Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Cops Go ‘Undercover’ as Homeless People in Elaborate Scheme to Separate You from Your Money
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... aborate-scheme-separate-money/
Published: Jul 26, 2015
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2015-07-26 12:33:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5262
Comments: 21
San Bernardino, CA — In an apparent attempt to give rise to their bottom line, the San Bernardino Police Department took to the streets dressed as panhandlers this week. Four officers donned their cardboard signs and walked the street looking for vile criminal law breakers who’d dare to be inside a vehicle without their seat belts on. According to the NY Daily News, The four-hour operation led to 50 total vehicle stops, including 33 for cell phone violations, 15 seat belt violations and five cars impounded because the drivers were either unlicensed or driving on suspended licenses, police said. Officers Walton and Alvarez wore sunglasses and plainclothes and held cardboard signs — like those held by a panhandler asking for money — with a twist. “I am NOT homeless,” the officers wrote by hand on the cardboard. “SB police looking for seatbelt/cell phone violations.” The SBPD claimed that their efforts were noble as they risked life and limb to stop rogue villains who’d dare threaten the very fabric of civilization by attempting a text message or a phone call while stopped in traffic; or forgetting to buckle up. “During this detail, our undercover officers walked up to the windows of many vehicles unnoticed by the drivers that were either talking or texting on their cell phones,” police said in a statement on the sting. “Those calls and messages can wait until you arrive at your destination and are not worth risking the life of yourself or those around you while driving.” Curiously, they failed to mention how exactly extorting money from people for victimless crimes such as not wearing their seatbelt contributes to the safety of the community. Probably because it doesn’t. Seat belt violations are merely a scam to allow officers to “lawfully” extort money from the citizenry so they can keep getting their scheduled promotions. In fact, the enforcement of laws for victimless crimes, in reality, makes society less safe. In a recent study, it was revealed that locking people in cages for crimes in which there is no victim, almost guarantees that they will become a real criminal. Sadly, most people attempt to rationalize the idea of police extorting money from them for victimless crimes such as seatbelt violations, window tint, etc. Police are just doing their job, they say, when they pull us over and give us a piece of paper demanding we pay them — or face death. Death? Yes. Death. Most people do not contemplate a “traffic citation” in its entirety. Most people will not realize that the only way the state can compel you to pay them for these supposed “violations” is to threaten you with violence. It is the threat of violence to which the state owes its very existence. People do not pay these citations out of the kindness of their hearts; they pay them because if they didn’t they’d be locked in a cage. Despite people not explicitly saying that is why they pay them, subconsciously it is understood. Pay up, or lose your freedom. Resist losing your freedom, and you will be killed — for not wearing a seat belt. But remember, these public servants who extort the masses through the enforcement of immoral laws designed solely for boosting revenue, do this to keep you safe. They do this to maintain order and keep us free. Sadly, many of these officers actually believe that kidnapping, caging, and killing you over a plant, or a seatbelt, makes society a better place — they even consider it to be heroic. The good news is that more and more cops are seeing the tyrannical nature in which these laws are based and are calling it out. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
How about we make a deal? You don't have to wear a seatbelt if the rest of us don't have to pay for your medical care if you get in a accident and are seriously injured. Same thing with talking on a cellphone. Talk away. But you better have good health insurance. But if you want me to pay for your medical care, then I'm going to insist on some laws which will minimize my cost.
Uh - the good folks here were cited for using a cell phone in a stopped vehicle. On the other hand, cops have the luxury of committing manslaughter while texting and not face any consequences. Cop Drives 126 mph While Texting, Kills Teen Girls
Silly cops probably assumed they were talking before they stopped and would continue talking after they started. You and I both know they only talked in the 2-3 seconds they were stopped.
Yep The fact remains that they were cited for texting while stopped. Shall we allow cops to write citations based on "assumptions"? Never mind - we all know your answer.
Oh, I see. They were stopped. They weren't "driving" at the time. I guess it would be OK if they were drunk, too, as long as they're stopped.
Gee, you finally get it. They aren't going to kill anyone while they are stopped, unlike the examples of cops who were texting while driving I provided above. Guess what? None of those murderers were cited. But what the hell, this is the kind of selective outrage we all have come to expect from you badge-sniffing cop apologists. Laws only apply to non-cops. right?
Truthfully. Some laws should apply different to police officers. Not a lot of stuff just a few things. For example. Police have to have computers in their cars to do their jobs. That is kind of like texting. An alert or something could come on while they are driving. So if they have an accident because of that then there should perhaps be a little bit different of a standard on a case by case basis. Another example would be if a police officer commited some crime they are charged with enforcing on other people. They should receive a harsher sentence because they were in a position of authority and abused that authroity.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#17)
(Edited)
A different standard? OK, got it. Former Illinois State trooper Matt Mitchell was driving at 126 mph on Interstate 64 while emailing/texting his girlfriend on his phone. In his state, he crossed over the median and crashed head-on to another car, killing sisters Kelli and Jessica Uhl and injuring Kelly and Christine Marler, of Fayetteville. Mitchell sustained severe injuries to his leg. Mitchell was suspended with pay for two years on his $68,000 annual salary. After pleading guilty to criminal charges, Mitchell resigned from the state police. His guilty plea landed him 30 months probation. Now Mitchell is filing for worker's compensation, which could result in him receiving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, which are non-taxable. Yeah - you're absolutely right. A cop who kills someone as he is texting and driving should not face any criminal charges for manslaughter. Another example : Wood drifted into the bicycle lane while typing a reply to a colleague who wanted to know whether any other officers were required to attend a fire reported at a high school he had just left. He was trying to tell the other officer that no further backup was needed. LA County District Attorney's Office
Truthfully. Some laws should apply different to police officers. The laws apply to cops. Cops, and other government employees, have limited liability from prosecution for actions taken as part of their official duties.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Seat belt violations are merely a scam to allow officers to “lawfully” extort money from the citizenry"
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
Same thing with talking on a cellphone.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
"Uh - the good folks here were cited for using a cell phone in a stopped vehicle."
#8. To: misterwhite (#4)
(Edited)
Silly cops probably assumed
#13. To: Deckard (#8)
"The fact remains that they were cited for texting while stopped."
#14. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#13)
Oh, I see. They were stopped. They weren't "driving" at the time.
#17. To: Deckard, misterwhite, Grandisland, nolu chan (#14)
Laws only apply to non-cops. right?
Replies to Comment # 17. An alert or something could come on while they are driving. So if they have an accident because of that then there should perhaps be a little bit different of a standard on a case by case basis.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's report into the incident says that even though it is illegal to text and drive, Wood was not negligent because police officers are expected to respond quickly to messages from colleagues: 
#21. To: A K A Stone, Deckard, misterwhite, Grandisland (#17)
Laws only apply to non-cops. right?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]