don´t talk to pigs....i mean cops.........

Northern Boy wrote:

http://thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=6108

Thankyou thankyou thankyou!

The forum you linked is amazing.

A..

Nothern Boy,

I agree..... the site thinkfree forum site/org.LINK.... LOOKS TO BE A VERY GOOD ONE!

THANK YOU TOO!!!

Have a ROCKIN TUESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STEVE

<---------------------______
<-------------------o|.........|o
<-------------------o|.........|o
<-------------------o|......../o
--------------------- ..-----/
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
--------------------- ||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------IIIIII
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------IIIIII
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------IIIIII
----------------------||||||
----------------------||||||
----------------------*||||*
---------------------*||||||*
--------------------*-IIIIII
-------------------*--IIIIII*
------------------*---||||||---*
-----------------*----IIIIII--*
----------------*-----111111---*
---------------*------||||||------*
--------------*-------(-----)------*
-------------*-----------*----------*
------------*-----------*-*----------*
-----------*----------*----*----------*
----------*---------*--------*---------*
---------*--------*------------*-------- *
--------*-------*----------------*------ -*
-------*------*--------------------*---- --*
------*-----*------------------------*-- ---*
-----*---*------------------------------ *---*
----*-*--------------------------------- ---*-*

Do Police Officers Have To Identify Themselves?
And other Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest questions, answered by the Explainer.
By Brian Palmer
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 5:07 PM ET

Prosecutors dropped all charges against Henry Louis Gates Jr. on Tuesday. The prominent Harvard professor had been charged with disorderly conduct after breaking into his own home in Cambridge, Mass. This bizarre episode, which some say is an example of racial profiling—Gates is African-American—raises all sorts of questions for the Explainer.

Gates repeatedly requested the arresting officer's name and badge number. Gates says the officer provided neither, although the officer claims that he did, in fact, state his name. Was the officer required to provide this information?

Yes. Massachusetts law requires police officers to carry identification cards and present them upon request. Officers are also required to wear a "badge, tag, or label" with their name and/or identifying number. The law is aimed at precisely the situation in question—suspects who feel their rights are being violated. Few other states impose this requirement on their officers as a matter of law, but many individual police departments, such as the New York Police Department, have adopted it (PDF) as a matter of policy.

Gates initially refused to emerge from his home and provide identification. Was he required to?

No. There's nothing to stop an officer from requesting your presence on the front porch or asking you questions, but he cannot force you to identify yourself or come out of your house without probable cause. (The rules are different for drivers and immigrants, who are required to provide identification upon request.) If you don't feel like chatting, ask the officer whether you are free to go about your business. If he answers no, you are being detained, which means the officer must acknowledge and abide by your full menu of civil rights, including the famous Miranda warnings.

The arresting officer alleges that Gates shouted at him and threatened to speak to his "mama." He then arrested Gates for disorderly conduct. What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?

Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says "idle and disorderly persons," a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.

The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.

Canadian Banks now requiring urine and hair samples to obtain mortgage?
Hair samples required for home insurance; now a reality in Canada.

Thursday.July.23.2009.

Column by – Marc Andre
The Northwest Herald


SASKATOON - It has become a first for Canadians and the implications can be astronomical, a massively large insurance firm; The CUMIS Group Limited Insurance who have been partnered along with thousands of banks across North America for insurance requirements, has now accepted a policy of pre-screening drug tests & hair samples for the right to obtain home loan insurance, a necessity, if you’re going to purchase a home in Canada.

We first learned of this policy from a source who prefers to remain anonymous. The bank in question is called AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; they are partnered with CUMIS insurance to offer home loan insurance.

This precedent setting policy from CUMIS & AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Canada has now mandated that hair samples, urine drug testing, as well as a documented question and answer portion, (which our sources have indicated to be highly sensitive personal inquiries), will now be the norm for those apparently “high-risk” individuals.

We first learned of this story from a young man in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Our source was instructed to undergo a rigorous pre-screening procedure in order to obtain insurance for his new home.

Our source stated that; "the bank (Affinity credit union) said that I should use the insurance company they provide to make things smoother, I never thought anything of it." "I don't really care if I get tested; it's just a hassle with my work schedule" said our source. Additional information gathered showed that our sources’ home value was approximately $300,000 when he applied for the loan – slightly above the average cost of a home in Canada, sitting at $287,000.

University of Saskatchewan, Professor William Buschert from the Department of Philosophy and Political Studies, says he is “surprised it is happening in Canada,” he also noted “from an ethical standpoint, it’s disturbing”. “The United States Government, got rid of this mandate in 2008, precisely because of the legal, moral, and privacy implications it presents… not to mention the selective way of ‘insuring’ one group of people and not the other. However, from the stance of the insurance companies, this ensures that they don’t get the “wrong” type of people”.

Professor Buschert also mentioned, playing devil’s advocate at times, that having this practice banned may create an unfair burden on the insurance companies and will ultimately create higher premium rates for the clients they serve.

When asked about the attitude of the general public regarding this issue of insurance companies gaining biometric samples for home loans, when some would say ‘what’s the harm, I have nothing to hide’, Professor Buschert responded with the following, “regardless of whether someone may have a ‘nothing to hide, so what's the harm’ attitude, it is obvious that this is an encroachment of individual freedoms, not to mention the privacy issues herein”.

We also contacted Saskatchewan Government Insurance Canada for comments, (they are a government agency who provides various types of insurance for western & central Canada; it is to be noted that SGI Canada is entirely separate from CUMIS) SGI Canada stated that; "we do not have a policy for drug testing for home insurance purposes."

We also reached the bank in question, AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Saskatoon, sk, Canada. They commented that "High Risk" individuals may include those who purchase a home above 300,000 dollars".

When asked if AFFINITY CREDIT UNION were aware of their partner CUMIS, performing drug screening, hair samples, and a multitude of highly personal information for ‘high risk’ individuals seeking home insurance, they responded with the following, “CUMIS does conduct the necessary screening procedure for homes above 300,000 dollars.” And does that include hair samples and urine samples? “yes”.

When reached for comment a CUMIS representative stated that; “it is our policy to conduct drug screening for homes loans above 300,000 dollars, so we can protect that money somehow” they also stated that even if you answer ‘no’ to any questions on the health questionnaire you will still have to “provide a urine sample”. Interviewer: Are you aware of an executive order from Bush in 2008, disallowed CUMIS INS from gathering hair and urine samples, in the USA? They responded by saying. “well, were not in the states are we”. Indeed we are not, but the question remains, is it still ethically responsible, regardless of the location?

Upon further investigation, we have concluded that this issue has raised more questions than answers.
How long has this been going on? Are other insurance companies practicing this policy? Is this being documented? What is done with the biometric samples? Legal issues? Are the samples allowed to be sold to other insurance companies? Why is this not being reported in the mainstream media? Is the government going to do anything about it?

What makes this case interesting is that this was not an abnormally large mortgage value, and there were no indications that this individual was singled out for any reason. We are led to believe that this will be the norm from now on, until the public makes a fuss, we will all be forced to give up our freedoms for the greed of major corporations like Cumis Group Limited.


July 23, 2009.
by Marc Andre
The Northwest Herald

We knew these things were coming. It's all about whether or not you are in the in-crowd and allowed to survive.
Brace yourselves and show no fear. We are in this together and will get through what is to come.

I know some things about the police in OZ,

Some are right utter pricks and some are really good and undertsanding.

I have one Uncle who is not liked even in the police force here as he is an utter Sod, and another who is very liked by not only police but the community he deals in, I have all the time in the world for the latter.

The only thing lacking in the latter Uncle is a back bone due to growing up with said Uncle being a complete moron with a ... lacking words here without using a vocab that I am trying to change but I would say "an ego driven hmmm" . (Sorry best I could do)

There is good and bad everywhere and I can only relate my own experience with what is in OZ and Taiwan.


Heres an exapmle of lacking backbone from youngest sibling in my uncle area over Xmas:

DId you see the ABo's kept us busy "

"Yeah"

"I had so many calls about X family"

and on it went.... SAD, that prick is just that, a prick. I have one Uncle that has a heart with no backbone and another who has none of either and never will, Luckily My dad is a black Sheep and we get along well !!!! and he is the sorta dad that buys me Sea Shepherd Clothing even though he's broke :) LOL

Love and Bless

To add the sums of the matter, all I am saying is that there is no black and white from my own Experience.

I love black sheep...LOL nice.