Is America a Police state?

[Shadow Wolf]

"Murder" would be the appropriate term if the cop intended Garner's death. But if it were just about restraining him using a deadly & prohibited choke hold, then it would be something else....but still a crime for which the cop (cops?) should be tried. I heard that a supervisor was watching, & took no action to stop the illegal assault of Garner....if so, she should be tried too.

All them. If it's you or me, they assume us "guilty by association." I see no reason why a herd of swine should be held to a different standard. And maybe it's not legally murder (voluntary manslaughter), but he unjustifiably killed a man, we have a video of him using a prohibited choke hold which the coroner concluded was the cause of death, so by the laws of this land those pigs are entitled to their day in court. The man is still a killer nonetheless.

 

[Storm]

"Murder" would be the appropriate term if the cop intended Garner's death. But if it were just about restraining him using a deadly & prohibited choke hold, then it would be something else....but still a crime for which the cop (cops?) should be tried. I heard that a supervisor was watching, & took no action to stop the illegal assault of Garner....if so, she should be tried too.

Actually, my understanding is that is murder in the second degree. Malice and forethought is murder in the first, but they're both murder.

 

[Revoltingest]

Congress Quietly Bolsters NSA Spying in Intelligence Bill - NationalJournal.com

Congress this week quietly passed a bill that may give unprecedented legal authority to the government's warrantless surveillance powers, despite a last-minute effort by Rep. Justin Amash to kill the bill.
Amash staged an aggressive eleventh-hour rally Wednesday night to block passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act, which will fund intelligence agencies for the next fiscal year. The Michigan Republican sounded alarms over recently amended language in the package that he said will for the first time give congressional backing to a controversial Reagan-era decree granting broad surveillance authority to the president.

 

[Revoltingest]

The police state for kiddies....
Prof: ‘Elf on the Shelf’ conditions kids to accept surveillance state - EAGnews.org

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Nanny cams and Elf on a Shelf. Not allowed in our house or at the studio.

At the business, we get asked all the time to have one. I veto it Every Single Time. Nope nope nope.

I hate those things.

 

[freethinker44]

This kind of has big implications.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

Basically, some guy had a brake light out and got pulled over for it in NC and the during the stop the cop found some drugs on the guy, but it turns out that in NC it's not illegal to have one brake light out but the cop didn't know the law here, he thought it was illegal. So the guys lawyer argued that since the cops reason for the stop wasn't legal then the stop and search of the car were suspicionless and should be thrown out because it violates the fourth amendment. The case goes to the supreme court and the supreme court sides with the police.

What does this mean? It could mean that police can now violate your fourth amendment rights as long as they are ignorant of the law. Now, I get that it seemed reasonable for the officer to believe it was illegal to have a brake light out, I believed the exact same thing until I read this, and it kind of is a reasonable error, but ignorance of the law shouldn't override constitutionally protected rights. So now as long as a cop honestly believes he is right to detain and search you, he can violate your rights legally?

The fourth amendment is already abused constantly by police, half the articles and videos on this thread are of police violating the fourth amendment, and now thanks to this ruling it's all legal now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reading the decision, it doesn't seem so bad. Cops would have the right to pull over a vehicle upon spotting a safety problem, even a legal one. And then the owner gave the cop permission to search the car.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reading the decision, it doesn't seem so bad. Cops would have the right to pull over a vehicle upon spotting a safety problem, even a legal one. And then the owner gave the cop permission to search the car

I can see that. There have been a couple times I've been pulled over a brake or tail light, and the exchange was nothing more than him "did you know your lights out?" me "nope." him "it is. get it taking care of." and that was it. But at the same time I am worried about the point freethinker brought up.

So now as long as a cop honestly believes he is right to detain and search you, he can violate your rights legally?

.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can see that. There have been a couple times I've been pulled over a brake or tail light, and the exchange was nothing more than him "did you know your lights out?" me "nope." him "it is. get it taking care of." and that was it. But at the same time I am worried about the point freethinker brought up.
.

I'd feel ill at ease at being pulled over too. There's always the chance the cop could be a sociopath having a bad day.

 

[freethinker44]

Grand Jury Finds Officers' Actions Justified In Fatal Shooting Of Man Holding Air Rifle At Wal-Mart

Hmm, so we now live in a country where police can shoot to kill, on sight, a person, literally doing nothing wrong.
It wasn't a real gun, wasn't illegal to carry it around even if it was, wasn't threatening anyone with it, didn't point it at the police, didn't make any sudden movements before police shot him, didn't charge at the police, there is video of shooting from multiple angles so there is no ambiguity, yet it was deemed a justified shooting.
I just don't get it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Grand Jury Finds Officers' Actions Justified In Fatal Shooting Of Man Holding Air Rifle At Wal-Mart

Hmm, so we now live in a country where police can shoot to kill, on sight, a person, literally doing nothing wrong.
It wasn't a real gun, wasn't illegal to carry it around even if it was, wasn't threatening anyone with it, didn't point it at the police, didn't make any sudden movements before police shot him, didn't charge at the police, there is video of shooting from multiple angles so there is no ambiguity, yet it was deemed a justified shooting.
I just don't get it.

I know. And it happens so many times over and over again where men and women and children have been unarmed.....And I can't remember the last time any officer was indicted for any of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Grand Jury Finds Officers' Actions Justified In Fatal Shooting Of Man Holding Air Rifle At Wal-Mart

Hmm, so we now live in a country where police can shoot to kill, on sight, a person, literally doing nothing wrong.
It wasn't a real gun, wasn't illegal to carry it around even if it was, wasn't threatening anyone with it, didn't point it at the police, didn't make any sudden movements before police shot him, didn't charge at the police, there is video of shooting from multiple angles so there is no ambiguity, yet it was deemed a justified shooting.
I just don't get it.

The problem was stated in the article, ie, that the cops did what they're trained to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, the town of Peru, the town that featured Porky who tased an elderly man with Alzheimer's and Tub-a-Lard who threatened to kill over not getting a requested day off has been trimming the fat and has recently fired at least four Piggies for bad behavior. Good for them! If a city of clowns can do it, why can't the rest?

 

[Revoltingest]

Americastan has been making it harder to use cash for some time now. Of course they don't like it, since it's not observable. They've eliminated large denomination bills. And bBanks have long been required to report cash deposits of over $10K to the IRS. Now the IRS will seize people's accounts if they deposit less than $10K.
Seize First, Question Later: The Institute for Justice’s New Report on the IRS’ Abusive Civil Forfeiture Regime | Cato @ Liberty
Many businesses make regular cash deposits of less than $10K in order to reduce risks associated with having a lot of cash on hand. Unfortunately, this is now de facto illegal.
But now, even withdrawing a paltry $5K will bring IRS scrutiny.
» Feds Urge Banks to Call Cops on Customers Who Withdraw $5,000 or More Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
The surveillance state is growing by leaps & bounds.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Americastan has been making it harder to use cash for some time now. Of course they don't like it, since it's not observable. They've eliminated large denomination bills. And bBanks have long been required to report cash deposits of over $10K to the IRS. Now the IRS will seize people's accounts if they deposit less than $10K.
Seize First, Question Later: The Institute for Justice’s New Report on the IRS’ Abusive Civil Forfeiture Regime | Cato @ Liberty
Many businesses make regular cash deposits of less than $10K in order to reduce risks associated with having a lot of cash on hand. Unfortunately, this is now de facto illegal.
But now, even withdrawing a paltry $5K will bring IRS scrutiny.
» Feds Urge Banks to Call Cops on Customers Who Withdraw $5,000 or More Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
The surveillance state is growing by leaps & bounds.

I think It's going to turn into advoidance of the banks to a greater extent save for the basics necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think It's going to turn into advoidance of the banks to a greater extent save for the basics necessary.

Aye, with banks acting as an arm (& eyes) of the fed, it's good to keep cash away from them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aye, with banks acting as an arm (& eyes) of the fed, it's good to keep cash away from them.

Yep. Either expatriate or get those old mayonnaise jars from grandmaw who used them well back in the day and borrow a shovel.

 

[freethinker44]

Americastan has been making it harder to use cash for some time now. Of course they don't like it, since it's not observable. They've eliminated large denomination bills. And bBanks have long been required to report cash deposits of over $10K to the IRS. Now the IRS will seize people's accounts if they deposit less than $10K.
Seize First, Question Later: The Institute for Justice’s New Report on the IRS’ Abusive Civil Forfeiture Regime | Cato @ Liberty
Many businesses make regular cash deposits of less than $10K in order to reduce risks associated with having a lot of cash on hand. Unfortunately, this is now de facto illegal.
But now, even withdrawing a paltry $5K will bring IRS scrutiny.
» Feds Urge Banks to Call Cops on Customers Who Withdraw $5,000 or More Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
The surveillance state is growing by leaps & bounds.

I had my bank account frozen when I tried to move to different bank. Transferred about 15,000 and they froze my account for a couple months. They didn't seize any of it, but I'm not wealthy and that 15 grand was a pretty big piece of my savings to have tied up for no reason. I didn't lose any money but I did miss out on a couple lucrative investment opportunities I had planned, which was really the only reason I switched accounts in the first place.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had my bank account frozen when I tried to move to different bank. Transferred about 15,000 and they froze my account for a couple months. They didn't seize any of it, but I'm not wealthy and that 15 grand was a pretty big piece of my savings to have tied up for no reason. I didn't lose any money but I did miss out on a couple lucrative investment opportunities I had planned, which was really the only reason I switched accounts in the first place.

Suspicious behavior is enuf to begin punishment.
Like the NYC stop & frisk law, the IRS has a take & *#$%$ law.
And it seems that they go only after people with a pittance.

It's a good idea to stash some cash so that one can handle one's business in emergencies which make banks unreliable.

 

[freethinker44]

And it seems that they go only after people with a pittance.

Yeah, 10,000 is really too low anymore. It's not as much as it used to be. And simply depositing the money shouldn't be probable cause to take action, I mean, I get why they require reporting it and I don't think I disagree with the reasoning, but it depositing alone shouldn't be enough to freeze someone's account. And for me, it was a stock trading account which the government imposes rules on if you trade too often with less than 25,000 in your account, so it shouldn't at all be suspicious if someone opens an account and transfers more than 10,000 into it. So damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.

It's a good idea to stash some cash so that one can handle one's business in emergencies which make banks unreliable.

Same as above, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Put too much money in the bank and government seizes it, get caught with too much money in your possession and the police seize it. I don't disagree with the concept of civil forfeiture, but it gets abused so much it should just be abolished.