guns, but I liked the city very much.
I will concede the winters could be kind of tough as well
And with that, I will try to bow out of this thread.
Deanimator
Member
I loathe Chicago. I was born there and lived there until I went to college.
It is simply the most racist place I have ever been on the face of the earth.
Whites hate Blacks.
Blacks hate Jews.
Mexicans hate Puerto Ricans.
Go to the Second City Cop blog so that you can see the confluence of bigotry, corruption and anti-gunnery as expressed in the words of Chicago cops themselves.
I can't like any place where paintings are "arrested" by the police, torture chambers are SOP, and city government is so corrupt it makes Tijuana look like Basel.
It's no coincidence that Chicago's gun laws are simultaneously repressive and applied ONLY to those without "clout".
I've been to Chicago and North Korea. At least you can say for the North Koreans that they don't know any better.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked