This is why you don't break into a soldiers house on some bogus charges...

[Gunslinger]

My Dad, RIP, was in OP-2Es with VO-67, then went to P-3s over the Gulf after VO-67. Brown Shoe Navy, he was through and through. He was not happy that I went to Fast Boats (subs) instead of Naval Aviation. Didn't speak to me for over a year after I joined.

Bubbleheads...I liked having a window (windscreen) to look out of...:> Lots of friends on Attack boats, couple on Boomers.

[Freedom1Man]

An experimental plane such as the one noted bears little to no resemblance to an operational fighter. The combat ceiling for the F-4, all models, is Angels 60, although it doesn't fly well at that height. Mig-21s, the Phantom antagonist in VN, operated under positive ground control only. They never left NVN. Phantoms fought over enemy territory in the most hostile anti-aircraft environment to this day. The F-4 was faster, better armed and had the benefit of two guys in the cockpit. In a neutral environment, i.e., out over the ocean, the Phantom would win every time. Migs back then were not made to fight away from home. Out numbered and facing vectored from below bogies, AAA and SAMs, we still had a very positive kill ratio against Migs during the war. I never flew over Hanoi, just in Cambodia as I have noted in the past. The guys who did paid a heavy price. The POWS were, almost 100%, aviators. I also found the guys we supported on the ground were quick to buy us a beer when we met up.

So what it sounds like the MIG was more meant to be used to defend a country from hostile invaders while the F-4 was meant for use by hostile invaders.

F-4 sure two guys in cockpit due to it needing more work to keep it up flying and fighting. It would seem that if a plane piloted with only one pilot can give hell to a plane using 2 then there is much to be said for the 1 pilot plane.

If I was a defender I think that I would rather fly a maintained MIG over the F-4. If I was an attacker then I might choose the F-4 seeing as how the F-4 does better against ground to air defenses.

[Gil223]

Doesn't work when CRBs are effectively neutered by the limitations placed on them.

In Seattle, the CRB suggested disciplinary actions, in about 80% of the cases, they were overridden by the chief, and either reduced the discipline, or outright ignored the findings of the CRB and no punishment was given. There were some pretty serious cases where the CRB suggested canning the officer, but the chief decided otherwise..

Old story, but still relevant

I've said it before - corruption begins at the top! Failure to take action of some kind (even if it is something less than summary execution or water-boarding) against errant officers provides the foundation for corruption. To ignore inappropriate/illegal behavior in a LEA essentially tells the "grunts" that anything goes. There may be some well-meaning - but severely misguided - agency Chiefs, who believe they are demonstrating support for their people (hoping, thereby, to maintain or increase whatever level of morale his/her agency has), but, in the long run, such inaction is extremely damaging to the agency's credibility. Pax...

[Xulld]

No knock warrants are inherently dangerous, and violent. They used to be rare before the drug war. IMHO we should stop them completely.

[Logan 5]

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2012/...precautionary/


Our country has taken a turn towards undeniable idiocy.

Ok, with F4 Phantoms aside (which are my favorite fighters), was the warrant valid or not? Last I knew the cops have to justify the warrant being a no-knock warrant. Not "just because".

As for Todd Blair's murder, that was a murder. If the judge is THAT stupid to see they shot & killed him before telling him to get on the ground, then that's a judge that needs to be grieved.

What the hell happened to "friends"? You know, when a cop kills you your friends track down the cops and.... well, you get the idea.

[TechnoWeenie]

What the hell happened to "friends"? You know, when a cop kills you your friends track down the cops and.... well, you get the idea.

You mean 'Justice'......? Not in America.

[ramkatral]

Amurkuh

[ManInBlack]

I've said it before - corruption begins at the top! Failure to take action of some kind (even if it is something less than summary execution or water-boarding) against errant officers provides the foundation for corruption. To ignore inappropriate/illegal behavior in a LEA essentially tells the "grunts" that anything goes. There may be some well-meaning - but severely misguided - agency Chiefs, who believe they are demonstrating support for their people (hoping, thereby, to maintain or increase whatever level of morale his/her agency has), but, in the long run, such inaction is extremely damaging to the agency's credibility. Pax...

That's a cop-out (pun intended).

Each and every police officer takes an oath to the Constitution, not to the brass. It is their duty to refuse unconstitutional orders, to not participate in an unconstitutional institutional culture, and to report and arrest their colleagues and superiors when they violate the Constitution and commit other crimes. The Nuremberg Tribunal ruled that "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

This is what your brothers in blue do the few remaining amongst you who possess consciences:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...oes-rogue.html

Regina Tasca is a “rogue cop” – and God bless her for it.


Tasca is in the middle of disciplinary hearings that may result in her termination from the Bogota, New Jersey Police Department. She stands accused of “bizarre and outlandish” behavior in two incidents a year ago during which she revealed herself to be “A danger to other police officers.”


Her first supposed offense -- which wasn't mentioned until after the second -- was a failure to assist another officer who was “attacked” by a drunken woman who was roughly half his weight and barely five feet tall. Her second was was to intervene when a police officer from another jurisdiction viciously assaulted an emotionally troubled young man who was not suspected of a crime.


“I consider myself a peace officer,” Tasca told Pro Libertate. “My thing is to help make sure that people are safe, and that they don’t have a reason to fear the police – that we treat them like human beings. The incident that started all of this was one in which I intervened to prevent excessive force against a kid who was the subject of a medical call, not a criminal suspect."

...

Sgt. Chris Thibault tackled Kyle, wrapped him in a bear hug, and attempted to handcuff him. Within an instant, Sgt. Joe Rella piled on and began to slug Kyle in the head while his horrified mother screamed at the officers to stop.


Tasca instinctively did what any legitimate peace officer would do: She intervened to protect the victim, pulling Rella off the helpless and battered young man. Eventually the Ridgefield officers handcuffed Kyle – then turned their fury on Tasca.


“One of them yelled at me, `We can’t have this!’” she recalled. “I said, we `can’t have’ what? There was no reason to take that kid to the ground and start slugging him. This was a medical assistance call, and the mother was sitting their screaming at them to stop beating on their son. I didn’t fail to aid another officer; I acted to stop a beatdown.”

[Gil223]

That's a cop-out (pun intended).

Each and every police officer takes an oath to the Constitution, not to the brass. It is their duty to refuse unconstitutional orders, to not participate in an unconstitutional institutional culture, and to report and arrest their colleagues and superiors when they violate the Constitution and commit other crimes. The Nuremberg Tribunal ruled that "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

This is what your brothers in blue do the few remaining amongst you who possess consciences:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com...oes-rogue.html

Cute opening, MIB! However, your unwavering contrarianism, coupled with your consistent practice of either reading around - or reading into - the postings of others, is the "smoke and mirrors" approach to social discourse. I never used the "just following orders" excuse for officers, but there must come a point in time when "the system" has - through repeated reviews and concurrences - dictated that action must be taken. "Let's vote on it" is not an option. The option is "do your job, or find a different one somewhere else." There are many officers whose "oath" is diluted by the practical realization of who actually employs them (doesn't make it right, but it is what it is). Sadly, there are very few with the integrity - and cojones - of a Serpico or Tasca. From a purely practical standpoint most LEO's are well aware of who has the power to control their career... and their ability to "put bread on their table". Very few have the guts to stand against that power, or resign their job and face unemployment. I can understand that fear (especially in our current job market), even if I don't agree with or condone such behavior. I no longer have "brothers (or sisters) in blue", as I resigned from the DCSO, more than 20 years ago, over a similar incident (the directed release of a County Commissioner from lawful custody for DUI - ordered by the Sheriff). Nonetheless, I still have an understanding of the general LEO mindset (and the pressures under which that mindset can be formed).

(You can get off that Nuremberg soapbox any day now. It's not like anybody is unfamiliar with the trials, or that particular ruling. The longer and harder you ride the same horse, the quicker it becomes lame.) Pax...

[ManInBlack]

Cute opening, MIB! However, your unwavering contrarianism, coupled with your consistent practice of either reading around - or reading into - the postings of others, is the "smoke and mirrors" approach to social discourse. I never used the "just following orders" excuse for officers, but there must come a point in time when "the system" has - through repeated reviews and concurrences - dictated that action must be taken. "Let's vote on it" is not an option.

I never said there should be a vote. I did say that every person has a duty to disobey orders or instructions that he knows violate the Constitution or law. No-knock warrants, served in the middle of the night, for suspicion of non-violent offenses certainly fall into that category.

The option is "do your job, or find a different one somewhere else."

Exactly. There is no draft for police officers. They voluntarily make the economic decision that government pay and benefits are worth any minute additional risk they may incur in exchange. If police officers can't do their jobs properly without being so scared ("waaaah officer safety waaaah") that they can't respect the rights of each and every person they encounter, they should seek more suitable employment, preferably in the private sector.

There are many officers whose "oath" is diluted by the practical realization of who actually employs them (doesn't make it right, but it is what it is). Sadly, there are very few with the integrity - and cojones - of a Serpico or Tasca. From a purely practical standpoint most LEO's are well aware of who has the power to control their career... and their ability to "put bread on their table". Very few have the guts to stand against that power, or resign their job and face unemployment. I can understand that fear (especially in our current job market), even if I don't agree with or condone such behavior. I no longer have "brothers (or sisters) in blue", as I resigned from the DCSO, more than 20 years ago, over a similar incident (the directed release of a County Commissioner from lawful custody for DUI - ordered by the Sheriff). Nonetheless, I still have an understanding of the general LEO mindset (and the pressures under which that mindset can be formed).

1. Serpico and Tasca sacrificed their careers to do the right thing. They refused to take the 30 pieces of silver.
2. Since you admit knowing that many officers you worked with broke their oaths, how many did you arrest? How many did you report to internal affairs?
3. You resigned because something illegal happened. What did you do to uphold the law? Did you bring it to the media? Anything?
4. Seems like you are perfectly willing to accept selling one's soul for economic gain or personal convenience...

(You can get off that Nuremberg soapbox any day now. It's not like anybody is unfamiliar with the trials, or that particular ruling. The longer and harder you ride the same horse, the quicker it becomes lame.) Pax...

I'd rather ride a lame horse than crawl around on my knees...

[Gil223]

I never said there should be a vote. I did say that every person has a duty to disobey orders or instructions that he knows violate the Constitution or law. No-knock warrants, served in the middle of the night, for suspicion of non-violent offenses certainly fall into that category.



Exactly. There is no draft for police officers. They voluntarily make the economic decision that government pay and benefits are worth any minute additional risk they may incur in exchange. If police officers can't do their jobs properly without being so scared ("waaaah officer safety waaaah") that they can't respect the rights of each and every person they encounter, they should seek more suitable employment, preferably in the private sector.



1. Serpico and Tasca sacrificed their careers to do the right thing. They refused to take the 30 pieces of silver.
2. Since you admit knowing that many officers you worked with broke their oaths, how many did you arrest? How many did you report to internal affairs?
3. You resigned because something illegal happened. What did you do to uphold the law? Did you bring it to the media? Anything?
4. Seems like you are perfectly willing to accept selling one's soul for economic gain or personal convenience...



I'd rather ride a lame horse than crawl around on my knees...

Nice job, MIB! You almost made it through the entire post without showing that "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" attitude and your deeply ingrained hostility. Pax...

[ManInBlack]

Nice job, MIB! You almost made it through the entire post without showing that "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" attitude and your deeply ingrained hostility. Pax...

And, as predicted, you are too cowardly to respond to the points. Everyone can see you for the shill you are.

[Gunslinger]

Nice job, MIB! You almost made it through the entire post without showing that "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" attitude and your deeply ingrained hostility. Pax...

MIB:
"1. Serpico and Tasca sacrificed their careers to do the right thing. They refused to take the 30 pieces of silver.
2. Since you admit knowing that many officers you worked with broke their oaths, how many did you arrest? How many did you report to internal affairs?
3. You resigned because something illegal happened. What did you do to uphold the law? Did you bring it to the media? Anything?
4. Seems like you are perfectly willing to accept selling one's soul for economic gain or personal convenience..."

Then answer the questions.

[Gil223]

MIB:
"1. Serpico and Tasca sacrificed their careers to do the right thing. They refused to take the 30 pieces of silver.
2. Since you admit knowing that many officers you worked with broke their oaths, how many did you arrest? How many did you report to internal affairs?
3. You resigned because something illegal happened. What did you do to uphold the law? Did you bring it to the media? Anything?
4. Seems like you are perfectly willing to accept selling one's soul for economic gain or personal convenience..."

Then answer the questions.

I have never demanded that anybody here answer anything, and I don't have to answer to anybody. I have noticed the absence of "Stanley" in the forum lately, and I'm imagining this is perhaps the kind of crap that made him choose to no longer participate. There seems to be a clique in the forum with a "pile on" attitude. The attitude comes out whenever anyone who is not a card carrying member of that clique, says anything that certain of you don't agree with ("piling on" is not an unheard of tribal behavior, and is frequently demonstrated by street gangs and socialist-"progressives"). Such behavior is not at all impressive... at least not in a positive vein.

That being said, thus do I choose to answer -
1. Requires no answer, as there is no question posed.
2. I said nothing of the kind, but, true to character (or lack thereof), MIB once again misstated what I actually put into print. To wit:

There are many officers whose "oath" is diluted by the practical realization of who actually employs them (doesn't make it right, but it is what it is). Sadly, there are very few with the integrity - and cojones - of a Serpico or Tasca. From a purely practical standpoint most LEO's are well aware of who has the power to control their career... and their ability to "put bread on their table". Very few have the guts to stand against that power, or resign their job and face unemployment. I can understand that fear (especially in our current job market), even if I don't agree with or condone such behavior.

Nowhere does that say I "knew" a single one (except the Sheriff himself. If you meet somebody in passing, and exchange a few social pleasantries, you do not KNOW them), but I am aware of the existence of that mindset. LEO's at any level are not required to be Constitutional experts (although, as they progress up the career ladder, it would behoove them to know and understand a bit more at each supervisory level, in order to provide guidance to their subordinates). Generally speaking , POST, and department regulations, procedures and practices expose them to the basics of state and jurisdictional laws and ordinances. (I "lit up" a couple of items so you wouldn't miss them... again) The convoluted legal doublespeak is the domain of DA's and judges.
3. It is none of your business what I did. I did, what I chose to do. You are neither my father, my confessor, nor anyone of importance in my life. Therefore I do not have to even recognize your existence (and I'm sure you'll find a way to "read into" that statement, but I couldn't care less).
4. Again, those are your words, not mine. Refer back to 2. (above). "...I can understand that fear (especially in our current job market), even if I don't agree with or condone such behavior." Understanding human behavior is not the same thing as "accepting" it, and internalizing it as a valid personal philosophy.

I tend to see the world as it is, not as I wish it to be. Further, I am not Stanley... so don't expect me to be chased off any time soon. Pax...

[Gunslinger]

I asked you to answer and you did. Whether I or others agree with your answers is another issue. If in fact you did serve in Vietnam, welcome home. As to cliques on the forum, you've been a member for 4 months. Many have been here for four years, as I have, or even much longer. There are naturally going to be reserves of like minded members--and the overwhelming majority are not police apologists. If you appear to be one, you will meet strong opposition. That is not "piling on," but indicative of the real politik of the forum. I have no idea who "Stanley" is, but disagree that anyone is trying to run another off the forum. That being said, if you can't stand the heat...the discussion here has more than run its course, imo.

[Gil223]

the discussion here has more than run its course, imo.

We have a point of total agreement. (I am only an "apologist" for the Constitution... the rest is simply an attempt to explain human behavior.) Pax...

[Ca Patriot]

I suppose we ought to thank Nixon for this decades-long War on Drugs that has been effective at mass incarceration, murder, and a robust Police State.

I didnt know Nixon could pass state laws in every single state in America. See, I learn something new on the internets every day.

If I was on the jury I think I would vote not guilty in this case.

[georg jetson]

I didnt know Nixon could pass state laws in every single state in America. See, I learn something new on the internets every day.

If I was on the jury I think I would vote not guilty in this case.

The fed government puts economic pressure on states by taxing the people of the states and then requiring them to pass laws in order to get some of the money back. Simple extortion. This is why most(all?) states have dui laws with a .08 BAC as a definition of "intoxicated". That may have been the case with the drug laws.

[Gil223]

I asked you to answer and you did. Whether I or others agree with your answers is another issue. If in fact you did serve in Vietnam, welcome home. As to cliques on the forum, you've been a member for 4 months. Many have been here for four years, as I have, or even much longer. There are naturally going to be reserves of like minded members--and the overwhelming majority are not police apologists. If you appear to be one, you will meet strong opposition. That is not "piling on," but indicative of the real politik of the forum. I have no idea who "Stanley" is, but disagree that anyone is trying to run another off the forum. That being said, if you can't stand the heat...the discussion here has more than run its course, imo.

Like I said, "I couldn't care less". Pax...

[ManInBlack]

We have a point of total agreement. (I am only an "apologist" for the Constitution... the rest is simply an attempt to explain human behavior.) Pax...

You wouldn't know the Constitution from Angel Soft double-ply. You treat them approximately equally; possibly a little biased toward the toilet paper.

[Logan 5]

back to the original post....
Was the warrant valid or not? Yes or no.

Pigs bust into my house and they better make damn sure it's legitimate. Because if it's not once I get out of jail for dropping a few of their buddies....

[since9]

I asked you to answer and you did. Whether I or others agree with your answers is another issue. If in fact you did serve in Vietnam, welcome home. As to cliques on the forum, you've been a member for 4 months. Many have been here for four years, as I have, or even much longer. There are naturally going to be reserves of like minded members--and the overwhelming majority are not police apologists. If you appear to be one, you will meet strong opposition. That is not "piling on," but indicative of the real politik of the forum. I have no idea who "Stanley" is, but disagree that anyone is trying to run another off the forum. That being said, if you can't stand the heat...the discussion here has more than run its course, imo.

+1. I've been here two years. Sometimes I get an accolade, but more often than not, I get tackled. That's par for the course, especially when one speaks their real opinions! It's not personal. It is normal. There's not a message forum I've seen yet where people don't discuss, argue, bicker, or worse.

[Gil223]

You wouldn't know the Constitution from Angel Soft double-ply. You treat them approximately equally; possibly a little biased toward the toilet paper.

You have evidently confused the Constitution with constipation, which explains why you're so full of **it.