Blast from the Past -- Discussion for those who have been harassed by CMF

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:52:08 05/20/01 Sun
Author: Bill Parks: God's Gift to Police Work
Subject: Blast from the Past
In reply to: First indicator of impersonation 's message, "Blast's From the Past" on 15:24:02 05/20/01 Sun

From: cguy
To: copcar@listbot.com
X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002218
Subject: FWD: RE: [Re: copcar fans youre not gonna believe this]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.51

copcar dot com - http://www.copcar.com

Ummmmmmmmm............

>===== Original Message From BParks1578@aol.com =====
Reasonable suspicion laws were ruled unconstitutional in this country during
the 50s and 60s in too many numerous citations to list. I never said that I
would have a civilian move bodies around! Your reading comprehension leaves a
bit to be desired. A fatal motor vehicle accident takes on a much different
set of rules and procedures than does a fender bender and I never elaborated
on what type of accident scene we were referring to. However, it is more than
unfair and quite biased and prejudiced to merely assume that I did. I taught
Criminal Procedures I and II, thank you very much, to arrogant, "legally
challenged" officers, like yourself, who would admittedly use their
subjective personal values and interject them into the enforcement of the
law. Subjectivity is not a part of good law enforcement and this doctrine
has been echoed time and time again by our courts at all levels. It is not
within a patrol officer''s purview to be subjective when attempting to
determine if an infraction, violation or crime as been committed, rather your
legal duty is to be OBJECTIVE. To determine whether probable cause exists and
that has been universally defined as: when an officer thinks that a
reasonable, prudent person (a Judge) would feel, that a crime has been, is
being, or will be committed based on the officer's OBJECTIVE, detached from
his/her personal emotions and feelings, observations at that moment in time.
I am not aware of any jurisdiction having specific statutes prohibiting the
impersonation of police officers, fire officers, milkmen, Avon ladies, etc.
Instead, the states have criminal impersonation statutes, which have a very
high degree of mens rea, that of intent, which, by the way, you have to PROVE
in court and it's your burden, officer, based on facts that you know to be
true, not your personal, subjective reasonings and values. For one to be
guilty of a criminal impersonation of ANYONE the must intentionally
impersonate that person and or an office and they must do so "to gain a
BENEFIT from said impersonation." So officer, what BENEFIT is your "police
Impersonation" suspect gaining by driving around in a vehicle that you may
personally object to or may feel looks to much like a police vehicle (which
an earlier reader did point out..is not a crime, which I know that you don't
personally agree with), one that you can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt in a
court of law. I want to here the answer to that one question! I have had the
unpleasant tasks of taking "imaginative" (the root word being imagine)
officers, like yourself and giving them unpaid vacations and even
terminations for too much imagination and subjectivity and not enough
resourcefulness and objectivity while in the performances of their duties. I
failed to fully tell you about the "curiosity" stops that were made on me
while driving my unmarked, subdued, suppressed marker clad vehicle by a
rather arrogant, un-informed DMV inspector and a like DEP ranger. These
officers used their clouded, subjective reasonings. Both of these stops were
made while I was operating my assigned unmarked cruiser, quite legally, not
unlike your smart mouth comment inferring about how the POPE may drive, I may
add, on a limited access highway. Needless to say, both of these individuals
were disciplined for their rather bazaar behaviors and attitudes, and I
assure you, they, unlike you, will think several times before stopping or
even running the plate of an unmarked, official vehicle. Bottom line. They
had subjective curiosity which the law in all states but Ohio, I guess, does
not allow for (did Ohio secede from the union when we weren't looking)? They
DID NOT have objectively formed PROBABLE CAUSE as Whren does call for (you've
conveniently read something into that decision that doesn't exist there,
obviously, in the same manner that you "read" things into the very laws that
you enforce). People like you are dangerous, because if we let you have your
ways, we'd be living in a police state, driving the types and colors of cars,
equipped the way that you, a police officer, a much superior person to the
rest of the citizenry (so you think) would want us to drive. All old police
cruisers would be scrapped and there would be laws specifically against
operating such vehicles and "Impersonating a police officer" with the penalty
being a capital one, I'm sure! This sounds remarkable bazaar to you, and
this is how you come across to me, and other "regular" people; pompous and
arrogant, as you're just so much better than anyone else, especially those
guys who drive around in old police cars, just ask, you'll tell us just how
much better you are, won't you! With your attitude and ignorance of the law
combined, both tort and criminal, your a walking, talking Title 42, sec.
1983/1984 U.S.C. case just ready to happen. And I am not a member of the
ACLU and neither was the gentleman the other evening that made several valid,
non police observations to you, quite eloquently, I may add. And you and
your arrogant, pompous, ignorant "friends" proceeded to lambaste him, only
because he isn't a police officer, well, I was and will always be one. I did
much more criminal work than Motor Vehicle work unlike the Highway Patrols of
this country who, like it or not, do mostly motor vehicle violations. So,
please don't insult me as I was a supervisor, several times over and it is
quite apparent that you do not have the "seasoning" and temperance that a
veteran, highly decorated, more experienced officer, such as myself would
have in such matters. You ought to thank your lucky stars that you are not
working for me, because we would "tangle ass" and you would lose! The people
that pay your salary have a reasonable expectation under the law to be
treated fairly and equitably, no room for your admitted subjectivity here.
The have constitutional rights, both Federal and State (unless, again, your
state seceded from the union) and it is your job to protect and preserve
those rights, like it or not. When you seemingly and admittedly,
subjectively enforce laws you are violating those peoples rights and
violating the very laws that you are paid to enforce,....even the guy riding
around in a car that you don't like, acting "suspiciously." If he's
committing a crime, arrest him! Hell, I'll help you! If he's not, much to
your chagrin, leave him alone and move onto something more constructive, both
him and you will get over it. DON'T you dare break the law under the guise of
enforcing the law! I would help to prosecute you in that case! There are a
lot of otherwise good, intelligent, yet self-righteous, arrogant "former"cops
in Federal and State Prisons for doing the same thing. You sound much
smarter than that...enjoy your job and the people you interface with. You'll
be a much happier and more satisfied officer. Warm regards. Be safe. And,
good luck in all your endeavors.

Lt. William (Bill) Parks, BS, JD (retired)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Blast from the Past -- Share the Love, Baby, 15:59:37 05/20/01 Sun