Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sometimes you need to bend the rule with some sorts of crime, just don't go too far and don't get caught.
Drug dealers know their rights and can afford fancy lawyers. What sort of rights do they offer to those who 'rat', 'dont pay on time', or live in the block they want to turn into a crackhouse.

Rule of law is all very well and should be enforced, but as a right and principle not as a dogma. Roughing up a drug dealer makes sense if it frightens them away. You have to understand where to put the line and how to cross it. Pure rule of law does not work, neither does a state where the general populace are in fear of the police and security apparatus but their is a blur between the two which often is where the most effective law enforcement works.

Liberals might whine at that comment but police do it all the time, especially with regards to policing ethnic areas, and that line goes both ways. I am not talking about 'racist cops' I am talking about communities where the police have to negotiate through and end up completely overlooking certain types of offense common to that subculture. If soft drugs are illegal in a nation and you do a sweep of a white neighbourhood cracking down on drug crime thats the police doing their job. Meanwhile if you try and take the cannabis away from a Rastafarian neighbourhood you are looking at serious discontent and possible rioting. So you tell them off the record, you can do your own thing in this area and that area and nowhere else. There you have it police near formally turning a blind eye to crime by agreement. Is that corruption? No, its good policing.
There is usually a flipside, a ringfenced yardie cannabis supplier you tries to expand his boundaries might get arrested and rudely treated, this way he learns.

Good policing is more about negotiation than the book of regs. The regs are there for ordinary people, habitual criminals are handled differently in well policed areas. Some rights are quietly infringed while at the same time some behaviour that is normally illegal is overlooked. This sort of arrangement is seperate from the courts and the lawyers, and doesn't condone genuine cases of (excessive) police brutality.

The day the politicians and lawyers police night shifts in crack communities is the day they can say that the law should be upheld to the absolute letter. Meanwhile if someone crosses the border illegally treat them with respect and due process, if someone crosses with a stash of strange white powder arrest him, place the cuffs on to tight and tread on his nuts by 'accident', then treat them with respect and due process. Maybe just maybe they will get a different job.

CT GAMER wrote:

The danger being:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Poor analogy
Communists, Trade Unionists and Jews also tend to speak out only for their own. Welcome to the human race.

I'm not sure that I agree with the assertion that Jews only tend to speak up for their own...

Indeed, much of the legal staff of the ACLU are ethnic Jewish, which kind of kills thats statement on its face (and I can't stand the ACLU)

I like the ACLU, but at the same time, I kinda wonder at some of their decisions...

I've heard of trade unionists speaking up for the downtrodden bosses. Not often, mind you.

Frazzled wrote:Indeed, much of the legal staff of the ACLU are ethnic Jewish, which kind of kills thats statement on its face (and I can't stand the ACLU)

Wait. There are lawyers...who are Jewish? !לא יכול להיות

AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Indeed, much of the legal staff of the ACLU are ethnic Jewish, which kind of kills thats statement on its face (and I can't stand the ACLU)

Wait. There are lawyers...who are Jewish? !לא יכול להיות

I know its shocking, just shocking.

Scandalous.

Meanwhile, even assuming the agent did lift the alleged mule's arms a little too roughly, wanna make any guesses as to how roughly that agent is gonna get treated in a Fed pen?

He won't be general pop. I'd imagine he'll be in almost isolation.

CptJake wrote:Meanwhile, even assuming the agent did lift the alleged mule's arms a little too roughly, wanna make any guesses as to how roughly that agent is gonna get treated in a Fed pen?

If you don't want the time, don't do the crime.

Kilkrazy wrote:

CptJake wrote:Meanwhile, even assuming the agent did lift the alleged mule's arms a little too roughly, wanna make any guesses as to how roughly that agent is gonna get treated in a Fed pen?

If you don't want the time, don't do the crime.

\
The original investigation cleared him... A very politicized DOJ pushed it further.

And then he was convicted.

Presumably the heavily politicised DoJ used its left-wing connections at universities to fabricate highly plausible evidence.

CptJake wrote:
The original investigation cleared him... A very politicized DOJ pushed it further.

The implication being that the original investigation was not politicized.

A foolish implication.

At any rate, he'll likely be kept in isolation as mentioned earlier, for his own safety and to maintain order in the prison.

If he had been beating on the kid while he was restrained, the guy would deserve this. What apparently happened shouldn't warrant the punishment handed down. From the article the whole case against him sounds thoroughly skeevy to me.

Bromsy wrote:If he had been beating on the kid while he was restrained, the guy would deserve this. What apparently happened shouldn't warrant the punishment handed down. From the article the whole case against him sounds thoroughly skeevy to me.

I concur.

Ditto+1

Melissia wrote:Right, that's just what local republicans WISH was the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ineptus astartes wrote:Yes, but this kid was breaking not one, not two, but THREE laws.

... so?

It is completely and utterly irrelevant how many laws you break. Your rights remain the same.

Because after you have been convicted of a felony you can still vote and purchase firearms, wait you can't?

But we have people saying that the cop should not have broken the law, yet we have the article saying that all of the evidence of abuse or mistreatment are non-existent. First the article says that there were no bruises or marks save for the marks where the straps from the package were. Then we have another saying that it was dark out so the witness probably would not have been able to actually see anything. Then after that we have the article saying that the technique the agent used is a universally used technique... I see nothing wrong with what the officer did, what I do see wrong is someone criticizing the law enforcement officer for not adhering to the law when the article points to the fact that he did.

Now as far as rights go it seems that illegals have more rights than Americans. We had two agents go to jail for shooting a drug smuggler who was most likely armed as well and now we have this kid. We need to get our priorities in order I think (another reason why I hate Rick "free college for illegals despite the fact they don't pay into the system" Perry).

halonachos wrote:Because after you have been convicted of a felony you can still vote and purchase firearms, wait you can't?

My prior mentions of "innocent until proven guilty" should rather clearly indicate what I wasreferring to, and it certainly wasn't convicted felons

jp400 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

jp400 wrote:What a sad world we live in when an ILLEGAL alien has more rights then the officer arrenting his dumb ass does.

Except he doesn't have more rights, he has the same rights. The law says you can't beat up prisoners, not that they can't beat up prisoners unless they are from Mexico and in that case just go nuts becuase they aren't really people anyway.

The Officer does have more rights... just for the simple facts that he is a LEGAL citizen of the United States and isn't breaking the law on two counts (drug smuggleing and illegal border crossing/immigration).

And according to the article, the Agent didn't "beat up" the "prisioner":

"The council also noted that the teenager claimed no injuries in court other than sore shoulders, which the council attributed to “the weight of the drug load, approximately 75 pounds, he carried across the border.”

why does the officer have **MORE** rights?

He might be acting 'in the right' more than the suspected criminal but they both have the SAME human rights. (or ought to !)

"Human Rights" only exist as governments allow.

You have rights as a citizen or resident or visitor to a country based on what that country's law states. Not all countries have the same rights, not all treat aliens (legal or not) the same as citizens or residents. In some cases residents do not have the same rights as citizens (such as right to vote).

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Because after you have been convicted of a felony you can still vote and purchase firearms, wait you can't?

My prior mentions of "innocent until proven guilty" should rather clearly indicate what I was referring to, and it certainly wasn't convicted felons

All I was saying is that when you commit a felony you do lose rights. On a side note I find the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing silly if you use it for every case. Look at the shooting in Arizona, the guy was captured on camera and had dozens of witnesses saying that he shot Gifford and many other people that day, how can one say that he's to be assumed innocent until he goes to court? Now in the case of drug dealers and other cases where they don't see the guy doing it then yes we can use the innocent until proven guilty aspect of justice.

Also its funny that they punished this officer almost a year after the incident and after he was cleared by earlier departments. I don't think its good procedure to tell a guy that he's innocent and then almost a year later another agency says he's guilty and sends him off to jail. Especially after the guy has worked with the agency for over a decade.

I want to know what they said to the jury to convict the police officer. Who's their jury pool, the Zetas?

Frazzled wrote:I want to know what they said to the jury to convict the police officer. Who's their jury pool, the Zetas?

maybe a couple Gammas.

Frazzled wrote:I want to know what they said to the jury to convict the police officer. Who's their jury pool, the Zetas?

Probably a lot of emotional testimony and people in the jury who sympathized with illegal immigrants.

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I want to know what they said to the jury to convict the police officer. Who's their jury pool, the Zetas?

Probably a lot of emotional testimony and people in the jury who sympathized with illegal immigrants.

Or were on the payroll.

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I want to know what they said to the jury to convict the police officer. Who's their jury pool, the Zetas?

Probably a lot of emotional testimony and people in the jury who sympathized with illegal immigrants.

There's pretty clear indications of "filtering" the jury. The witnesses admitted to perjuring themselves in the grand jury, and changed their story several times. Not to mention the pictures taken of the "victim" AT the scene that plainly dispute if not outright prove he wasn't abused. Shoulda taken pictures of the defendants hand at the trial, I wonder if his hands were cut up and bruised from "improper handcuffing." his wife claims they are/were.
After the trial the Judge refused to release the agent on bond because he was a "Danger to society." there's a slant here somewhere that doesn't make sense.

halonachos wrote:how can one say that he's to be assumed innocent until he goes to court?

Because not everything is as it first appears, and it's up to the court of law to find the facts about the situation.

But the more I hear about this particular case, the more it seems that some corrupt politician in Mexico may have tossed around some money or influence to get the outcome they wanted...

Do people think the jury was nobbled?