People not trusting cops - Page 8

People not trusting cops

This is a discussion on People not trusting cops within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by atctimmy It seems to me you're missing something. In the United States we ARE innocent until PROVEN guilty. Yes we are presumed ...

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 122
Like Tree59Likes

Thread: People not trusting cops

  1. #106
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    It seems to me you're missing something. In the United States we ARE innocent until PROVEN guilty.
    Yes we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof that must be met to obtain a conviction for a crime. That presumption of innocence is what put's the burden of proof on the state, not the accused. Most courts require a jury review, or judicial review before a formal criminal information be filed against you. Then you must again be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The presumption of innocence drives the rules of evidence, as decided by the court when it could be too prejudicial, and could effect your constitutional right of the presumption of innocence. I hope I said that right.

    The presumption pretty much means that you do not have to defend yourself. You sit at trial an innocent man. The burden of proving otherwise is entirely on the state. The standard for that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. If that burden is not met, you must be aquited. or found "NOT GUILTY" Again this dont mean you didnt do it... It means the state has not met it's burden. Like with O.J. Simpson, or more recently Casey Anthony. A person who was NOT convicted on a criminal charge could still be sued in civil court. There the standard of proof is much lower. And in Civil court there is no presumption of innocence. The standard of proof in civil court id "THE PROPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE". Which roughly translates to as little as 51% of evidence could gain a decision either way. Like in the O.J. Simpson case... he was found responsible in civil court with the much lower standard of proof, and no presumption of innocence.


  2. #107
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    This thread had drifted and sort of died down. Really had not planned to contribute here but...

    Here's a url to a story on CBS news today.
    Okla. City cops catch flak for mistaken teen curfew arrests - Crimesider - CBS News

    Twenty teens were inappropriately arrested for alleged curfew violations. The arrests began 20 minutes before curfew, the ordinance has an exemption for teens who have left a movie theater and are waiting for an adult to get them (which was the situation). Parents were waiting nearby when arrests were made, and the LEOs ignored the parents when they tried to stop the arrests, pointing to their cars and identifying their kids.

    "Citty, the police chief, said police are investigating their handling of the situation to see what went wrong."

    So, let's not argue that nothing happened. They admit that something went wrong.

    Indeed. What went wrong was a disregard for the law and a certain overzealous behavior. You can bet the kids involved (and their parents) won't be trusting cops.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  3. #108
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Secret Spuk View Post
    Yes we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof that must be met to obtain a conviction for a crime. That presumption of innocence is what put's the burden of proof on the state, not the accused. Most courts require a jury review, or judicial review before a formal criminal information be filed against you. Then you must again be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The presumption of innocence drives the rules of evidence, as decided by the court when it could be too prejudicial, and could effect your constitutional right of the presumption of innocence. I hope I said that right.

    The presumption pretty much means that you do not have to defend yourself. You sit at trial an innocent man. The burden of proving otherwise is entirely on the state. The standard for that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. If that burden is not met, you must be aquited. or found "NOT GUILTY" Again this dont mean you didnt do it... It means the state has not met it's burden. Like with O.J. Simpson, or more recently Casey Anthony. A person who was NOT convicted on a criminal charge could still be sued in civil court. There the standard of proof is much lower. And in Civil court there is no presumption of innocence. The standard of proof in civil court id "THE PROPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE". Which roughly translates to as little as 51% of evidence could gain a decision either way. Like in the O.J. Simpson case... he was found responsible in civil court with the much lower standard of proof, and no presumption of innocence.
    Spuk I understand and agree with everything you posted here. It's just that your last post didn't sit well with me. I understood where you were coming from in that one too.

    Let me explain my point a little better. We will use (the "guilty as sin" yet not guilty) Casey Anthony as our test case. For me as a regular Joe I can think Casey Anthony is guilty and treat her, speak about her nearly any way I want. If I met her on the street I could tell her to her face that I think she is a pig.

    You on the other hand as an officer of the law/agent of the government cannot do those things. If you encountered Casey in the course of your duties and you called her a pig (or other arbitrary offense) you would be on the hot seat and she would get a check from your employer. Even when off duty if you were known to her to be an officer you could be in hot water.

    You and I have a different set of rules that we play under.

    My discomfort with your "No where is it decided in a court case that the defendant didn't commit the crime." post reaches to the point of this entire thread, trusting the police. There is an inherent conflict of interests when an officer of the law has a personal opinion contrary to the letter of the law. Now I understand that my argument, if you can call it that, is a perfect world argument. Officers are humans too and as such are susceptible to all of the whims, emotions and flaws like the rest of us.

    The distrust of police by some parties is a direct result of officers who are not able to separate the professional side of their lives and the personal side. My innocent until proven guilty post was a poorly worded reminder to you of this inherent conflict.

    Remember Spuk, to us civilians, you are The State and The State is you. As such you are held to a higher standard (and for good reason too).
    Secret Spuk likes this.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  4. #109
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This thread had drifted and sort of died down. Really had not planned to contribute here but...

    Here's a url to a story on CBS news today.
    Okla. City cops catch flak for mistaken teen curfew arrests - Crimesider - CBS News

    Twenty teens were inappropriately arrested for alleged curfew violations. The arrests began 20 minutes before curfew, the ordinance has an exemption for teens who have left a movie theater and are waiting for an adult to get them (which was the situation). Parents were waiting nearby when arrests were made, and the LEOs ignored the parents when they tried to stop the arrests, pointing to their cars and identifying their kids.

    "Citty, the police chief, said police are investigating their handling of the situation to see what went wrong."

    So, let's not argue that nothing happened. They admit that something went wrong.

    Indeed. What went wrong was a disregard for the law and a certain overzealous behavior. You can bet the kids involved (and their parents) won't be trusting cops.
    As a coincidence, this was similar in context to the only negative dealing that I recall ever having with a LEO - as a 16-year-old with an 11pm curfew in Saint Paul. I was approached by a 2 officer patrol at the local 7-eleven at 10:40pm on a fine summer's night where I was hanging out with several friends & my then 18-year-old girlfriend (eventually to be my wife). There were a few 18yo's in the group, with myself & a 17yo friend being the only ones with curfews - mine at 11p & my friend's at 12a.

    Long story short, I was 3 mins. away from home (by car) , but one of the officer's said I had to go now - I argued - he was irritable - my (wife) & his partner eventually talked him down (he was ordering me to his squad) with my (wife) saying she would take me home as she dragged me to her car. The officer just didn't want to deal with a smart-mouthed kid, & I was full of smart-mouth!
    Last edited by ArkhmAsylm; July 21st, 2011 at 03:44 PM. Reason: * Clarification (I hope!) *
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

  5. #110
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by ArkhmAsylm View Post
    As a coincidence,
    Long story short, I was 3 mins. away from home (by car), but one of the officer's said I had to go now - I argued - he was irritable - & my (wife) & his partner eventually talked him down (he was ordering me to his squad) with my (wife) saying she would take me home as she dragged me to her car. The officer just didn't want to deal with a smart-mouthed kid, & I was full of smart-mouth!
    Uh, did you mis- state the part in bold; were you married @ 16? Were both of you below curfew age but married?

    Maybe I didn't understand your point. There have been a few similar incidents in an adjoining town. FWIW, I am no fan of legal curfews for kids, but apparently my view doesn't count. Its not so much that I don't want the kids home, it is that I don't want to create records for good kids out doing ordinary things.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #111
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Uh, did you mis- state the part in bold; were you married @ 16? Were both of you below curfew age but married?

    Maybe I didn't understand your point. There have been a few similar incidents in an adjoining town. FWIW, I am no fan of legal curfews for kids, but apparently my view doesn't count. Its not so much that I don't want the kids home, it is that I don't want to create records for good kids out doing ordinary things.
    Being as I identified my girlfriend of the time as marrying me later & we're still married, I used the (wife) notation as a shortened reference to my girlfriend...who is my wife. Apologies for the confusion.
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

  7. #112
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,900
    KEEP IT ON TOPIC!

    Bubbiesdad and 357and40, I deleted your posts. Its off topic and already running elsewhere.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  8. #113
    VIP Member Array 357and40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Charles, Missouri
    Posts
    2,358
    Sorry sixto, I was trying to delete my post when I saw that you had removed his but you had it locked up.
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
    - Roy Batty

  9. #114
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Spuk I understand and agree with everything you posted here. It's just that your last post didn't sit well with me. I understood where you were coming from in that one too.

    Let me explain my point a little better. We will use (the "guilty as sin" yet not guilty) Casey Anthony as our test case. For me as a regular Joe I can think Casey Anthony is guilty and treat her, speak about her nearly any way I want. If I met her on the street I could tell her to her face that I think she is a pig.

    You on the other hand as an officer of the law/agent of the government cannot do those things. If you encountered Casey in the course of your duties and you called her a pig (or other arbitrary offense) you would be on the hot seat and she would get a check from your employer. Even when off duty if you were known to her to be an officer you could be in hot water.

    You and I have a different set of rules that we play under.

    My discomfort with your "No where is it decided in a court case that the defendant didn't commit the crime." post reaches to the point of this entire thread, trusting the police. There is an inherent conflict of interests when an officer of the law has a personal opinion contrary to the letter of the law. Now I understand that my argument, if you can call it that, is a perfect world argument. Officers are humans too and as such are susceptible to all of the whims, emotions and flaws like the rest of us.

    The distrust of police by some parties is a direct result of officers who are not able to separate the professional side of their lives and the personal side. My innocent until proven guilty post was a poorly worded reminder to you of this inherent conflict.

    Remember Spuk, to us civilians, you are The State and The State is you. As such you are held to a higher standard (and for good reason too).
    Thanks for the follow-up Timmy.

    First off... what happens in the criminal courts have little or nothing to do with the police. Other than their giving evidence. Understand that the police are supposed to be neutral. No agenda. A police Officer is supposed to work as hard to exculpate a person as they do to convict him. I was taught, and practiced the spirit of criminal law. "It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished"

    So in may instance we agree. I jusr dont lump all police officers into one catagory, any more than I lump all civilians, Blacks, Women, Gays, white men, Musli...... weellll I try not to... But I think you get my point. IMO it's this new breed of officers who only enforce laws just or not.

    Spuk!

  10. #115
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The city of Lawton, OK terminated a rogue police Lt. The police union is fighting ithe termination in court. It's guys like this X-Lt. who cause citizens to distrust the police.

    Arbitration hearing continues for former LPD officer - Lawton Constitution - Lawton, OK

  11. #116
    VIP Member Array 357and40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Charles, Missouri
    Posts
    2,358
    I know that unions are necessary in dangerous jobs but that is one facet I get frustrated with... A dirty cop (or lousy worker in another field) gets bounced & the union tries to force the department to let them stay on... It is an unfortunate side effect of unions, they do a lot of good for the workers but the end up protecting the bad ones in the process...
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
    - Roy Batty

  12. #117
    Senior Member Array Spade115's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    603
    Local police I have a hard time trusting with State troopers I trust a lot more. Id rather call state then local.
    When life gives you lemons, Open a lemonaid buisness.

  13. #118
    Member Array pica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    34
    It's the exact opposite in NC, the local police are usually pretty good folks. However, the State Highway Patrol is continually being investigated for misconduct, having its officers arrested etc. And for some reason with all of these problems they still have an attitude of superiority when dealing with citizens and local cops alike. It's extremely annoying frankly when their only job is patrolling the highways for traffic violations/ and accidents.

  14. #119
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,917
    Its the same everywhere you go...



    The City Cops dont like the County Cops. The small town Cops dont like the big town Cops.

    The State Police...they dont like anybody.

    The State Police sucks.

    The State Police is the best dept there is...everyone would rather deal with them.

    The City Cops are too political. The City Cops arent political enough.

    The Sherrif Deputys are a bunch of prima donnas. The Deputys will whip your butt.

    The County Cops are thugs in uniform. The County Cops wont stop you for speeding when the Sherrif is up for re election.

    The City Cops are corrupt...they will steal your liquor and take it home.

    The City Cops will confiscate your guns. The County Cops are cool with them. The State Police will call the SWAT on you if you have one in the car.

    The City Cops will stop you for going 1 mile over.

    The County cops wont stop you unles you are going 20 over.

    The State Police will stop you if your car looks lke it ought to go fast.

    The Sherrif has his own personal army.

    The Police Chief has his own Security Force....they only answer to him.

    The State Police have more Cops with guns than any Army in South America.

    The Police are pleasant. The Police suck. The Police are Demon Possessed. They are sympathetic. They are unsympathetic. They disregard the law. They dont regard the law. They are overzealous. They are lazy. They ALL eat too many donuts.



    Its always the same old stuff, everywhere you go and it never seems to change, no matter what one does.
    SIXTO likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #120
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Its the same everywhere you go...


    The City Cops dont like the County Cops. The small town Cops dont like the big town Cops.

    The State Police...they dont like anybody.

    The State Police sucks.

    The State Police is the best dept there is...everyone would rather deal with them.

    The City Cops are too political. The City Cops arent political enough.

    The Sherrif Deputys are a bunch of prima donnas. The Deputys will whip your butt.

    The County Cops are thugs in uniform. The County Cops wont stop you for speeding when the Sherrif is up for re election.

    The City Cops are corrupt...they will steal your liquor and take it home.

    The City Cops will confiscate your guns. The County Cops are cool with them. The State Police will call the SWAT on you if you have one in the car.

    The City Cops will stop you for going 1 mile over.

    The County cops wont stop you unles you are going 20 over.

    The State Police will stop you if your car looks lke it ought to go fast.

    The Sherrif has his own personal army.

    The Police Chief has his own Security Force....they only answer to him.

    The State Police have more Cops with guns than any Army in South America.

    The Police are pleasant. The Police suck. The Police are Demon Possessed. They are sympathetic. They are unsympathetic. They disregard the law. They dont regard the law. They are overzealous. They are lazy. They ALL eat too many donuts.


    Its always the same old stuff, everywhere you go and it never seems to change, no matter what one does.


    Wait...what??

    * Ain't it the truth! *
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

concealed carry forum hates cops
,
cwl jury duty
,

dc police off duty carry

,
juveniles not trusting police officers
,

not trusting cops

,
not trusting cops quotes
,

not trusting police

,
people not trusting cops anymore
,
reasons for trusting cops
,

trusting cops

,

trusting law enforcement

,
trusting police officers
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors