TX Cops Get Busted

[DeSwiss]

Run time: 02:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Fu4YVH8nA   Posted on YouTube: December 05, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 07, 2008 By DU Member: DeSwiss Views on DU: 13445

 
- I can't help but wonder how much pine needles are going for on the street after all this.

Jerkoff cops......
==============================================================================
DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox


http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html">
"Prayer is just a way of telling god that his divine plan for
you is flawed -- and shockingly stingy" ~ Betty Bowers

[annabanana]

1. This is a GREAT story.

I hope this guy knows his security issues really really well. He is rubbing a LOT of people the wrong way. People who could hurt him.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Excop_Barry_Cooper_launches_Kop_Busters_1206.html

[DeSwiss]

3. He's a former....

...Odessa, TX cop. So I think its safe to assume that he knows he's a target.

[midnight]

2. Amazing.....

[cosmik debris]

4. K&R

[Celebration]

5. Oh, WOW

Story of the day. Even if you normally don't watch YouTube, make an exception.

Although, the report did not make it clear (as the Raw Story did) that the cops had to have lied to get a search warrant.

[DeSwiss]

8. Lying cops....

...now there's a concept.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Texas cops are notoriously corrupt

I don't trust them at all. Most likely the pretty lady wouldn't have sex with someone and so she got busted.

And isn't it funny that people who assault others, steal, and really hurt people wind up not going to jail or have very light sentences while people only interested in pot get the book thrown at them?

[DeSwiss]

9. I once saw a posting at a Texas lawyer's website....

...where an alleged Texas prosecutor (name unknown) was waxing poetic about how easy it is for cops to have an "accident" with a suspected drug guy in his car. They could then use that accident as a means to do a search. When the outcry hit the nets, it was promptly removed. Yes, Texas is one of the armpits of LEO's, no doubt about it.

- And I have absolutely no plans to ever go there again....

[Monk06]

193. I recall a story about a Dallas prosecutor who bragged that, "Any prosecutor

could convict someone who was guilty, but it
took a talented prosecutor to convict someone
who was innocent.

This is what comes from a system where prosecutors
and judges are elected to office. By definition anyone
who is elected to a job is a politician whose principle
interest is getting reelected.

In Canada all judges and Crown prosecutors are appointed
by the provincial AGs if a prosecutor or judge turns out
to be corrupt or incompetent they take the heat.

[LostinVA]

82. Tulia

[opihimoimoi]

7. According to the bible...weed is cool...its OK...but them churchy dudes decided otherwise

[DeSwiss]

10. Yep. There's no doubt about that.

- In fact, click on the pic at the bottom of the OP.

[AlbertCat]

11. Jesus used Marijuana!

HAHAHAHAHAHA! For crying out loud! This is just stupid!

Marijuana is harmless compared to over the counter drugs (ask Anna Nicole and Heath) and even some of those "herbal supplements", and certainly alcohol. I'm sure, all Jesus aside, that responsibly legalizing it would eliminate many problems... more than it would create. I mean, the Dutch are just fine. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition???

It's kinda like Gay Marriage. There's all this worry and sturm und drang about what will happen if we do something...like make Gay marriage or pot legal. But then someone actually does it, and all the warnings we've been told to fear simply don't happen. Still, when emotions are involved...as they are with both matters, all logic flies out the window.

[Joanne98]

12. OMG! What a great idea! K&R!

[TheEuclideanOne]

13. There is just one catch....

You have to find not only a police department that is blatantly corrupt, but one that is just that stupid. If you think about it, they were able to surprise the police on a fake drug sting. :rofl: These cops had to just be THAT clueless.

[punkin87]

14. Here's the story behind it. They tried to arrest the lawyer involved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4602068
K & R

[ihavenobias]

17. Thanks for the link! Without it I have to say I'm either an idiot or the rpeort was unclear.

Maybe both or maybe I'm just tired.

;)

[ejbr]

142. You were not alone.

I wasn't sure why this was such a "great idea". Now it makes sense.

[DeSwiss]

30. Thanks!!!

What a bunch of dopes. Not only did they lie and subvert justice in getting the warrant, but then they try to add false arrest to their list of future charges.

- Beautiful!!!

[Hulk]

15. Let's clean up this country from top to bottom and bottom to top!!

I just have such a hard time with ANYONE incarcerated for marijuana offenses. I don't smoke the stuff anymore, and haven't for probably 25 years...but I see NOTHING wrong with it as a drug of choice. CERTAINLY more safe than alcohol, that leads to thousands of deaths of INNOCENTS as well as users annually.

Police had better re-take their oath again as to who they serve and that they work to uphold the laws and safety of society. Otherwise, there are another half million people out of work this month that would LOVE to take their job.

[DeSwiss]

31. Agreed.

- I'm waiting (and hopeful) to see the Obama Administration's policies that will begin to unravel this mess.

[Pierre.Suave]

16. I am curious

what exactly did they bust the cops doing?

[20score]

19. The cops used illegal methods to get a warrant.

[Pierre.Suave]

21. Do we know that for sure

or are we just guessing?

have a copy of the warrant you would like to share?

[ThePowerofWill]

23. If you had looked it explains itself.

The only way the cops could get a warrant was by illegal means, the whole thing was set up just for that. The cops either had to lie and say an informant knew there were drugs there, or use Flir type devices to scan the house which have been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

The whole "sting" was set up in a fashion where there was no real way to get a legit warrant.

[20score]

26. Thanks for getting my back. I thought it was pretty obvious, myself.

[ThePowerofWill]

27. No prblem.

As you well know i am sure there are those among us who would appologize/rationalize/defend the police no matter what the evidence against them.

[Pierre.Suave]

40. Show me your evidence

against the cops?

[Pamela Troy]

47. What would you accept as evidence?

[wildbilln864]

184. Silliness!

They have the evidence, we don't. :crazy:

[DeSwiss]

32. Here ya go!

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Excop_Barry_Cooper_launches_Kop_Busters_1206.html

[Pierre.Suave]

39. You mean this?

"When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house."

This is not proof the cops lied on anything, this is some doods supposition.

Show me proof, also WTF do you expect to happen when you set up a simulated marijuana growing operation...

The cops show up.

This isn't rocket science, and you also have no proof, none of you. I read all the links and nowhere in any of them is any proof the cops did anything wrong.

[20score]

41. Really? You really don't get it? Wow!

[Pierre.Suave]

42. no

that is not evidence or proof of anything other than the beliefs of the person that thinks he busted the cops doing something they shouldn't.

Show me proof of any wrongdoing by the cops, proof not conjecture.

[Pamela Troy]

45. What would you accept as proof?

[20score]

46. You were already shown the evidence. You chose to ignore it.

I'm done.

[Pierre.Suave]

49. that was not proof

that was conjecture and supposition.

[Pamela Troy]

51. You still haven't explained what you would accept as proof.

[JDPriestly]

57. Violation of the Fourth Amendment right -- the warrant was

obtained on illicit violation of the right to be free from search and seizure of personal effects without a warrant based on probable cause.

Violation of the laws against perjury: Almost assuredly, at least one of the police officers signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the tip about the growing of marijuana was from some source other than their use of equipment not permitted for that purpose.

Of course, I am making logical assumptions that based on the premise that only Christmas trees were being grown in the house in question and that the police could only have known of the plantation through using the illicit cameras. I am unaware of any refutation of those assumptions by the police.

[Pierre.Suave]

58. Again

unless you have the warrant (and if so, please share) this is pure speculation, not proof.

[mike_c]

93. the warrant doesn't matter-- only its existence matters....

I'm sure others have pointed this out already. Listen carefully:

THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE.

Since there was absolutely no illegal activity at the house-- growing christmas trees under indoor lights is NOT illegal-- there could not be probable cause to execute ANY warrant. Period.

The police must have lied to obtain the warrant. That is not supposition, since there was not any actual probable cause. Note too that as of this moment, the police have refused to exhibit the request they made for the warrant. Something to hide, perhaps?

WHAT they're concealing is supposition, i.e. they must have lied to the court to obtain the warrant, but what specific lie they told is as yet unknown.

[Pierre.Suave]

96. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Do you have the warrant?

[mike_c]

108. I know because I understand how LEGAL search and seizure operates....

There is a third possibility, actually-- but it's even more illegal than the ones already discussed. That's the possibility that the police raided WITHOUT obtaining a warrant first. I'm assuming that's not the case, since lawyers are involved and Odessa would already be in deep shit if its police dept just went around searching property without a warrant.

So that's how I know. It isn't rocket science. The cops had a warrant. There was no probable cause. Both of these circumstances are established truths.

What we don't know is what the police told the judge in order to obtain the warrant. But since there was no actual crime in progress, or any other probable cause to investigate, we can reasonably surmise that whatever the police told the court was a lie. It's not likely that the told them the truth, after all: "Yer honor, we need a search warrant to gather evidence about christmas trees growing under lights." :rofl:

I don't think so. And if they didn't tell the truth to obtain the warrant, what does that leave?

[Pierre.Suave]

114. we dont know what the probably cause was

because we dont have the warrant.

All we do have is speculation.

[Pamela Troy]

119. And we don't have the affidavit for the warrant because...?

[JDPriestly]

167. Jasonc, are you an attorney? Have you ever taken a course

in criminal or Constitutional law? There is a remote possibility that someone made a phone call and falsely reported that marijuana was growing in that house. If so, the person who made the call is in trouble. Remember the case against the Mormon sect in Texas when the police moved in allegedly based on a call that reported child abuse?

Texas Rangers participated in the arrest of a Colorado woman who allegedly pretended to be a girl locked in a basement as part of their investigation into a Texas polygamist sect, ABC News has learned.

It was unclear if the Rangers believe the woman who was arrested in Colorado is the same person who made the series of phone calls to a Texas shelter that prompted police to raid the Yearning for Zion Ranch and take more than 400 sect children into state custody.

. . . .

But ABC News has learned that Texas Rangers flew to Colorado Springs, Colo., this week and participated in the arrest of a 33-year-old woman who was charged with filing a false report.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4678143&page=1

If someone was stupid enough to call in a false report, that person will be arrested and charged.

It is more reasonable to assume that the police discovered what they assumed was the evidence of marijuana plantation through illegal surveillance. If so, they will either admit their wrong and make a deal that will probably include some changes in the police department or they will be sued and in a settlement agreement make the changes in the department. Either way, unless the police can prove that they obtained the information upon which they based their entry into that house or apartment, some changes are going to be made in the police department in that city in Texas.

We are making assumptions, but our assumptions are reasonable based on the reactions of the officers entering that house. I didn't hear a one of them say that they should look further because the evidence that marijuana was being grown was too strong to quit after discovering the lights and the pine trees. When the rest of the house was empty, they started laughing.

The officers who entered the house may or may not have been the officers that falsified the evidence. We do not know that, but someone somewhere falsified evidence. And that is the issue. Why did the police go into that house without making sure that the evidence of illegal activity in the house was strong enough to warrant arrests and the violation of the privacy of those occupying the house?

Why do you question my assumptions? What alternative explanations for the facts that you can see in the video do you have?

[Pierre.Suave]

169. I am not making assumptions

you, and everyone else are.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I can see a scenario where the police could make a mistake, or reasonably suspect that there was a grow operation in this house, without resorting to illegal practices.

I am simply advocating waiting until we actually have the evidence before jumping to conclusions.

I also suspect that BOTH sides are not giving us the WHOLE story...

[Leftist Agitator]

178. You said:

"I can see a scenario where the police could make a mistake, or reasonably suspect that there was a grow operation in this house, without resorting to illegal practices."

I would like you to describe such a scenario, if you would.

"I also suspect that BOTH sides are not giving us the WHOLE story..."

Indeed. There are three sidse to every story. Both respective sides of the involved parties, and the truth.

[JDPriestly]

188. So a little old lady reports a house that has a light on a lot.

Do you think that should raise a reasonable suspicion of marijuana plants? I don't think so.

[Ken Burch]

161. Why would you back the cops, anyway?

It's not like they're ever on OUR side.

[Pierre.Suave]

164. I am not on anyones side

until I see all the evidence.

[DeSwiss]

43. Then upon what evidence....

...or "probable cause" did the police obtain a warrant?

And exactly what the hell is "a simulated marijuana growing operation?"

And exactly where would I find the statute on any legal books -- ANYWHERE -- describing the possession of dirt and grow lights as a felony?

You want proof? How about the proof of their asses on that video? What the hell were they doing there? They could only be there under false pretenses, right? So who LIED in order to get some stupid judge to issue a search warrant? Is it okay with you that cops can just kick in any doors they want if they see you with light bulbs? Without any prima facia evidence of a crime or that a crime is about to be committed, or an informant who says they know that marijuana is being grown there, then the law says you have NO PROBABLE CAUSE!!!!!!!

NONE

- Please....

[Pamela Troy]

44. Except, you see, the cops could not have gotten that search warrant unless

they lied about an informant contacting them.

It's not rocket science

[Pierre.Suave]

48. That is pure conjecture

we don't know why the cops showed up, we only have guesses.

guesses are not good enough to convict, we need actual proof.

[Pamela Troy]

52. Educated guesses based on a knowledge of police procedure and how search warrants work.

WHAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS PROOF?

[Pierre.Suave]

55. I am glad you are not a lawyer

how about actual proof, not "educated guesses"

Additionally, why do you think it is ok for you to make the "educated guess" and assume they did something wrong, but not ok for the cops to make their own "educated guess?"



Show me actual proof of wrongdoing.

[Pamela Troy]

65. The cops "educated guesses" are supposed to be acted on within specific legal channels.

Their actions here strongly indicate the circumvented those legal channels.

Now for the fourth time -- explain please, what, if anything, you would accept as proof.

If you keep evading this question we'll just have to assume that your answer is "Nothing. There is not a single fact anyone could present that would make me blame the police for anything."

[Pierre.Suave]

67. Show me proof they did

an actual concrete fact, not a guess.

I am starting to see the fault in your logic if you have no idea what constitutes proof in this matter.

[Pamela Troy]

71. Oh, cut it out. Everyone knows by now that you're asking for "proof" in bad faith.

You wouldn't accept anything as proof.

[Pierre.Suave]

73. No

I am asking for proof, not your guesses.

[Pamela Troy]

79. Then what you would accept as proof?

(Listen, everybody. You'll be able to hear crickets chirping in the silence. Or we're in for some more theaters as he unsuccessfully tries to laugh off the question without answering it.)

[Pierre.Suave]

85. can you read?

or think? Do you have an ounce of critical thinking ability?

[Pamela Troy]

90. I gave you too much credit.

Sorry, folks, but the poster has now gone past the silence or nervous laughter stage and has entered the "Your just a DOODYHEAD!" phase of losing an argument.

[Pierre.Suave]

92. I have lost count

of the multiple times I have stated in this thread what it is I would accept as proof.

So I ask again, can you read?

[Pamela Troy]

103. If you mean a copy of the search warrant the cops have refused to provide it.

Which is a fairly strong indication that there's something wrong with it.

[Pierre.Suave]

105. I see you finally read some of my posts

good for you.

[Pamela Troy]

107. I'd read it from the beginning. You'd already been told something to this effect.

You just went on cut and pasting "show me the proof" into your messages.

You won't accept any proof. Period.

[JDPriestly]

172. We are not going to arrest anyone. We are not going to enter

the police station with weapons on us. We are just talking about our judgments and predictions about a news story.

The police violated the privacy of the tenants or owners of that house without probable cause in most likely in violation of the Constitution and made absolute fools of themselves.

We had a case here in Los Angeles in which the police had planted evidence. One individual was seriously injured.

[JDPriestly]

59. The warrant that the police obtained and the paperwork, i.e.,

affidavits they provided to obtain the warrants will provide the proof that the police made claims to have evidence of an illegal act that had not taken place.

By the way, I grow house plants and start my seedlings in my house. I also plant seeds outside in my garden and put milk cartons and screens up to protect them from the intense Southern California heat. What am I growing? Lettuce, arugula (may be elitist but is not illegal, not yet anyway), spinach, basil, oregano, all sorts of things. The police have no business knowing what I am doing in my house. I don't use special lights or heat, but my mother did use those things for growing lettuce in her house in a cold winter last year. It is nobody's business what you are doing within the four walls of your house unless there is evidence that it is illegal. Growing Christmas trees in your house may be stupid, but it is not illegal.

Perjuring yourself to obtain a warrant is illegal.

[Pierre.Suave]

63. All that writing

and still no proof, only conjecture and pointless lecturing...

[Pamela Troy]

66. You obviously wouldn't accept anything as proof.

[Pierre.Suave]

68. well

I certainly would not accept your guesses as proof, and thats all you have.

[Pamela Troy]

70. I notice you haven't denied that you wouldn't accept anything as proof.

Why not just come out and admit it?

[Pierre.Suave]

72. LOL

you have very faulty logic

[Pamela Troy]

77. It's quite logical to assume that when someone assiduously avoids answering a pertinent question

it's because the answer would embarrass them.

You can't offer an example of what you would accept as proof because you know there is absolutely nothing you would accept as proof.

[Pierre.Suave]

83. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

how about the warrant or anything other than your guesses that PROVES the cops raided this house illegally...

you have a very weird way of thinking. maybe lay off the weed for a bit...

[Pamela Troy]

88. You really should see something about that nervous giggle of yours.

Hebrephenia is treatable, you know.

[Pierre.Suave]

89. I suppose you are going to tell me

that if I just smoked some pot, it would fix it?

:eyes:

your thinking in a very illogical circle.

[Pamela Troy]

91. Uh, no. Where have I said such a thing?

[Pierre.Suave]

95. Just an assumption

See how those can be wrong?

:rofl:

[Pamela Troy]

99. Which is why search warrants require stronger evidence than those cops obviously had.

[Pierre.Suave]

101. your double standard amuses me

[Pamela Troy]

106. Where do you see a double standard?

[Pierre.Suave]

115. you allow yourself to guess away

but not the cops, no, the cops need to have solid evidence...

no, they only need a reasonable suspicion that a crime is, or has been, committed, to get a warrant.

by the way, walking into a house with multiple grow lights, and planting materials could be considered probably cause.

[Pamela Troy]

120. Yes, strange as it may seem to you, the cops DO need solid evidence for

entering and searching a house.

J: By the way, walking into a house with multiple grow lights, and planting materials could be considered probably cause.

??? Going into the house is just cause for going into the house?

You don't see anything illogical about this definition of "probable cause?"

[Pierre.Suave]

122. are you serious?

walking into your house, with multiple grow lights and materials that can be used for growing pot, yes is enough for probable cause...

[Pamela Troy]

125. ...for walking into the house?

You're not even within shouting distance of common sense at this point.

[Pierre.Suave]

126. you seem to be not seeing the most important part of my statement

no surprise really, it took you hours to see that I had stated what I wanted as proof...

[Pamela Troy]

128. The most important part of your statement being...?

[Pierre.Suave]

131. jesus

WITH GROW LIGHTS AND MATERIALS THAT COULD BE USED TO GROW POT.


my point is that we do not know what the probable cause is, maybe they lied, maybe they just got lucky and noticed something that to them looked suspicious, WE DONT KNOW.

I am more interested in how they found out about this in 24 hours...that is the most suspicious part to me, I think both sides are not telling the whole truth.

[Pamela Troy]

135. And so your reasoning that mere possession of grow lights is evidence enough for a search warrant?

Are you serious?

[Pierre.Suave]

138. What do you think a cop would think

if he saw someone carrying multiple grow lights along with all the required paraphanelia to grow pot, into their house?

[Pamela Troy]

146. He might be suspicious and, if he were an honest cop, open an investigation that MIGHT garner him

enough evidence for a warrant.

If he were dishonest and lazy, he might skip the investigation part and lie on the affidavit, claiming a level of evidence that did not, in fact, exist.

Anything unclear about this to you?

[Pierre.Suave]

152. I dont think you understand what a warrant is

A cop gets a warrant when they suspect a crime has been, or is being, committed.

not after all the investigation is done.

lets go back to my previous example...

say the little old lady across the street, sees them carrying all the growing materials into their house, shortly after watching 60 minutes or some tv show about drugs, it doesnt matter, but she sees this and calls the police...

so the police decide to investigate...

so they may monitor phone traffic, maybe e-mails and in the course of this investigation discover that the people inside the house are using throw away phones, and encrypted e-mails...

coupled with the report of the old lady seeing the grow materials being carried into the house, they go to a judge with probable cause that a marijuana operation has began in that house.

all that, would be perfectly legal. Even if you're not doing anything illegal inside the house.

[Pamela Troy]

154. Actually, I do understand what a warrant is.

And I know that mere suspicion is not enough for a search warrant. You need more than a little old lady being nervous,

How would the police know that the people involved were using encrypted emails and throw away phones?

[Pierre.Suave]

156. ...

[TheEuclideanOne]

195. Not quite sure where to jump, but why not here

Ummmmm......let's see.....not sure quite how to explain this, but the purpose of getting a search warrant is to search a house..... if you just walked into a house and then justified that you needed a search warrant after you found the evidence INSIDE THE HOUSE, it would completely void the reason for needing a search warrant. That is the basis of the police needing a search warrant to begin with.

Your logic is a bit circular.... if the police don't have a warrant so they shouldn't be allowed in the house, yet you argue that the justification for their searching the house without a valid warrant is that they found something. However, there should be no way that they could have found anything if they didn't have a search warrant to begin with. (head hurting now....)

Actually, these types of behaviors are the reason that alot of court cases, regardless of how solid, are lost. Cops ignore the rules. A cop can find a smoking gun inside of a house that would prove a murder case beyond a shadow of a doubt, but if the cop does not have a search warrant, the smoking gun is disallowed and the case is lost. I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding.

[JDPriestly]

173. jasonc, we do will not be charging into the officers' homes

and harassing them or planting evidence on them. We are just chatting about our thoughts about this event. That is why we can assume what we want. If we are proved wrong, then so much the better for everyone. If we are proved right, so be it.

[JDPriestly]

170. The problem is not that they showed up. They problem is that they

entered a house in which there was no illegal activity. They will have to explain why they went in. I think they are going to have a hard time doing that. They may claim they followed an anonymous tip, but that is going to be hard to argue in these days of traceable phone calls. It's possible that a nosy neighbor called, but that is also unlikely.

An almost empty house with lights on day and night (I assume that is what they do) is not probable cause that a crime is being committed. The police should have checked with neighbors and the tenant to get permission to go in unless they had probable cause to enter without permission and with no warrant. If they got a warrant, they are going to have to prove they had evidence upon which to base requesting the warrant. This is fascinating to me.

[DarkTirade]

78. Umm... there was no probably cause to enter that building

other than what could be obtained illegally. In addition, the cops have refused to release the warrant, which is damn suspicious. So far we have logical conclusions and evidence. That's certainly enough to get something to court. The proof will only come if/when the courts force the cops to release their warrant.

And you're being a douche right now. Cut it out.

[Pierre.Suave]

84. NO, I am not being a douche

I simply think that before we jump to conclusions we should have proof, not guesses and not suppositions, and not conjecture.

[Pamela Troy]

94. Of course you are. You're arguing in bad faith, asking for proof when you know and we know

there's nothing you'd accept as proof.

[Pierre.Suave]

97. I dont think you are reading my posts

[Pamela Troy]

109. Yes, I am.

[RetroLounge]

118. You've gone beyond douche

posting your little "look at me" thread in the lounge that just got locked moved you from douche territory into total dickhead territory.

You lost this argument about 20 "show me proof" cut and paste posts ago.

Give it up...

:puke:

RL

[Pierre.Suave]

121. LOL

you make me laugh.

[Pamela Troy]

127. Are you afraid of being laughed at?

People who giggle a lot and keep announcing how hard their laughing at other people usually are.

[RetroLounge]

130. Good.

Too bad your little call for your clique lounge friends didn't make the mods laugh.

Epic Fail. Like your posts here.

:puke:

RL

[Pierre.Suave]

132. nice attempt at baiting me

not going to work.

[Pamela Troy]

136. Awwwww... No more giggles?

[Pierre.Suave]

139. nah, more like a sympathy sigh...

he was attempting to get me to badmouth the mods so he could alert on me.

[Pamela Troy]

148. I see. More histrionics.

[RetroLounge]

171. Yeah, that's what I was doing...

:rofl:

God's gift indeed... :eyes:

RL

[DarkTirade]

180. You're playing lawyer loophole tricks before its even gotten into a courtroom.

And being a bit of an ass about it. You know I'm willing to defend you when other people are being douches towards you, but that also means I'm gonna call you out on it when I see you doing it too.

[wildbilln864]

18. I see his site...

www.nevergetbusted.com is down. Anyone else able to access it? :shrug:

[TomInTib]

22. I pulled it up.

Quick! Hop on a plane and fly to San Francisco. Take the ferry to Tiburon, and view it on my monitor.

[20score]

37. That was damn funny!!!

[wildbilln864]

183. Hold your breath and....

I'll be there shortly.

[DeSwiss]

50. The Gestopo has arrived....

[Capt. America]

20. Generally speaking, its hard to fight city hall because they are all on the same team.

[DeSwiss]

53. The probblem for the city of Odessa....

...is whether or not they'll end up having to cut some "team members." And by Barry going public in this way, and with this not being some "internal investigation" where they can cover each others asses, now they have to decide who is expendable. Because now they've made the judge who issued the warrant look like a fool.

- And he will not be pleased....

[Pierre.Suave]

56. have you a copy of the warrant?

or any proof of why the cops went into this house?

[JDPriestly]

60. The warrant will have to be produced in discovery in the civil

suit over this.

[Pierre.Suave]

62. If it goes that far.

[JDPriestly]

163. It probably will.

[Pierre.Suave]

165. probablys, maybes, conjecture, and supposition...

dont work.

[JDPriestly]

189. Oh, yes they do. When something like this gets national attention

they do, not always, but this looks pretty interesting to me. There may be facts we don't know, but we shall see. This is definitely a story to watch. I remember that when the L.A. story of police malfeasance and planting evidence broke, people did not believe it. In that case, the guys involved were labeled as gang members, and for all I know may have been gang members, but it turned out the story was true. The story brought a huge change in the police department thanks to a court injunction.

[FreeState]

187. Anyone can get a copy of it tomorrow per Texas law

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-procedure/18.01.00.html

(b) No search warrant shall issue for any purpose in this
state unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the
issuing magistrate that probable cause does in fact exist for its
issuance. A sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts
establishing probable cause shall be filed in every instance in
which a search warrant is requested. The affidavit is public
information if executed, and the magistrate's clerk shall make a
copy of the affidavit available for public inspection in the
clerk's office during normal business hours.

[DeSwiss]

61. Well, as I'm sure you READ in the article....

...the cops have a problem there as well. Seems that in addition to a false arrest of the attorney for the person who lived there, but they refused to provide a copy of the warrant to them. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Excop_Barry_Cooper_launches_Kop_Busters_1206.html

Now why would that be??? Isn't a warrant a public document? Doesn't someone have the right of due process. Don't they have a right to see any and all evidence and charges against them? Whose names are the covering up?

I'm sorry bud, but it isn't I, nor Barry that requires PROOF here. Its these stupid-assed cops who need to prove that what they did was legal.

- And they know they can't. And YOU know it too.....

[Pierre.Suave]

64. when cops raid a suspected drug house

they arrest everyone inside, no matter if they are the home owners or not.

You still have shown no proof of police violating anyones 4th amendment rights.

I can think of many perfectly legal reasons the cops could have been suspicious...

1) little old lady across the street sees a bunch of grow lights being carried into the house, maybe people copming and going at all hours, she calls the police, they get a warrant...

2) imagine if you will the police had some other house in the area under surveillance and lo and behold, these clowns come in and set up their fake grow operation, only the cops seeing this dont know it is fake, they go and report it, cops get a warrant...

thats only two perfectly legal reasons for the cops to have obtained a warrant, I am sure if I thought about it, I could come up with more.

[Pamela Troy]

69. As has been made clear, a little old lady's suspicions are not generally considered enough

for a warrant. For an investigation that might lead to a warrant, yes, but that's not enough for them to come busting into a busting into a house for a search.

Anything unclear about this to you?

[Pierre.Suave]

74. LOL

I sure hope you are not a lawyer and if you are, you would make an AWESOME DA with the illogic you use to think with.

[Pamela Troy]

80. More histrionics. You do realize don't you, that you're not fooling anyone?

Not even yourself.

[Pierre.Suave]

86. Wow

just wow.

Who am I trying to fool?

[Pamela Troy]

98. Anyone who you post a message demanding "proof." Asking the question strongly implies

that there is something you would accept as proof.

By now, anyone who's been following this thread has figured out you don't really care about proof.

[Pierre.Suave]

100. well

have you read any of my posts in which I stated what is, and what is not, proof?

[Pamela Troy]

110. You asked for a copy of the paperwork.

It had already been pointed out to you (and had been mentioned in the artlcle) that the cops refused to provide it.

[Pierre.Suave]

116. yes I know that

which is what puzzles me, no body here has any proof of any wrongdoing, yet y'all are jumping to conclusions.

[Pamela Troy]

123. "Proof of wrongdoing" on the part of the cops plainly does not exist in your universe.

Nor does evidence of wrongdoing by the cops.

[Pierre.Suave]

124. yes, simply because

I live in a little place I like to call, reality.

[Pamela Troy]

129. Sorry, but a universe where cops never do anything wrong or dishonest is not "reality."

[Pierre.Suave]

133. do you have proof of that wrongdoing?

or are we back in actual reality again?

[Pamela Troy]

137. Since you are unwilling to accept anything even as evidence, much less proof

your question is meaningless.

[Pierre.Suave]

140. do you have problems with short term memory?

we have been over and over this.

[Pamela Troy]

143. And you've been unable to come up with an example of what you would accept as "evidence"

Or proof. The only example you offered actually indicates wrongdoing on the cops part because they are suspiciously unwilling to provide it.

[Pierre.Suave]

147. true

but that does not prove they got it illegally.

[Pamela Troy]

149. You won't even accept it as EVIDENCE that they acted illegally.

Since you accept nothing as evidence, you can't accept anything as proof.

[Jim Sagle]

192. You're not trying to fool anyone, you're just trying to disrupt.

Succeeding too, if not admirably.

[DeSwiss]

75. The attorney was not inside the house...

...as can be seen in this video of the "raid." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4&eurl

He approaches the houses toward the end of the video. And as I said, I have no reason to "show proof." Its the cops who need to show WTF they were doing there either w/o a warrant, or with an illegal one. You can't have it both ways.

- And btw, both of your examples are ludicrous. Absolutely LUDICROUS!!!

[Pierre.Suave]

76. Well then

you cant assume the cops did anything wrong then if you don't have proof.


you mean the cops arrested some unknown person walking up to a drug raid? imagine that... :eyes:

Ludicrous? You think so? You have no idea...

[Pamela Troy]

81. Why do you have such a strong emotional stake in trying to justify the cops actions?

[Pierre.Suave]

87. Why do you have such a strong emotional stake in trying to vilify the cops actions?

See?

[LostinVA]

102. Some odd people have a problem with their Constitutional rights being spat upon

Although you seem to be mocking this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8306598#8306614h

[Pierre.Suave]

104. prove it was done?

then I will be upset about it.

I clicked on this link hoping to find evidence of cops violating someone's rights, but that is not the case here.

there is no proof, only conjecture and guesses.

[Pamela Troy]

112. You've already been shown strong evidence that the cops were engaging in misconduct.

Why are you so intent on pretending it hasn't been offered?

[Pierre.Suave]

113. No I have not seen any proof

only a lot of jumping to conclusions not based on fact, only conjecture and wishful thinking.

here is something for you to think about... how did the cops find this xmas tree growing operation in only 24 hours and suspect it was a pot growing operation?

I have been growing plants (not pot) for years with grow lights and never once have I been raided by the police. Never.

personally, I think there is a lot more to this story than either side is telling.

[Pamela Troy]

134. Like I said, "proof" or "evidence" against cops doesn't exist in your universe.

As for why the cops raided, it might have something to do with the people involved using encrypted emails and Walmart blow up cellphones.

The actual procedures for obtaining a search warrant are detailed in this NY Times piece about an elderly woman who was shot to death during a drug raid where the cops hadn't bothered to follow such procedures:

"The day she was killed, narcotics officers said, they arrested a drug dealer who said he could tell them where to recover a kilogram of cocaine, and pointed out Ms. Johnston’s modest green-trimmed house at 933 Neal Street.

Instead of hiring an informant to try to buy drugs at the house, the officers filed for a search warrant, claiming that drugs had been bought there from a man named Sam. Because they falsely claimed that the house was equipped with surveillance equipment, they got a no-knock warrant that allowed them to break down the front door.

First, according to court papers, they pried off the burglar bars and began to ram open the door. Ms. Johnston, who lived alone, fired a single shot from a .38-caliber revolver through the front door and the officers fired back, killing her.

After the shooting, they handcuffed her and searched the house, finding no drugs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/27atlanta.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

[Pierre.Suave]

144. one bad case in the NYtimes

does not prove this case.

I would argue that the use of the encrypted e-mails and throw away phones made it more likely they would be raided and make the cops more suspicious, especially if they had the house under any kind of surveillance.

Couple that info with the possibility they were witnessed carrying grow material into their house, and theres your probable cause.

nothing illegal about that, but it still does not explain why they were under surveillance to begin with.

I still think BOTH sides are not giving the whole truth.

[Pamela Troy]

150. It's not a matter of proving that case. It's a matter of indicating what are the

proper procedures for obtaining a warrant. And what the consequences can be when those procedures are ignored.

[Pierre.Suave]

153. I know what the proper procedures are

I do not think you do, or what the purpose of a warrant is.

[Pamela Troy]

155. Apparently you don't if you think merely possessing certain gardening lights

is "probable cause" for a search warrant.

[JDPriestly]

176. Could be. Do you live in Odessa, Texas?

Minnesota police may have a different understanding of search and seizure law.

[Pamela Troy]

111. I don't. I simply think there is strong evidence that the cops were engaging in misconduct,

i.e, lying on a search warrant affidavit.

[Pierre.Suave]

117. LOL

again with the guessing and conjecture...

[Pamela Troy]

141. You know, if you tried to actually argue reasonably, people wouldn't find your posts

so silly. Then you wouldn't feel like people are laughing at you.

[Pierre.Suave]

145. I do not care one whit

if people with as little capacity for a logical thought process want to laugh or try to bring me down, they only do because they know they have no other argument.

[Pamela Troy]

151. The tenor of your posts indicate that you do.

[Leftist Agitator]

157. Let us assume for a moment...

Let us assume for a moment that the police did lie in order to obtain a search warrant.

Yes, I know, as far as you are concerned there is no "proof" that they did, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that they did indeed lie.

Would that be acceptable to you?

[Pierre.Suave]

158. no

absolutely not.

but before drawing and quartering them, I want to see the proof, just as I would if the cops came to me and said someone was dealing drugs, I would want to see the proof, not just accept their word for it.

[Leftist Agitator]

159. OK, then on to part 2...

Given that there was no illegal activity occurring at the residence which was searched, can you offer a plausible scenario under which the police could have obtained a search warrant without resorting to falsehood?

[Pierre.Suave]

160. already done

read it above.

to get a warrant the police only need a reasonable suspicion.

Warrants are for going in to gather evidence.

post 152 I believe.

[Leftist Agitator]

166. "to get a warrant the police only need a reasonable suspicion."

That is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, most searches by the police require a search warrant based on probable cause, although there are exceptions. Any police entry of an individual's home always requires a warrant (for either search or arrest), absent exigent circumstances, or the free and voluntary consent of a person with reasonably apparent use of or control over the property.

From the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".<1> Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. (emphasis mine)





Now then, clearly, any circumstantial evidence did not rise to the level of constituting "reasonable suspicion, let alone "probable cause". Mere possession of lamps intended for indoor horticulture does not indicate that they are to be used in a criminal operation. Nor does a neighbor's suspicion that criminal activity is taking place constitute sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Even with both of these two disparate pieces of information, probable cause is not established.

Now then, would you care to detail a scenario under which the police would have been able to obtain a search warrant without resorting to falsehood?

[Pierre.Suave]

168. conveniently for your purposes

you left out the rest of my scenario...

how convenient when you can ignore facts... :eyes:

[Leftist Agitator]

175. Well, I don't know if you're anrgy because I made you look foolish...

Or if you're simply too lazy to post your explanation, but in the interest of fairness, I'm going to do your part:

From post #152:

"say the little old lady across the street, sees them carrying all the growing materials into their house, shortly after watching 60 minutes or some tv show about drugs, it doesnt matter, but she sees this and calls the police...

so the police decide to investigate...

so they may monitor phone traffic, maybe e-mails and in the course of this investigation discover that the people inside the house are using throw away phones, and encrypted e-mails...

coupled with the report of the old lady seeing the grow materials being carried into the house, they go to a judge with probable cause that a marijuana operation has began in that house."



You may be unaware of this, but using pre-paid cellular phones is not in and of itself indicative of criminal activity, nor is criminal activity to be inferred even if an unsubstantiated report that the user also possess indoor horticultural supplies is also offered as evidence of lawbreaking.

You may also be unaware that local law enforcement is required to obtain a warrant before engaging in any electronic surveillance. In other words, the only legally admissable evidence for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant in the scenario which you described would be the unsubstantiated report from a civilian that the individual in question possessed materials suitable for indoor horticulture, which certainly does not rise to the level of probable cause.



Would you care to offer another, VALID scenario under which the police would have been able to obtain a search warrant without resorting to falsehood?

[Leftist Agitator]

181. It has been one hour since I posted my previous reply to this post.

Please respond to my previous reply when you get the opportunity to do so.

[Leftist Agitator]

190. It has been five plus hours since I responded to your last post.

And no response of yours has been forthcoming...

Am I to assume that you have no interest in continuing our discussion?

Or am I correct in assuming that you feel embarrassed because you have been intellectually pwnt?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your silence is indicative of sleep or being otherwise occupied, rather than making the obvious assumption that I have rhetorically bested you, and that you have chosen not to respond because you are quite aware that your position is indefensible.



I'll ask in capital letters, in case you are visually impaired,

"PLEASE DESCRIBE A SCENARIO UNDER WHICH THE ODESSA, TX POLICE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT RESORTING TO OUTRIGHT, DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOOD."

I shall be eagerly awaiting your response.

[JimDandy]

196. If I remember correctly,

a couple years ago this poster stated in a post that either he or someone close to him (family/friend?) was a police officer. This poster has defended police actions in other posts on DU. I don't have time to find the posts that substantiate my claims, though.

[JDPriestly]

174. If the little old lady made a flase accusation or an accusation

without reasonable basis, then she will be investigated.

If the police made a false accusation and broke into the house based on their conjecture and their imagination that something evil was going on in the house, they will have to answer for their failure to follow the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

191. I have a greenhouse, and I start plants in the winter in my garage.

If walking in my front door with a couple grow lights is enough for a legal warrant, I'll eat my fucking hat.

[TexasProgresive]

24. Years ago this is what happened to some friends of mine.

They had left the house together and returned together. Bill sat in his recliner and leaned back. Something yellow caught his eye in the kitchen. This was a small rent house and the refrigerator was visible from his chair. Bill went to the fridge and saw a joint rolled in banana yellow paper stuck in the coils in back. He eased it out and gathered the household. "Anybody holding get rid of it NOW!" Somebody had an ounce of pot, we called it a lid in those days. In to the toilet it went with the joint, and away go troubles down the drain. Not a minute passed and the cops showed up.

They proceeded to search everyone and everything but found nothing. Then one cop with a sly grin, Bill was watching reached behind the fridge and came up empty handed. Furious he jerked the fridge around and inspected the coils and floor. Bill moved to another house shortly after. This was in Houston- very bad cops.

If you got busted with a pound often by court time there was only and ounce or less.So where did it go? Many of these cops carried a "throw down" gun. This is one that they drop on the ground after they shoot and unarmed person.

[wildbilln864]

25. here they cut off your water so you can't flush it. nt

[DeSwiss]

33. In response to past terror attacks....

...Americans have tacitly agreed to allow themselves to be overridden with cops. In the mistaken belief that MORE COPS = MORE SAFETY. Even Bill Clinton added more cops to the rolls during his time at the helm, mostly in response to the effects of their own idiotic War On Drugs. And as a result, they found out that everybody is using them. So this is who they arrest. Everybody.

Forget terror. For get property crimes, forget the domestic assaults and the murders they spawn. They cops can only be around to protect and serve us, "after the fact." But when it comes to keeping the system "ginned-up" with fresh bodies, that they can supply. So that the whole corporate-penal-law-enforcement industrial complex is served. And they all make out like bandits.

- And we pay for it. In more ways than one....

[wundermaus]

28. more background on this topic -

http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/12/cop_busters_reverse_sting.html

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=306.0

http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=9773

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=042174

raw footage of raid -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4

[DeSwiss]

34. Thanks bunches!!!!

[quidam56]

29. It's way past time to legalize marijuana

There are so many uses for marijuana and hemp. Henry Ford build a car made from hemp and was getting ready do grow hemp for auto fuel. It's the Economy Stupid ! #1 cash crop in Kentucky. Tax the stuff and let's get America out of debt. Of course that's too simplistic for the idots in Congress to see. Change is coming from the bottom up in Appalachia ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[DeSwiss]

35. The below research links are to articles....

...scientific studies and abstracts which report that the tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinoids in marijuana can halt the spread the MRSA bacteria and numerous other types of cancer cells -- including:

MRSA: http://www.webmd.com/news/20080904/marijuana-chemicals-may-fight-mrsa

Prostate Cancer: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T36-3XFTGPR-X&_coverDate=09%2F24%2F1999&_alid=422767905&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4938&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1c29920efb1acb800723560310e9004e

Breast Cancer: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/11/2921

Lung Cancer: http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html

Pancreatic Cancer: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/13/6748

Brain Cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16804518

And in addition to the cancer research, here's a report from an Austrailian newspaper about a French study that found that cannabidiol in marijuana may prevent the development of prion diseases such as BSE because it inhibits the accumulation of prion proteins in infected mice and sheep. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22430980-23109,00.html



===================
And here are some newer ones:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120477.php

http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=1324

[Pamela Troy]

36. Wow. Great story. Too bad the TV news segment is so badly put together.

It needed to include the details about affidavits and search warrants provided by another poster. Either whoever edited it was clueless, or they were deliberately leaving out the very details that made the police behavior incriminating.

[rucky]

38. The show's website has been suspended.

whaddaya know.

[Yukari Yakumo]

177. Don't worry, it's down due to high traffic. {nt}

[Christa]

54. K & R

:toast: :smoke: :fistbump:

[newmac]

162. Nice now to see the crooked cops on youtube

Now we can police the police;-)

[Rosetteismyname]

7 years?

Run time: 02:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Fu4YVH8nA   Posted on YouTube: December 05, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 08, 2008 By DU Member: Rosetteismyname Views on DU: 13445

 
She wouldn't take a polygraph? I know she isn't required to, but she risked conviction....
Has anyone seen kopbusters? Tell me about them...

[sasquatch]

185. Actually she passed the polygraph

[Rosetteismyname]

179. 7 years?

She wouldn't take a polygraph? I know she isn't required to, but she risked conviction....
Has anyone seen kopbusters? Tell me about them...

[wildbilln864]

186. Welcome to DU! nt

:hi:

[wroberts189]

182. I propose a new weekday tv show -- KopBusters! eom

[Monk06]

194. Gotta admire this Texas version of Serpico. I hope someone takes care of his back

[Incitatus]

197. So what does this mean for previous cultivation busts involving this department?

Will they be overturned if the police cannot prove their source was legitimate?