Why good cops can't turn in bad cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: yeti
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
They mean the Europeans in general. But since you want to limit it to Canadians, I really don't see any of you supporting us. And there are a hand full who continue to take pot shots. If it goes the other way they get incensed. Somehow it's acceptable to criticize the USA but, racism is claimed when it goes the other way.

The funny thing about it is there are now so many immigrants here that youre wishing friends and relatives harm when you wish us harm.



thank you for your reply.but, you DID mean canucks, since in the following sentence, you THEN mentioned Europeans.
as well, you didn't give the canucks' names, as garak and I asked --"who are they?"
AGAIN, "who are they" that are giving these pot shots, as you state.
when one says that people from another country are giving pot shots at americans, it only makes sense that said people should be named. if not, then that statement has zero credibility, and is only internet bee sss.
if you cannot give names, then that amounts to spreading falsehoods, and you are in violation of bitog's rules, and therefore, subject to discipline.of course, nothing would ever happen.
not giving names tells all in bitogland that turtlevette's statements cannot be believed.just give the names, and you keep your credibility, and call it a day.
I've stated the same thing 3 times to no avail, so i'll not waste my time posting again on the issue.
your backpeddling in your post above would rival that of a politician.
at any rate,thanks for your time,and have a good evening.


Well you definitely make the list.

Clevy makes the list with many anti American posts. Canada kits.
Then my buddies overkill and garak.
Others less significant I can't remember right now.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Overkill links to a cop forum with one cops opinion. We discussed this before about finding stuff on the net that supports a preconceived position. Its garbage.


Yeah, you've really latched onto that one eh?
smirk.gif


It was simply a note of what they do when they pull you over, it wasn't supporting some "preconceived position", is your tinfoil hat on too tight? And it sounds about right. They run your info. There were plenty of more officer posts in the linked thread stating what they do.

But hey, if you have a problem with what the officer stated, you are more than welcome to walk your posterior down to the nearest department and ask them what they pull up for information when they've stopped somebody.


Stopping to check a license is unconstitutional here. Too bad Canada is not as free.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Overkill links to a cop forum with one cops opinion. We discussed this before about finding stuff on the net that supports a preconceived position. Its garbage.


Yeah, you've really latched onto that one eh?
smirk.gif


It was simply a note of what they do when they pull you over, it wasn't supporting some "preconceived position", is your tinfoil hat on too tight? And it sounds about right. They run your info. There were plenty of more officer posts in the linked thread stating what they do.

But hey, if you have a problem with what the officer stated, you are more than welcome to walk your posterior down to the nearest department and ask them what they pull up for information when they've stopped somebody.


Stopping to check a license is unconstitutional here. Too bad Canada is not as free.


But he's not stopping you to check the license, he's stopping you for some other reason and then as soon as he's got you pulled over your license, along with a list of other things are being checked.

Canadian cops don't stop people to "check their license" either. They stop them because they think they are drunk, there is a visible defect with the vehicle or the plate was run and has something associated with it that warranted the pull over.

But hey, our cops aren't dealing with the risk of being shot at all the time either. Canadian cops aren't pulling people over guns drawn and don't routinely participate in shoot outs so the odds are that our cops are a fair bit more relaxed than yours is pretty high. What does this have to do with anything? Well I've never once been pulled over by one of our friendly RCMP officers and thought to myself "too bad I'm not as free as my buddy turtlevette" as he gives me a warning for speeding that should have been a ticket, smiles and then lets me go on my way.

Ultimately wee don't have a police problem in Canada. Your first few posts in this thread certainly indicate that you feel you have a police problem in the USA. So regardless of how you wish to construe our "freedom" relative to yours as Garak noted, the point is moot. There is no creeping authority or police state, no slowly tighter squeezing big brother, in fact it would seem that despite your posturing that you are more free, you really aren't. Your inconsistent state-to-state laws and general lack of consistency basically guarantees it. While it may in some ways be wonderful that each state is so different, the fact that gun laws and law enforcement are so varied between them makes it a bit of a legal nightmare.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Ultimately wee don't have a police problem in Canada. Your first few posts in this thread certainly indicate that you feel you have a police problem in the USA. So regardless of how you wish to construe our "freedom" relative to yours as Garak noted, the point is moot. There is no creeping authority or police state, no slowly tighter squeezing big brother, in fact it would seem that despite your posturing that you are more free, you really aren't.


The lack of serious law enforcement issues may also be due to most provinces not having the serious corruption problems either.

Although some areas of Canada are plagued with a melting pot and rival racial and cultural interests most are still pretty homogeneous, meaning still white bread, and contrary to the elite stating otherwise there is NOTHING wrong with a nearly 100% homogeneous white community, the quality of life is general better for it. There is PLENTY of proof as well.

I noticed that before the elections the Quebecois leaders are hinting at the immigrant issues. Good for them. They ARE an issue, if French Canada wants to retain their culture and heritage.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
The funny thing about it is there are now so many immigrants here that youre wishing friends and relatives harm when you wish us harm.

There simply should no be wishing harm at all. I certainly don't take shots at the States in the least.

As for the desirability of being pulled over for a license check versus "something else," I'd rather be pulled over to have my license checked than for a dubious traffic violation.

Pulling drivers over to check license and registration is a violation of one's rights in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled as such; however, it is allowed because it's a justifiable infringement upon those rights to ensure safe roadways. As I've already pointed out many times, if you're going to die from something that isn't natural causes, it's going to be in a roadway accident, not from a bad drug deal or the government disappearing you.

Personally, I'd rather be told I'm being checked for my license and registration, rather than being told I went 1 km/h over the speed limit. The latter is a true violation, but you go and pull someone over and tell them you did it because they went 101 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, and see how that goes.

I understand that police check for licenses and registrations, and that they are looking for drunks at 02:00. I don't need to be pulled over and told I went 1 km/h over the speed limit, or be given some other dodgy reason. But, if that makes you feel more free, all the power to you.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak


Pulling drivers over to check license and registration is a violation of one's rights in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled as such; however, it is allowed because it's a justifiable infringement upon those rights to ensure safe roadways.


That explanation is illogical. Here rights are inalienable.

Keep squirming.
 
Really?

Originally Posted By: 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems to me that slander and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater are still illegal. Freedom of speech is impinged upon, because it's a reasonable infringement upon that right. Of course, we must take care not to tread into politics here, but I am making an argument about legal interpretation, not politics itself.

Originally Posted By: 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me, this would read very plainly that even felons should be able to own firearms. But, it seems to me that second amendment rights can be infringed upon under certain circumstances.

I'm not talking about those issues specifically - just pointing out that because something is in a constitutional document does not mean it's not up for interpretation or limit by courts or legislatures.

Up here, the legal framework looks at things as follows. Is behaviour X by the police or the legislature contrary to Section Y of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If it is, then it's an infringement, period. Then, that infringement is tested against one or more sections of the Charter, notably Section 1. For example, everyone has the freedom of association in Canada. That freedom, however, is infringed upon for those who wish to conspire to commit crimes, since that is illegal in Canada, and such an infringement is justified under Section 1.

Every citizen has the right to move to and take up residence in any province in Canada. That doesn't very well apply to inmates doing time, now does it? Citizens' rights in every country have limitations, including inalienable rights in the United States.

It's not much more than semantics to say that a right is interpreted before application or after application. Felons cannot have guns because that really doesn't violate their right to bear arms, or felons cannot have guns because it does violate their right to bear arms, but that's a reasonable infringement upon that right? The latter would be the Canadian interpretation if we had the Second Amendment, but it would amount to the same thing in the end, wouldn't it?
 
The convicted felon is a corner case. I do think gun rights have been eroded, but you don't need a gun to survive in modern times. You do need a car and the ability to freely use it to survive in modern times, so the whole privilege thing does not accurately reflect today's reality.

A pullover to check license gives a cop ultimate authority (carte blanche) to discriminate. If every car is stopped in a road block that is much different as it is non discriminatory.

There's really nothing else to say. I'm right and you're wrong.
 
Corner case, eh? So, in other words, it's exactly as I stated. The rights are violated, or the rights are not. Which is it? And, if they are violated, is it justifiable? What about the yelling of "Fire!" in a movie theatre? What about the conspiracy matters?

As for the rest, hogwash. To be honest, cops have always had the authority to discriminate, and there's very little that can be done about that. As I said, if someone wished to pull you over in the States, it would happen. And, if he wished to write a ticket, he'd find something wrong. The vehicle equipment regulations have a lot of overlap between our two countries. I can find something "wrong" (as in a technical violation) with 99% of vehicles, including new ones. And, when someone gets overly pushy about a reason as to why they've been pulled over, a ticket gives them a nice, tangible reminder of that. The right to mobility has no bearing. Licenses are justifiable intrusions, as are safety and environmental regulations. All of these need to be enforced, or they're meaningless.

I find it ironic how in the States, where it is completely illegal for police officers to discriminate and it clearly never can happen under your legal framework, as you've taken great pains to demonstrate to me, that there are so many stories in the media about police discrimination. So, enlighten me?

And, with the carte blanche that Canadian police have been given to arbitrarily oppress Canadian citizens, where is the media outrage up here? Where's my Twitter hashtag for getting pulled over at night when they're checking licenses and registrations?

If someone went to a defence lawyer up here complaining about getting pulled over arbitrarily, the defence lawyer would laugh that person out of his office, perhaps after billing, but he would, indeed, be laughing.
 
You just get the red butt every time we debate.

Your philosophy is because cops are dishonest in their reasons for stopping a car, you might as well just eliminate probable cause anyway. Not very elegant or pure in reasoning.

Most of the bad stops you hear about here go to court and get thrown out. Many times the cops get disciplined as well. We have the laws and court so people can challenge these bad cops and eventually they'll get retired or fired.
 
turtle -- you say to garak--"I'm right and you're wrong".
that's funny.you guys keep going on and on-- and there's no right or wrong -- just OPINIONS. just agree to disagree, and call it a day, to save another 5 or 10 pages of posts.

you said in the "another one bites the dust ..." thread that you have "attitude". that explains a lot.in some of your posts, you appear to be a difficult person with which to get along,and sometimes rub people the wrong way, and some could view a few posts as being anti-Canadian.having an "attitude" would explain this behavior.
I give you credit for being man enough to admit that."attitude" is a behavioural issue that can be addressed today with drugs, electro- shock, or psychiatric therapy. years ago, "attitude" was dealt with by a few smacks to the head.but, the medical community frowns upon that, since they make no money on it.
at least you took the first step by admitting that you have a problem.for that, I respect you.
remember -- it's o.k. .............. it's o.k.
i'll likely check in thurs., or Friday, and see how you're doing.it's time to fire up the Q, and eat as we watch the ball game. have a good evening, and remember -- it's o.k. .... .
 
You have to be good to have attitude and keep your job or business. Really good. Ponder that. People actually like me. I don't get that but hey, apparently I rock.

Civilization was not forged by someone scared to put 30wt oil when the oil cap says 20wt.
 
Of course, you didn't answer any of my questions. Here are some more for you. What are "most of" the bad stops? How many people just pay the ticket? How "many times" do the cops get disciplined? We never eliminated "probable cause" up here. It's a meaningless phrase in Canadian law. You need reasonable and probable grounds to charge someone or arrest them. You don't need reasonable and probably grounds to check a vehicle on the highway, because the Supreme Court ruled many, many years ago that's it's fine. It's never going to change. It hasn't crept forward to give police more powers. And, it hasn't receded, either. Incidentally, what are the rules in the U.S. on sobriety checks and roadside screening devices, speaking of rights? I do understand that different states may have different rules, but a brief rundown would be interesting.

But, hey, you're right. Just have the President add us to his next Axis of Evil speech, and maybe Putin can help prop up our regime when he's done in Syria.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Being a cop is like being in a cult or the mafia. They have no one to answer to like the rest of us. Most everyone who has a job has a boss and gets a review. These guys spend 100% of the time covering for each other. There are no consequences and they think they have a job for life no matter what they do.

We need to have laws to get these guys out and get their pensions.





This must be a more recent phenomenon. I was a deputy in the early 1990s, and our conduct was under constant scrutiny. We were expected to treat the public with decency. I disagree about the pension thing. That's a separate earned benefit like health care that shouldn't be taken away.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Being a cop is like being in a cult or the mafia. They have no one to answer to like the rest of us. Most everyone who has a job has a boss and gets a review. These guys spend 100% of the time covering for each other. There are no consequences and they think they have a job for life no matter what they do.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Most of the bad stops you hear about here go to court and get thrown out. Many times the cops get disciplined as well. We have the laws and court so people can challenge these bad cops and eventually they'll get retired or fired.

Thanks, Silverado12, for the reminder. Turtlevette is talking out of both sides of his mouth once again.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Being a cop is like being in a cult or the mafia. They have no one to answer to like the rest of us. Most everyone who has a job has a boss and gets a review. These guys spend 100% of the time covering for each other. There are no consequences and they think they have a job for life no matter what they do.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Most of the bad stops you hear about here go to court and get thrown out. Many times the cops get disciplined as well. We have the laws and court so people can challenge these bad cops and eventually they'll get retired or fired.

Thanks, Silverado12, for the reminder. Turtlevette is talking out of both sides of his mouth once again.


We both have made statements about what is supposed to happen vs reality.

The incredulous thing is that you think stopping someone for no other reason than to check their license is a good thing that should be done in a free country. You have some sorta cult following on here else people would be all over you.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Being a cop is like being in a cult or the mafia. They have no one to answer to like the rest of us. Most everyone who has a job has a boss and gets a review. These guys spend 100% of the time covering for each other. There are no consequences and they think they have a job for life no matter what they do.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Most of the bad stops you hear about here go to court and get thrown out. Many times the cops get disciplined as well. We have the laws and court so people can challenge these bad cops and eventually they'll get retired or fired.

Thanks, Silverado12, for the reminder. Turtlevette is talking out of both sides of his mouth once again.


We both have made statements about what is supposed to happen vs reality.

The incredulous thing is that you think stopping someone for no other reason than to check their license is a good thing that should be done in a free country. You have some sorta cult following on here else people would be all over you.



Garak has some sort of cult following here? I don't think so. I have argued with Garak several times. I respect him as a poster here, but he is hardly some sort of cult leader. Unless it would be for Linux!!!!!! LOL
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Being a cop is like being in a cult or the mafia. They have no one to answer to like the rest of us. Most everyone who has a job has a boss and gets a review. These guys spend 100% of the time covering for each other. There are no consequences and they think they have a job for life no matter what they do.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Most of the bad stops you hear about here go to court and get thrown out. Many times the cops get disciplined as well. We have the laws and court so people can challenge these bad cops and eventually they'll get retired or fired.

Thanks, Silverado12, for the reminder. Turtlevette is talking out of both sides of his mouth once again.


I'm glad I came back to see how you're doing.
in your words, you don't get that people like you.that's funny.

your hatred for cops,and the fact that you fabricate things is obvious in your posts, especially in the above post.as I stated earlier, you just rub people the wrong way, because or your admitted attitude.but, it's o.k. ........it's o.k.

in another thread, one said that you were permanently banned from TWO 'vette sites, since the ones that run the sites were racist cops. both sites.riiiiiight.it can't be your hatred for cops, or you. it has to be someone else. but, it's o.k. ...... it's o.k.

your mental condition ("attitude" is a behavioral problem, and behavioral problems ARE mental problems) allows you to get away with such fabrications.but, it's o.k......it's o.k.

please keep posting fabrications, and rubbing people the wrong way -- your posts keep me, and our group, laughing.we love to read your posts.
have a good evening, and, as always, it's o.k. ......... it's o.k.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top