still think this is the USA you remember?

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>> Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>> defending the cops?
>>
>>We have all of the facts that are currently available. There is a story
>>from the accused, and then two sentences quoted from the police. We're
>>working solely off of that.
>>
>>> Oh, that's right, it's because you don't believe in justice, only in
>>> your
>>> badge.
>>
>>Not necessarily my badge, but in all of the badges when the media reports
>>a
>>defendant's story as fact when they have nothing other than his word to
>>work
>>from.
>
> The reason we only have the defendant's word to work from is because
> the cops are taking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to incriminate
> themselves.

Not really. We just have only one news story as a reference. No one here
is from the area so they haven't heard anything more. Again, an open
records request is all that is necessary to get the information.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>> affidavit
>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>> before
>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>
>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>defending the cops?
>
> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
> to know) what those reasons are.

On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what they
did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a perspective
from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to hear.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:

>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>> something they shouldn't have.

> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call after
> every arrest.

Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you think
about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer? Be
honest now, officer.

> The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
> an open records request and is done all the time by the media, attorneys,
> etc.

Records requests are often denied, cost money, etc and so forth. It's
basically a way to deter people from knowing what is going on.

> No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
> obtained after trial.

Not if there isn't one. Cops can hassle people without a trial. Then
again, we have a federal government that wants secret trials now.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>
>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>> affidavit
>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>> before
>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>
>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>>defending the cops?
>>
>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>> to know) what those reasons are.
>
> On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what they
> did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a perspective
> from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to hear.

Funny that several people here are against the government and its police
operating in secret or near secret.

Government needs to be transparent to the people, not the people
transparent to the government. You believe in the later, myself and
others believe in the former.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>> something they shouldn't have.
>
>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call after
>> every arrest.
>
> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you think
> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer? Be
> honest now, officer.

I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge. And they did
respond to the media by saying that he was not on his property and he was
not arrested for anything having to do with a phone.

>
>> The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
>> an open records request and is done all the time by the media, attorneys,
>> etc.
>
> Records requests are often denied, cost money, etc and so forth. It's
> basically a way to deter people from knowing what is going on.

No, they can't refuse you anything that is public record and the cost is a
couple of bucks.

>
>> No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
>> obtained after trial.
>
> Not if there isn't one. Cops can hassle people without a trial. Then
> again, we have a federal government that wants secret trials now.

Let's stick to the topic at hand.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>
>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>> affidavit
>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>>> before
>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>>>defending the cops?
>>>
>>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
>>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>>> to know) what those reasons are.
>>
>> On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what they
>> did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a
>> perspective
>> from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to
>> hear.
>
> Funny that several people here are against the government and its police
> operating in secret or near secret.

Public information is not a secret.

>
> Government needs to be transparent to the people, not the people
> transparent to the government. You believe in the later, myself and
> others believe in the former.

The court proceedings are not hidden. Anyone can find out the charge and
dispostion of an offense.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
>>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>>> something they shouldn't have.
>>
>>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call after
>>> every arrest.
>>
>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you think
>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer? Be
>> honest now, officer.

> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.

Translation: automatic arrest.

> And they did
> respond to the media by saying that he was not on his property and he was
> not arrested for anything having to do with a phone.

That's a denial. It doesn't say what occured.


>>> The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
>>> an open records request and is done all the time by the media, attorneys,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Records requests are often denied, cost money, etc and so forth. It's
>> basically a way to deter people from knowing what is going on.

> No, they can't refuse you anything that is public record and the cost is a
> couple of bucks.

Bull****. Not in this era of the national security state.

>>> No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
>>> obtained after trial.
>>
>> Not if there isn't one. Cops can hassle people without a trial. Then
>> again, we have a federal government that wants secret trials now.

> Let's stick to the topic at hand.

You opened the door some posts ago.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>>
>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>>> affidavit
>>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>>>>defending the cops?
>>>>
>>>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
>>>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>>>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>>>> to know) what those reasons are.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what they
>>> did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a
>>> perspective
>>> from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to
>>> hear.
>>
>> Funny that several people here are against the government and its police
>> operating in secret or near secret.

> Public information is not a secret.

You just define everything you don't want public as not being public
information. However there should be no such thing as private government
information when the government is for the people, by the people.

>> Government needs to be transparent to the people, not the people
>> transparent to the government. You believe in the later, myself and
>> others believe in the former.

> The court proceedings are not hidden. Anyone can find out the charge and
> dispostion of an offense.

the classic jaybird dodge.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
>>>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>>>> something they shouldn't have.
>>>
>>>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call after
>>>> every arrest.
>>>
>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you think
>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer? Be
>>> honest now, officer.
>
>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>
> Translation: automatic arrest.

Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need a
statement unless you want to give one.

>
>> And they did
>> respond to the media by saying that he was not on his property and he was
>> not arrested for anything having to do with a phone.
>
> That's a denial. It doesn't say what occured.

Yes it does. It says that the offense occured in a place which was not his
property and had nothing to do with his phone.

>
>
>>>> The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
>>>> an open records request and is done all the time by the media,
>>>> attorneys,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Records requests are often denied, cost money, etc and so forth. It's
>>> basically a way to deter people from knowing what is going on.
>
>> No, they can't refuse you anything that is public record and the cost is
>> a
>> couple of bucks.
>
> Bull****. Not in this era of the national security state.

Easy with the profanity. Go to your local police department and try it. No
need to get all worked up.

>
>>>> No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
>>>> obtained after trial.
>>>
>>> Not if there isn't one. Cops can hassle people without a trial. Then
>>> again, we have a federal government that wants secret trials now.
>
>> Let's stick to the topic at hand.
>
> You opened the door some posts ago.

No, I never mentioned secret federal trials.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>>>
>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>>>> affidavit
>>>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start
>>>>>>blindly
>>>>>>defending the cops?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
>>>>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>>>>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>>>>> to know) what those reasons are.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what
>>>> they
>>>> did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a
>>>> perspective
>>>> from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to
>>>> hear.
>>>
>>> Funny that several people here are against the government and its police
>>> operating in secret or near secret.
>
>> Public information is not a secret.
>
> You just define everything you don't want public as not being public
> information. However there should be no such thing as private government
> information when the government is for the people, by the people.

It has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with the information
of the suspects, witnesses, and other information that they may not want to
be public. Everything that the government does in a case is public
information.

>
>>> Government needs to be transparent to the people, not the people
>>> transparent to the government. You believe in the later, myself and
>>> others believe in the former.
>
>> The court proceedings are not hidden. Anyone can find out the charge and
>> dispostion of an offense.
>
> the classic jaybird dodge.

Yep. You should try and take my advice sometime and see how true it really
is.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke