6 votes

Do Police Have Too Much Power?

Judicially Authorized Rape: The Newest Weapon in the Prohibitionist Arsenal

There was neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to justify the search of the car. By ordering Cook to drive to the station, the police made it clear that they did not believe that he was under the influence of marijuana.

Furthermore, Cook didn’t own the car, a fact that severs the thinnest thread connecting him to the glass pipe found in the trunk.

Yet the officers persisted in their effort to manufacture an offense. Cook was detained and informed that he would have to undergo a drug test. When the police demanded that he sign a waiver of his rights, Cook – whose parents are police officers -- repeatedly and explicitly demanded access to an attorney.

“I asked for an attorney because I didn’t know if this was right,”

... http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/06/judicially-auth...

You don't know if that's right or not? What country is this?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You got to know your rights

because your average cop is not the sharpest tool in the shed. so its up to you to use your rights and if the cops violates them its at their own peril when it gets to court.

The constitution is a contract.

Sorry to be a broken record. If you read down through the comments there are others who know this. It's a private contract between one individual and another. One has taken the oath the other has accepted that oath and agrees that it's valid.

"I accept your oath of office and bind you to it."

Do they have too much power?

I'm not sure...

My biggest problem with police is that they initiate violence against individuals that have harmed no one which just makes the police the actual criminal. If the police used ALL their power just to apprehend individuals that have harmed another individual then I'd probably have no problem with however much power they had. But as it currently stands the police are just another group of dangerous criminals that I try my best to avoid as I go about my business.

"as it currently stands

the police are just another group of dangerous criminals that I try my best to avoid as I go about my business."

comment of the day.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

absolutely

they have too much power!

Even if each cop was the best cop in the world and upright/honest, they have too much power!!

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Public Law 94-412 of

Public Law 94-412 of September 14, 1976 did repeal certain emergency powers and other statutes, it did not repeal Section 5(b) of the "Trading With The Enemy Act", as amended, 12 U.S.C. 95a; 50 U.S.C. App. 5 (b).

Yes, they have too much power.

And not enough accountability.

As things are today, the average citizen gets victimized by BOTH the criminals and the police. In fact, it's getting pretty hard to tell one from the other at this point.

It is not a state rights issue

Stop this ridiculous nonsense. States are fictional entities created out of thin air. They have no rights. People are real living organisms that are naturally created and really exist, people have rights.

The police that raped the victims have violated their sworn oath of office and are therefor directly liable for their transgressions.

Article 6 section 3 of the Constitution for the United States says
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, AND ALL EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."

5th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States says
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process."

Infamous crime means criminal jurisdiction. If the police take any action of depriving a person of life, liberty, or property before an indictment then they have violated their sworn oath of office to support the Constitution, including the 5th amendment. That is called perjury to your oath and if it were feudal times would warrant a death sentence.

But if you go by the

But if you go by the tenthers' logic, the states shouldn't be subject to the bill of rights. They are the ones who are against the very fourteenth amendment that allows our federal agents to go in and kick the asses of local yokels who cross the line and commit atrocities.

you have peanuts for brains?

I never said the bill of rights applies to states. I disregarded states all together. It is an issue between two people, one who has swore an oath to uphold the bill of rights and one who has not. The one who has sworn an oath is the very one who is violating it while the one who has not sworn an oath is abiding by it. That is called abuse of privilege.

Same logic applies to the 14th amendment too. They all apply to those who swore an oath to abide by them in order to restrain their action. But we are at a point where their actions are not restrained in the least.

Evil I doubt you will ever understand this concept because you seem to be down right retarded.

It's a states' rights issue.

It's a states' rights issue.

YES!

.

Why would the waiver be so important?

If you didn't have rights they needed you to waive?

Think about it... there's something very fundamental there I think the majority is missing.