-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Kop Busters
- Thread starter tito887
- Start date
imported post
Wow, after watching the video, it's pretty clear. It was a straight up set-up. There were only three patrol officers that came in. I was under the impression some SWAT or TAC NARCs busted down the door and threw people around. This "case" is weak. Not even worth mentioning.
Wow, after watching the video, it's pretty clear. It was a straight up set-up. There were only three patrol officers that came in. I was under the impression some SWAT or TAC NARCs busted down the door and threw people around. This "case" is weak. Not even worth mentioning.
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
mkl wrote:
Then you and I agree on something!!!
I have always been the person to ask more questions that remain unanswered. I do not judge to quickly without knowing all that can first be learned.
I can have opinions but try not to commit to any one conclusion unless I have something solid.
In this case it is just not enough to say what is going on.
I am skeptical based on where it all is originating from. People with an agenda will do things to set up their side to win. Half truths and whole lies.
We have to remember one thing.
Cooper did not just have a place that was discovered and searched. He set this place up with cameras and grow lights in the HOPES and PLANS it would BE searched.
So I am going to take a step back and observe a little longer and see what else surfaces before condemning the police.
mkl wrote:
AH!
Then you and I agree on something!!!
I have always been the person to ask more questions that remain unanswered. I do not judge to quickly without knowing all that can first be learned.
I can have opinions but try not to commit to any one conclusion unless I have something solid.
In this case it is just not enough to say what is going on.
I am skeptical based on where it all is originating from. People with an agenda will do things to set up their side to win. Half truths and whole lies.
We have to remember one thing.
Cooper did not just have a place that was discovered and searched. He set this place up with cameras and grow lights in the HOPES and PLANS it would BE searched.
So I am going to take a step back and observe a little longer and see what else surfaces before condemning the police.
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
They enter casually and are not all decked out in SWAT gear. To me it looks like they were there for some other reason.
I thought "raids" on drug houses were handled as a high risk type event. Hard and fast at night with flash bangs and night vision.
Any cops on here, maybe the former cop, can answer that?
nitrovic wrote:
Ya, I kinda wondered about that.
They enter casually and are not all decked out in SWAT gear. To me it looks like they were there for some other reason.
I thought "raids" on drug houses were handled as a high risk type event. Hard and fast at night with flash bangs and night vision.
Any cops on here, maybe the former cop, can answer that?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Devils Advocate wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
lol, you give yourself far too much credit.
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Actually, I give him a lot of credit.
A lot of you guys on here are smart as heck, but are so wrapped up in your "government/police are bad" beliefs that you don't think rationally. These "possible" stories that are not based on fact pop up all the time on this board and the usual suspects jump in and start posting like the story is an actual news story. Intelligence means nothing if you don't have the common sense to see the big picture and understand both sides. Obviously guys like "Sheriff" who have a huge beef with the police are going to bash and spread lies, but it really doesn't make sense why some other seemingly intelligent people on here can't think for themselves. I've never seen so many cut/paster's in my life.
marshaul wrote:
Actually, I give him a lot of credit.
A lot of you guys on here are smart as heck, but are so wrapped up in your "government/police are bad" beliefs that you don't think rationally. These "possible" stories that are not based on fact pop up all the time on this board and the usual suspects jump in and start posting like the story is an actual news story. Intelligence means nothing if you don't have the common sense to see the big picture and understand both sides. Obviously guys like "Sheriff" who have a huge beef with the police are going to bash and spread lies, but it really doesn't make sense why some other seemingly intelligent people on here can't think for themselves. I've never seen so many cut/paster's in my life.
imported post
Devils Advocate wrote:
I used to be on a tactical narcotic team and was trained by the Miami TNT and SWAT guys. However, it doesn't take somebody with that training to smell the rat in this story. If the officers really thought Cooper was involved in a large grow op and knew it was him, they would have hit it with a TAC team. They obviously know he has prior narcotic training and he has weapons charges on his criminal history, that would be more than enough to use the tactical guys. You don't just send three random patrol guys in on a narc search warrant.
Devils Advocate wrote:
I used to be on a tactical narcotic team and was trained by the Miami TNT and SWAT guys. However, it doesn't take somebody with that training to smell the rat in this story. If the officers really thought Cooper was involved in a large grow op and knew it was him, they would have hit it with a TAC team. They obviously know he has prior narcotic training and he has weapons charges on his criminal history, that would be more than enough to use the tactical guys. You don't just send three random patrol guys in on a narc search warrant.
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
What department were you with (I know I have asked this many times, yet you have never given an answer). If you left in good standing and have 27 years on the job, you are drawing a retirement correct?
What department?
BTW, I'm still not seeing the line between you and this "band of lying officers who gets yelled at by a judge". Why do you keep bringing this up? Who was the judge? What jurisdiction?
Sheriff wrote:
What department were you with (I know I have asked this many times, yet you have never given an answer). If you left in good standing and have 27 years on the job, you are drawing a retirement correct?
What department?
BTW, I'm still not seeing the line between you and this "band of lying officers who gets yelled at by a judge". Why do you keep bringing this up? Who was the judge? What jurisdiction?
imported post
Even though nobody has provided any real news links. I finally found the CBS story (if you call it that). No facts area uncovered. This is simply a set up by Cooper (admitted that much), nothing more. Some other drug dealer got convicted of selling drugs (not simply arrested, but convicted). Her father complained to Cooper, so he set about showing what a CI and bad information can do. I'm still not seeing what the police did wrong. They investigated a grow op, why is that bad? A Search Warrant is just that, a warrant to search. The cops didn't get "busted" going anything but their job.
"Kop Busters" Plants Fake Drug Den 12/4/08
Eddie Garcia
CBS 7 News
December 4, 2008
Odessa, Texas - They didn't find any drugs; instead they found a poster telling them they were on a reality show called "kop busters."
It's an online reality show that goes around the nation exposing what they say is police corruption. The reason they came to Odessa is because they were asked to by a man who says his daughter is falsely imprisoned.
Video cameras, plants masquerading, as drugs, and a message are what police found while serving a search warrant today.
Barry Cooper CEO of Kop Busters.com said: "The best equipment known to man is what Cop Busters has and we're going to continue going across America busting these cops."
The reality show team out of Austin has been setting up the fake drug den for 6 months, going through painstaking methods to keep it a secret.
"We had to use encrypted emails, we had to use Wal-Mart blowup cell phones in case our phones were tapped," said Cooper.
But why all the trouble? “Get Yolanda Madden out of prison," said Cooper.
In 2005, Odessa woman Yolanda Madden was convicted of the possession of drugs with the intent to distribute. Now she's serving a 7-year prison sentence.
"I could prove absolutely without a doubt she's innocent," said Raymond Madden
Her father says he's been trying to get a court to retry the case since the conviction.
"We had a witness that planted the drugs he testified in court that he planted the drugs," said Madden.
Cop Busters says the show exists to help fix the system.
Odessa police say the matter is still under investigation and at this point they are looking to see if any laws were broken.
We will continue to investigate the Yolanda Madden case and bring you any developments.
Even though nobody has provided any real news links. I finally found the CBS story (if you call it that). No facts area uncovered. This is simply a set up by Cooper (admitted that much), nothing more. Some other drug dealer got convicted of selling drugs (not simply arrested, but convicted). Her father complained to Cooper, so he set about showing what a CI and bad information can do. I'm still not seeing what the police did wrong. They investigated a grow op, why is that bad? A Search Warrant is just that, a warrant to search. The cops didn't get "busted" going anything but their job.
"Kop Busters" Plants Fake Drug Den 12/4/08
Eddie Garcia
CBS 7 News
December 4, 2008
Odessa, Texas - They didn't find any drugs; instead they found a poster telling them they were on a reality show called "kop busters."
It's an online reality show that goes around the nation exposing what they say is police corruption. The reason they came to Odessa is because they were asked to by a man who says his daughter is falsely imprisoned.
Video cameras, plants masquerading, as drugs, and a message are what police found while serving a search warrant today.
Barry Cooper CEO of Kop Busters.com said: "The best equipment known to man is what Cop Busters has and we're going to continue going across America busting these cops."
The reality show team out of Austin has been setting up the fake drug den for 6 months, going through painstaking methods to keep it a secret.
"We had to use encrypted emails, we had to use Wal-Mart blowup cell phones in case our phones were tapped," said Cooper.
But why all the trouble? “Get Yolanda Madden out of prison," said Cooper.
In 2005, Odessa woman Yolanda Madden was convicted of the possession of drugs with the intent to distribute. Now she's serving a 7-year prison sentence.
"I could prove absolutely without a doubt she's innocent," said Raymond Madden
Her father says he's been trying to get a court to retry the case since the conviction.
"We had a witness that planted the drugs he testified in court that he planted the drugs," said Madden.
Cop Busters says the show exists to help fix the system.
Odessa police say the matter is still under investigation and at this point they are looking to see if any laws were broken.
We will continue to investigate the Yolanda Madden case and bring you any developments.
imported post
SlackwareRobert wrote:
What happened to all the cop haters??? Why no comments?? You never answered my question- are you saying the officers serving a signed and legal search warrant issued by a magistrate should be shot?
This is the type of dangerous stuff that from time to time goes on here and nobody calls it out. This is disgusting.
SlackwareRobert wrote:
What happened to all the cop haters??? Why no comments?? You never answered my question- are you saying the officers serving a signed and legal search warrant issued by a magistrate should be shot?
This is the type of dangerous stuff that from time to time goes on here and nobody calls it out. This is disgusting.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
There a serious problem in this country when I canlay two transcripts out where twojudges, on record and in open court, call cops liars to their faces in two different jurisdictions. We're not talking about one or two cops, a total of12+ different cops were involved in just these two cases. Thisshould extremely disturbing to anybody reading this.
Given the choice of believing the Kop Buster or a small handful of cops, I think I have to go with the Kop Buster. Sorry.
nitrovic wrote:
You go first, which department are you with?
There a serious problem in this country when I canlay two transcripts out where twojudges, on record and in open court, call cops liars to their faces in two different jurisdictions. We're not talking about one or two cops, a total of12+ different cops were involved in just these two cases. Thisshould extremely disturbing to anybody reading this.
Given the choice of believing the Kop Buster or a small handful of cops, I think I have to go with the Kop Buster. Sorry.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Vic, to the same extent that any member of this forum has ever engaged in behavior that might lead to the label "cop basher" being accurately applied, you yourself have engaged in behavior that leads to the label "police apologist" being accurately applied.
At some level, deep down, I suspect you know exactly how wrong your career as a "tactical narcotics" officer really was. Of course, you'll never admit it to yourself or anybody else. Instead, you'll continue apologizing just a little too vociferously for police behavior of every sort. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
Vic, to the same extent that any member of this forum has ever engaged in behavior that might lead to the label "cop basher" being accurately applied, you yourself have engaged in behavior that leads to the label "police apologist" being accurately applied.
At some level, deep down, I suspect you know exactly how wrong your career as a "tactical narcotics" officer really was. Of course, you'll never admit it to yourself or anybody else. Instead, you'll continue apologizing just a little too vociferously for police behavior of every sort. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
All I see is him pointing out where people here are not thinking clearly and have closed minds.
Far too many people here WANT to hate the police and probably because the policeare part of the government and have some authority.
Authority that MUST corrupt just because .......... well...... just because it must!!
How can citizens with limited additional powers be trusted! That idea just cannot be conceivable!!! Citizens can be trusted but not if they work for the government.
I see what he is saying and I have to agree with him. We only have part of a story. Why so quick to condemn? Because we WANT TO!! We hate the government and we do not trust them! Because we do not trust them all the stories MUST be true!!
Hey, I get it............ Some people in government jobs abuse their position. Politicians are a prime example. But this does not mean that ALL cops abuse their position.
I am sitting back laughing at how many hereare jumping head first into the unknown. Not taking the time to see what is at the bottom.
Vic is trying to point this out to all of you but you refuse to acknowledge it!
UNREAL!!!
marshaul wrote:
Where did he apologise?
All I see is him pointing out where people here are not thinking clearly and have closed minds.
Far too many people here WANT to hate the police and probably because the policeare part of the government and have some authority.
Authority that MUST corrupt just because .......... well...... just because it must!!
How can citizens with limited additional powers be trusted! That idea just cannot be conceivable!!! Citizens can be trusted but not if they work for the government.
I see what he is saying and I have to agree with him. We only have part of a story. Why so quick to condemn? Because we WANT TO!! We hate the government and we do not trust them! Because we do not trust them all the stories MUST be true!!
Hey, I get it............ Some people in government jobs abuse their position. Politicians are a prime example. But this does not mean that ALL cops abuse their position.
I am sitting back laughing at how many hereare jumping head first into the unknown. Not taking the time to see what is at the bottom.
Vic is trying to point this out to all of you but you refuse to acknowledge it!
UNREAL!!!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Hey, Devils Advocate, how old are you? I get the feeling you're getting into discussions a little above your level of understanding.
You constantly act as though we are delving into unknown territory which only you've explored, and then we it comes down to debate your understanding is revealed to be elementary, and you constantly make mistakes such as not having any idea what "apologetics" are.
UNREAL!!!
:lol:
Hey, Devils Advocate, how old are you? I get the feeling you're getting into discussions a little above your level of understanding.
You constantly act as though we are delving into unknown territory which only you've explored, and then we it comes down to debate your understanding is revealed to be elementary, and you constantly make mistakes such as not having any idea what "apologetics" are.
UNREAL!!!
:lol:
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen.,
I present you with member "marshaul" who cannot defend what he says so he attacks the other guy instead.
The classic muck raking in politics. I cannot look good so I will make the other guy look bad.
Amazing!!
EDIT: Muck Raking
marshaul wrote:
Hey, Devils Advocate, how old are you? I get the feeling you're getting into discussions a little above your level of understanding.
You constantly act as though we are delving into unknown territory which only you've explored, and then we it comes down to debate your understanding is revealed to be elementary, and you constantly make mistakes such as not having any idea what "apologetics" are.
UNREAL!!!
:lol:
Ladies and Gentlemen.,
I present you with member "marshaul" who cannot defend what he says so he attacks the other guy instead.
The classic muck raking in politics. I cannot look good so I will make the other guy look bad.
Amazing!!
EDIT: Muck Raking
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Some pos selling heroin laced with arsenic to a 14 year old is a "nonaggressive transfer of goods between two consenting adults using their own personal property, and is thus far from a criminal act, I fail to see how the state has any moral, ethical..."
What are you smoking? Oh, wait, a 14 year old isn't a 'consenting adult' Iin all jurisdictions. Sorry, make that a 16 year old who would be charged as an adult under our amoral, unethical laws. Ok now...
marshaul wrote:
Some pos selling heroin laced with arsenic to a 14 year old is a "nonaggressive transfer of goods between two consenting adults using their own personal property, and is thus far from a criminal act, I fail to see how the state has any moral, ethical..."
What are you smoking? Oh, wait, a 14 year old isn't a 'consenting adult' Iin all jurisdictions. Sorry, make that a 16 year old who would be charged as an adult under our amoral, unethical laws. Ok now...
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Common law does not assume natural law. Both Locke and Jefferson made that very clear. Man declines to be ruled by natural law when he joins society. He then becomes subject to common law before codification takes place. Codification is based upon the precepts of common law initially. It then becomes either refined or corrupted, dependent upon your point of view--and I know yours, by revisionism. Rousseau held that man, at that point, could renounce and return to natural law. Jefferson and Locke disagreed. But common law never assumes natural law. It replaces it.
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
I should also be allowed to steal unattended property from cars and sell it to others willing to buy stolen goods. Nobody is hurt and this is done between two consenting adults.
Many people successfully use drugs in a recreational way. But there are others that get hooked on it and refuse to work. Instead, they steal from and rob othersto get money for more drugs.
And then the drugs are made with deadly chemicals or are so pure that people die from using it not knowing this ahead of time.
Those that sell drugs fight to protect theirturf and kill those that try to poach.
So I can see how selling drugs is as nonaggressive thingand should be allowed. Nothing but good can come of it, right?
Somebody does not see the bigger picture.
I suspect MORE people would die or become thieves and armed robbers if drugs were more easily available.
They will never win the war on drugs just like they will never stop all speeders on the roadway.
But the enforcement action taking place now dues keep the death rate lower than what it could be.
Gunslinger wrote:
So whatmarshaul seems to besaying is that citizens should be allowed to make a buck any way they can as long as it is not done in an aggressive way.
I should also be allowed to steal unattended property from cars and sell it to others willing to buy stolen goods. Nobody is hurt and this is done between two consenting adults.
Many people successfully use drugs in a recreational way. But there are others that get hooked on it and refuse to work. Instead, they steal from and rob othersto get money for more drugs.
And then the drugs are made with deadly chemicals or are so pure that people die from using it not knowing this ahead of time.
Those that sell drugs fight to protect theirturf and kill those that try to poach.
So I can see how selling drugs is as nonaggressive thingand should be allowed. Nothing but good can come of it, right?
Somebody does not see the bigger picture.
I suspect MORE people would die or become thieves and armed robbers if drugs were more easily available.
They will never win the war on drugs just like they will never stop all speeders on the roadway.
But the enforcement action taking place now dues keep the death rate lower than what it could be.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
What you've made is a "misleading vividness" fallacy. I didn't say anything about actual criminals. I said that "drug dealing", in and of itself, between consenting adults, is not behavior worthy of being deemed "criminal."
Gunslinger wrote:
Devils Advocate wrote:
For example, you routinely assume the elementary, first-enumerated dictionary definition of every word used in a discussion, without consideration of context. This is a big part of the reason I enjoy making fun of you for your "nom d'net", which I consider to be continuing irony.
In this particular case, you assume a simplistic definition of "aggression". For the libertarian (or even natural rights theorist), aggression is something of a "term of art".
Simply put, any volitive action (that is, not mere "behavior") which violates the rights of another constitutes aggression.
To understand what is meant by aggression, I suggest you read the wikipedia article on the non-aggression principle
Gunslinger wrote:
I think it's pretty clear I said "adult", and I've never argued that 16-year-olds be treated as adults (in a legal context). If, in fact, you can find a "drug dealer" who sells "heroin laced with arsenic" (nice fantasy you have here, by the way) to children, then I'll agree he should be locked up. But, the vast majority of drug dealers who are imprisoned have not sold any such thing to children, and many of them are exactly as I described.
What you've made is a "misleading vividness" fallacy. I didn't say anything about actual criminals. I said that "drug dealing", in and of itself, between consenting adults, is not behavior worthy of being deemed "criminal."
Gunslinger wrote:
You're right; I didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary from a historical perspective. However, English common law is derived from natural law, even though it is considered to replace it for practical purposes. As a result, I would argue that any rule of law contrary to natural rights is a violation of common law, not technically but ethically.
Devils Advocate wrote:
The reason I rarely address your posts directly (as you'll see I do with other members, such as gunslinger here) is because you're so often "in over your head", so to speak.
For example, you routinely assume the elementary, first-enumerated dictionary definition of every word used in a discussion, without consideration of context. This is a big part of the reason I enjoy making fun of you for your "nom d'net", which I consider to be continuing irony.
In this particular case, you assume a simplistic definition of "aggression". For the libertarian (or even natural rights theorist), aggression is something of a "term of art".
Simply put, any volitive action (that is, not mere "behavior") which violates the rights of another constitutes aggression.
To understand what is meant by aggression, I suggest you read the wikipedia article on the non-aggression principle