Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 22, 2014, 03:24:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 76   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Police State - Official Thread  (Read 106937 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #800 on: June 11, 2012, 08:23:02 PM »

Senator opens inquiry into EPA’s armed visit to NC man’s home
Daily Caller ^ | 6-11-12 | Caroline May
Posted on June 11, 2012 11:00:11 PM EDT by STARWISE

An Asheville, N.C. man has enlisted the aid of North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr to investigate a visit he received from two armed Environmental Protection Agency officials and a local police officer.

Burr has been in touch with the man and started an inquiry into the incident with EPA.

According to the Ashville Citizen-Times, Larry Keller claims the EPA targeted him after he sent an email on April 27 to former EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz, who resigned on April 30 over comments he made comparing the administration’s enforcement policy to Roman crucifixions. (RELATED: Complete coverage of the Al Armendariz scandal)

The letter to an EPA external affairs director read simply, “Do you have Mr. Armendariz’s contact information so we can say hello? – Regards- Larry Keller.”

“I wanted to know why someone in his position would say what he did. I wanted to question his reasoning and principles. It’s all about freedom of speech,” Keller told The Carolina Journal.

The agents visited Keller on May 2, two days after Armendariz resigned.

Keller is not convinced the matter is over, and he wants a full explanation. But the Journal reported that Patrick Sullivan, the EPA’s assistant inspector general, does not believe there was “any unprofessional behavior” by Office of Inspector General personnel, and that Keller “answered the questions and the suspicious nature of the email was resolved.”

Fox News Channel reported that the EPA has invited Keller to come to Washington. The Asheville man, however, is unwilling until he has a full understanding of what the EPA wants to discuss.

“The charter of the EPA is to protect the environment and public, not to act as a quasi federal police department,” Keller told Fox News on Saturday.

In late April on the Senate floor, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe highlighted video of Armendariz, then the Region 6 Administrator, explaining EPA’s heavy-handed approach to enforcement. That video brought about Armendariz’s resignation just days later.

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said,” Armendariz said in the video footage.

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #801 on: June 30, 2012, 12:38:26 PM »

Police: 'Threat matrix' dictated SWAT team response at Powell Avenue home
 By John Martin, Mark Wilson

Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., updated June 22, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.




EVANSVILLE — Stephanie Milan, 18, was relaxing in her family’s living room Thursday watching the Food Network when a heavily armed squad of Evansville police officers arrived on the front porch.

Dressed in full protective gear, police broke the storm door of the home at 616 East Powell Ave. — the Milans’ front door was already open on the hot summer day. They also broke a front window. They tossed a flashbang stun grenade into the living room that made a deafening blast. A short distance away, a local television crew’s cameras were rolling. The police had invited the station to videotape the forced entry of the residence.Stephanie Milan said she managed to remain calm because she knew her family hadn’t done anything wrong. Still, she was stunned and confused.


After speaking to Milan and her grandmother, Louise, police determined those inside the house had nothing to do with their investigation.

Police were executing a search warrant for computer equipment, which they said was used to make anonymous and specific online threats against police and their families on the website topix.com.

“The front door was open. It’s not like anyone was in there hiding,” said Ira Milan, Stephanie's grandfather and owner of the property for many years. “To bring a whole SWAT team seems a little excessive.”

Ira Milan said the perpetrator of the threats likely used Stephanie’s Internet service connection from an outside location, which led police to the East Powell Avenue address.

But Police Chief Billy Bolin said, “We have no way of being able to tell that,” and the concerning Internet posts “definitely come back to that address.”

“I think it was a show of force that they are not going to tolerate this,” said Ira Milan, “But what about the residents and what they have to tolerate?”

After noting he has lived there for 30 years, Milan said, “No one has ever been arrested at my house.”

Bolin said Friday that department records indicated relatives associated with the address had criminal histories.

Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said Friday he spoke to Bolin about the incident and was satisfied that police were justified in forcibly entering the home.

“They had what they thought were very specific threats against police officers, their families and the communities,” Winnecke said.

He said police told him that the Milans’ storm door and window were being repaired at city expense.

Workers were at the Milan home on Friday repairing the storm door and broken window. Carpet inside the house was stained with black residue from the flashbang grenade.

Ira Milan said police offered to pay for the damage. Laptops and a cellphone belonging to Stephanie Milan — a May graduate of Signature School who will attend the University of Southern Indiana this fall and major in radiology — were seized in the raid and remained in police possession on Friday.

Bolin said the SWAT team used its standard “knock and announce” procedure of knocking on the wall and repeating the words “police search warrant” three times before entering.

The police chief said the procedure doesn’t require officers to wait for a response.

“It’s designed to distract,” he said.

The decision to use force

Police used what they called a law enforcement threat matrix to determine the proper response to information in the posts. One post mentioned explosives, and another specifically named Bolin and referenced the area where he lives. But no other officers’ names or addresses were identified.

Sgt. Jason Cullum, a police department spokesman, said one person had posted that he possessed explosives, and that “Evansville is going to feel the pain.” That threat, Cullum said, played a major role in dictating the police response.

Cullum said the conversation at topix.com which concerned officers began under a blog headline.

“It said, ‘EPD leak: Officers’ addresses given out,’ or something along those lines. There were some generalized comments about people not liking the police, and that didn’t really concern us,” Cullum said, but then the threats became more specific and suggested officers’ families could be at risk.

Time stamps on the postings indicated that they were made Wednesday evening. Cullum defended the department’s action.

“We brought them out and talked to them,” Cullum said of the Milans. “They were released at the scene. Investigators felt they were not involved in the posting.

“This is a little more difficult that a traditional crime scene, because we’re dealing with the Internet. They definitely weren’t expecting (a SWAT team at the door). The reason we did that is the threats were specific enough, and the potential for danger was there.

“This is a big deal to us,” Cullum said. “This may be just somebody who was online just talking stupid. What I would suggest to anybody who visits websites like that is that their comments can be taken literally.”

The search warrant

Police were executing a search warrant approved by a judge. Such warrants are routinely filed in the Vanderburgh County Clerks Office, but officials in the clerks office said Friday afternoon they had no record of a warrant served on that address.

When asked by the Courier & Press for access to the document that allowed them to force entry to the home, Bolin refused. He said it might contain information that would compromise their investigation. However, he said the document didn’t contain names of any suspects.

“We have an idea in our mind who it is, but we don’t have evidence yet,” Bolin said.

Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Nick Hermann also refused to release the warrant.

The Courier & Press filed Freedom of Information requests Friday afternoon seeking the document from the police department, clerk’s office and prosecutor’s office.

© 2012 Evansville Courier & Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 






Obama is going to have the IRS swat teams doing this to make sure people sign up for ThugCare
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4111


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #802 on: June 30, 2012, 01:38:37 PM »

Dressed in full protective gear, police broke the storm door of the home at 616 East Powell Ave. — the Milans’ front door was already open on the hot summer day. They also broke a front window. They tossed a flashbang stun grenade into the living room that made a deafening blast. A short distance away, a local television crew’s cameras were rolling. The police had invited the station to videotape the forced entry of the residence.Stephanie Milan said she managed to remain calm because she knew her family hadn’t done anything wrong. Still, she was stunned and confused.

Wow... Also, the police took these threats so seriously that they invited a TV crew to record the forced entry? Roll Eyes


Police were executing a search warrant approved by a judge. Such warrants are routinely filed in the Vanderburgh County Clerks Office, but officials in the clerks office said Friday afternoon they had no record of a warrant served on that address.

When asked by the Courier & Press for access to the document that allowed them to force entry to the home, Bolin refused. He said it might contain information that would compromise their investigation. However, he said the document didn’t contain names of any suspects.

I'm sorry... aren't police required by law to serve the warrant and leave a copy of it with the person? Here's to hoping the family sues the department and the officers who participated in the raid.


Obama is going to have the IRS swat teams doing this to make sure people sign up for ThugCare

Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #803 on: November 14, 2012, 08:17:38 AM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232340/Homeowner-tasered-police-fought-spreading-house-door.html


Insane. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #804 on: November 14, 2012, 08:26:37 AM »


Not that I would do it, but having been there done that .. as Chris Rock would say... I don't condone it.. but I understand it. If the cops do nothing, and Joe Citizen gets hurt, they get sued. If they stop him, they get sued. LIkely he had tunnel vision and didn't hear the cops instructions to stop. Can't really see any benefit in an officer sneaking up and tazing without trying to get him to stop voluntarily.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #805 on: November 14, 2012, 08:27:39 AM »

Not that I would do it, but having been there done that .. as Chris Rock would say... I don't condone it.. but I understand it. If the cops do nothing, and Joe Citizen gets hurt, they get sued. If they stop him, they get sued. LIkely he had tunnel vision and didn't hear the cops instructions to stop. Can't really see any benefit in an officer sneaking up and tazing without trying to get him to stop voluntarily.

Police have no affirmative duty to help a citizen and can't be sued for not stopping someone from hurting themselves.   You know that. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #806 on: November 14, 2012, 08:29:32 AM »

Police have no affirmative duty to help a citizen and can't be sued for not stopping someone from hurting themselves.   You know that. 

I don't agree with your statement at all.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #807 on: November 14, 2012, 08:32:18 AM »

I don't agree with your statement at all.

Really/  You didnt learn that in the Academy? 

Its well settled law that the police have no affirmative duty to help a citzen in need.   They have a public duty in general, but that does not apply to a citizen in distress. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #808 on: November 14, 2012, 08:38:03 AM »

Really/  You didnt learn that in the Academy? 

Its well settled law that the police have no affirmative duty to help a citzen in need.   They have a public duty in general, but that does not apply to a citizen in distress. 

No..apparently the instructors weren't aware of that. We were taught we have a duty to act. In fact, we have policies in place that discipline officers who fail to act in particular situations. YOU should know cops get sued for a variety to things. This guy sued because he was tased. He will likely lose if it goes to court, however the city will likely settle. He would probably sue if he got hurt, though he would likely lose if it went to court. Doesn't mean the officers would not be punished because they failed to control a scene. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #809 on: November 14, 2012, 08:45:39 AM »

No..apparently the instructors weren't aware of that. We were taught we have a duty to act. In fact, we have policies in place that discipline officers who fail to act in particular situations. YOU should know cops get sued for a variety to things. This guy sued because he was tased. He will likely lose if it goes to court, however the city will likely settle. He would probably sue if he got hurt, though he would likely lose if it went to court. Doesn't mean the officers would not be punished because they failed to control a scene. 

Here you go - its Supreme Court precedent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #810 on: November 14, 2012, 08:50:42 AM »

Grin

How he did not know this is pathetic.   Most cops I know are clueless when it comes to crim pro or just don't care.  Most learn a few things that are basic basic stuff you learn the first week in law school but rarely go beyond that. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #811 on: November 14, 2012, 08:53:40 AM »

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions
 
By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado



Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.

Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.

Special Relationship
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law."2 In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."3 Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual."4

Those pronouncements came in a case where the Court held that there was no substantive due process violation by caseworkers when a child, formerly in department of social services custody, was returned to and later beaten by his father. Caseworkers had received complaints about the father and may have known that the child was in danger. In analyzing the facts, the Court noted that there was no special relationship between Social Services and the child, as the latter was not in its custody. The Court further noted that the state had not created the danger or done anything to place the child in more danger.5 The harm to the child was inflicted not by the state but by the child's father. "The most that can be said of the state functionaries in this case is that they stood by and did nothing when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role for them."6

When considering whether law enforcement has a duty to protect, first ask if a special relationship exists. If a suspect is taken into custody by law enforcement, a duty to protect -be it at the scene, during transport, or at the jail-exists.7 The majority of courts require a person to be in physical custody of police before that person has a special relationship with police. However, the Sixth Circuit held that police had a duty to protect a woman where she was effectively in custody when she was threatened with arrest and placed involuntarily in her boyfriend's car.8 The Ninth Circuit held that the government created a special relationship with a noncitizen by paroling him into federal custody as a government witness.9 One federal district court has held a special relationship between the state and a confidential informant existed, and thus there was a duty to protect.10

Courts have rejected the existence of a special relationship in the following situations: between a county and an ex-wife when the sheriff failed to serve her ex-husband with an order of protection;11 between police and a girlfriend when police made a promise to her that her boyfriend would be kept in jail overnight;12 and between a man and police, who went to his home to place him on a mental health hold and then waited downstairs while the man (who was not in the officer's physical custody) went upstairs to get "something" and jumped out a window, thereby killing himself.13

State-Created Danger
Even if there is no special relationship between a person and police, a duty to protect may still exist if the person has been harmed by a third party and can prove the state-created danger theory. This theory has been litigated in a variety of contexts, including those involving motorists and passengers, government and citizen undercovers, rescues by third parties and prevention of rescues, failure to arrest, and failure to serve orders.

Most circuit courts analyze the issue of whether the state-created danger theory is applicable by examining if officers left the individual in a situation that was more dangerous than the one in which they found him, by creating a previously nonexisting danger or increasing the danger. For example, an intoxicated bar patron, who was ejected by police late at night into subfreezing temperatures wearing only jeans and a T-shirt, and was prevented from returning to the bar or driving his truck, made a failure-to-protect claim.14 As the Sixth Circuit said, "The question is not whether the victim was safe during the state action, but whether he was safer before the state action than he was after it."15

At least three circuits have set forth specific tests to determine if a state-created danger exception exists. The Third Circuit requires the plaintiff to show that (1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct, (2) the state actor willfully disregarded plaintiff's safety, (3) there existed some relationship between the state and the plaintiff, and (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party's crime to occur.16

Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #812 on: November 14, 2012, 08:54:23 AM »

How he did not know this is pathetic.   Most cops I know are clueless when it comes to crim pro or just don't care.  Most learn a few things that are basic basic stuff you learn the first week in law school but rarely go beyond that. 

apparently you weren't aware of the two exceptions.. pathetic
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #813 on: November 14, 2012, 08:58:23 AM »

apparently you weren't aware of the two exceptions.. pathetic

How does that apply to the story I posted.  It doesn't. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #814 on: November 14, 2012, 09:07:10 AM »

How does that apply to the story I posted.  It doesn't. 

They had told him to stop once. He will argue the special relationship exception because they limited his movement. He will argue when the police arrived they took control of the scene and should not have allowed him to get close enough to a raging fire to spray it with a garden hose. So while I've addressed your Supreme Court "No Duty" aspect, lets move on to the "right thing to do" aspect. Do you think the cops hated this guy? Were waiting for a chance to pop him and when he placed himself in danger (which in turn places the officers and firemen in danger when they have to go pull his ass out of the fire) they saw it as a chance to try out their fancy taser?  How about this possibility. This was likely this guys first fire experience. Probably not the officers first one. As you know, since you are the expert, the first thing of importance is the preservation of life. Property comes second. you can replace property. People have been killed fighting house fires with garden hoses. Turns out..garden hoses are woefully inadequate. Again, I doubt I would taser the guy, but.. me and my partner would have made sure he stayed a safe distance away from the fire. 1. Because we don't want anyone getting seriously hurt and 2. because if they DO get hurt, we will be held responsible. We'll likely survive the lawsuit, but administratively , it can be your job.     
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #815 on: November 14, 2012, 09:09:59 AM »

They had told him to stop once. He will argue the special relationship exception because they limited his movement. He will argue when the police arrived they took control of the scene and should not have allowed him to get close enough to a raging fire to spray it with a garden hose. So while I've addressed your Supreme Court "No Duty" aspect, lets move on to the "right thing to do" aspect. Do you think the cops hated this guy? Were waiting for a chance to pop him and when he placed himself in danger (which in turn places the officers and firemen in danger when they have to go pull his ass out of the fire) they saw it as a chance to try out their fancy taser?  How about this possibility. This was likely this guys first fire experience. Probably not the officers first one. As you know, since you are the expert, the first thing of importance is the preservation of life. Property comes second. you can replace property. People have been killed fighting house fires with garden hoses. Turns out..garden hoses are woefully inadequate. Again, I doubt I would taser the guy, but.. me and my partner would have made sure he stayed a safe distance away from the fire. 1. Because we don't want anyone getting seriously hurt and 2. because if they DO get hurt, we will be held responsible. We'll likely survive the lawsuit, but administratively , it can be your job.     


The guy was on his own property trying to protect it since the fire department was not there.  The cops were doing nothing.  A citizen can't try to protect his own property any more just because some stupid cop tells him not to and then gets tazed?  

F the police.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3963



« Reply #816 on: November 14, 2012, 09:11:54 AM »


The guy was on his own property trying to protect it since the fire department was not there.  The cops were doing nothing.  A citizen can't try to protect his own property any more just because some stupid cop tells him not to and then gets tazed?  

F the police.  

yeah, you're right
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #817 on: November 20, 2012, 12:37:35 PM »

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title


Ridiculous. 

F Harry reid! 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #818 on: November 20, 2012, 12:53:21 PM »

Saw this earlier... It already passed in the house.

How about we F Boehner too!

It passed without the re-write - now it goes back to the house of reps right? 

Yes - F Boehner. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20872


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #819 on: November 20, 2012, 01:04:50 PM »

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!

What in the holy fuck is going on around here?
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5611


Getbig!


« Reply #820 on: November 20, 2012, 01:06:51 PM »

Not even a warrant?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #821 on: November 20, 2012, 01:07:01 PM »

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!

What in the holy fuck is going on around here?

Obama got reelected and gets whatever he wants for a year or two, just like 2008 when all sorts of nasty stuff happened.  
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5611


Getbig!


« Reply #822 on: November 20, 2012, 01:10:14 PM »

Nope.



Thats fucked up Sad
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #823 on: November 20, 2012, 01:13:11 PM »

Thats fucked up Sad

Bi-Partisan screw job.  Just like the NDAA 

Both parties are the same behind closed doors. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10437


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #824 on: November 20, 2012, 03:12:42 PM »

100 percent accurate.

Notice how NDAA was barely even discussed in the house of reps? 

How many demos ever said a word about it? 

This bullshit w the email will be the same way and obama will sign it and then his blind supporters will make an excuse and say i am making it up. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 76   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!