Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Affiliates
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Feedback
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

WhosaRat.com
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
admin

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 535
Reply with quote  #1 
How Ironic is this? These Oaklahoma cops call this site irresponsible and question it's accuracy, Yet the "Law enforcement" will pay these heroin junkies up to hundreds of thousands of $ give them deals on open cases ,let them use sub informants, give them citizenship after being extradited many times, let them break the law, entrap people and in some cases kill people just to get some uncredible info to make there arrest numbers go up. What do you think? is this site irresponsible? or is the anything goes informant policy practiced by our law enforcement Irresponsible? Please reply.....


America This is not fiction this is the everyday practice of Some law enforcement. Keep an eye on the latest news section , the profiles and message board its guaranteed to blow your Mind!!


0
Scaledog4

Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #2 
What do these cops have to hide ? They don't like it.....too bad....we need a site like this and more....Someone has to police the police because the ones who do it now are corrupt themselves....
0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #3 
I think the "spin" you put on it is totally inaccurate. Look up your case law...the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that the use of information from informants is a tool that law enforcement is allowed to use. It's not like cops just get info from informants and then can immediately act on it. They still have to get warrants (search warrants, wire tap warrants, etc.) which require PROBABLE CAUSE. The word of an unreliable informant is NOT enough to issue a warrant. In the affidavit a law enforcement officer prepares to get a warrant they must show where they got their information - including if it is from a confidential informant - and, if it is from an informant, why the information and informant is reliable. Just the word of the informant is not enough without corroborating circumstances and evidence. Perhaps you should take a law course or two before giving out information that is incomplete and misleading regarding the use of informants and hwo law enforcement does their jobs. What are your credentials by the way?
0
admin

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 535
Reply with quote  #4 
Who said Anything about Warrants, What I am addressing is My opinion that the fact that Informants who are most often junkies are only out for them selfs they want more $ to buy more drugs or some other inducement and they will set up anybody guilty or innocent. This is no big secret just read the news or some case law or sit in on some trials ,I will make it easy for you go to my latest news section. So your whole post about Warrants is just a smoke screen Because you have no good argument about what I have pointed a spotlight on for the world to see, As for my Credentials I have no law degree I am just very interested in the injustice that has been going on for some time now That many people such as yourself do not want the public to know about ... let me guess you are either a cop or a prosecutor
0
THUROBREAZY

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #5 
I don't know what state you live in buddy, but where I'm from? An informant is MORE THAN ENOUGH for them boys to come and get you!

Dudes like legal03 don't know SHIT about what goes on out here. For example, my boy and his friend were arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm. My boy has a LENGHTY criminal record while his friend has a "few" incidents on his rap sheet. The gun was his friends and was found under the seat of DRIVER side of the car. My boy was the passenger. The car was registered to his friend. Even though the gun belonged to his friend, which his friend acknowledged to the police, detectives know a soft heart when they see one. They made his friend give testimony that the gun belonged to my boy and he was holding it for him. If dudes reading this don't worry, your profile as well as the TRANSCRIPTS will be posted here shortly you fucking SNITCH!!
0
josephwelch

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THUROBREAZY
I don't know what state you live in buddy, but where I'm from? An informant is MORE THAN ENOUGH for them boys to come and get you!


Hell yeah. It's happened to my clients. It happens all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THUROBREAZY
Dudes like legal03 don't know SHIT about what goes on out here.


I think legal03 has some good points, but the police CAN and DO act immediately on the words of informants. Even without a warrant, an officer can come to your door and find the probable cause to come in. Or they coerce you into waiving your fourth amendment rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THUROBREAZY
If dudes reading this don't worry, your profile as well as the TRANSCRIPTS will be posted here shortly you fucking SNITCH!!


What the hell does that mean? That doesn't make any sense.

But as for the transcripts, I don't need them. I believe your version.

__________________
Joseph P. Welch,Attorney
http://FightTheTicket.com/rat.html
0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #7 
WRONG! I am an attorney - but NOT a prosecutor!

My whole point was that you are making such a big deal over the role of the informant, but the truth of the matter is who cares where the information comes from - it is not what seals the case - rather it is often what opens it. If someone has nothing to hide then whatever an informant says is not going to make any difference. If, however, what the informant says has some truth, then the evidence of the crime will be uncovered.

Also, since I am an attorney, I have read case law and not just sat in on trials, but taken part in them - on the defense side too I might add.

0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #8 
THUROBREAZY

I DO know the law - I am an attorney! There is an "automobile exception" to the search warrant requirement. So, the police do not need the word of an onformant, not a warrant to search your car if they have probable cause.
0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
What I am addressing is My opinion that the fact that Informants who are most often junkies are only out for them selfs they want more $ to buy more drugs or some other payment and they will set up anybody guilty or innocent. This is no big secret just read the news or some case law or sit in on some trials ,I will make it easy for you go to my latest news section. So your whole post about Warrants is just a smoke screen Because you have no good argument about what I have pointed a spotlight on for the world to see,


The Warrants comments were NOT meant to be a smokescreen. If you understood the law, you would understand my point. Informants can just "set up" people by giving false information, but once an informant is proven to be unreliable, they are of no use to the police. If the person is not guilty, then the information the informant provided will not lead to any admissible evidence and there will be no case against them.

If you have such a problem with the way things are done, what suggestions do you have to improve the system?
0
Tucker

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #10 
Why would any free American want to spy and deceive another? but to only cause him grief?
no to simply save his own skin.
he is a coward of the worst kind,
i am 52 years old and i have seen many that want to save their own skin.
judis was a rat snitchen bastard. all he wanted was the silver and he got it.
only a yellow bastard would hang himself like judis.
fuck the law, why would an attorney want to argue against the theme of this website.
does he not know whats up? are you that stupid?
I think you are phony.
I for one am using this site for what I thought it was made for. to gain useful info against a informant to use at my trial!
This is what we are doing.
If the supreme court sides with judis, then I say fuck them.
I am a radical bastard from the 60s and 70s. Power to the people!
They need to get off their plastic asses and do the right thing,,,,,GET HIGH AND LIVE MAN.
stop trying to run my life.
I hope all snitches rot in hell with judis.

Tucker said that: Good night
0
FTC

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
If the person is not guilty, then the information the informant provided will not lead to any admissible evidence and there will be no case against them.


Are you implying that informants never testify against innocent persons? I think it should be reversed, if there is no admissible evidence then the person is not guilty.

What about the damage done by an unreliable informant before his unreliability is demonstrated?

What about the damage done after he is known to be unreliable, but there are important pending cases, and therefore the facts underlying his unreliability are not disclosed to the defense?

Good discussion.
0
Tucker

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #12 
Its just the thought of a rat.informent or what ever you call them....they are a trader period. beadict arnold all the fucken rats can go to hell. they are evil
0
admin

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 535
Reply with quote  #13 
This would be a good Start, Funny how the states realize and admit a huge problem before the feds, this news story was released the same day as my website ironic?



Latest News




NYPD changes informant system

By Rocco Parascandola
Staff Writer

August 16, 2004, 10:08 PM EDT

The Police Department is changing the way it handles confidential informants, restructuring the entire system to better protect them from retribution and to cut down on the use of those proven to be unreliable, Newsday has learned.

The overhaul comes on the heels of several embarrassing incidents for police, most recently an order by a federal judge to disclose any internal documents that explain how it protects confidential informants.

According to an internal document obtained by Newsday, the new Confidential Informant Review Committee will be run under the authority of the Intelligence Division, with information "maintained under strict and secure conditions."

The committee is charged with cutting down on the use of temporary informants, except in an emergency -- a move designed to allow supervisors to conduct more thorough investigations before conducting raids -- and using "facial recognition software" to prevent duplicate registration of unreliable informants.

Sgt. Kevin Hayes, a Police Department spokesman, said the department had no comment on the issue.

The department's use of CIs, as police call them, came under renewed scrutiny in May 2003 when Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old grandmother and city worker, died of a heart attack when police stormed her Harlem apartment and detonated a flash grenade after getting a bad tip about drug deals there.

The informant had at least a dozen arrests and became a collaborater after he was arrested on drug and trespassing charges five months earlier, the NYPD later said.

The city settled with Spruill's family for $1.6 million, and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly promised to take steps to change the way police screen informants.

This February, the city agreed to pay $100,000 to a Bronx family that had sued police, accusing the department of terrorizing them during a 1993 narcotics raid in which no drugs were found. A detective later acknowledged in a deposition that he could not remember the name of the informant whose tip led to the raid.

Also in February, Anthony Velez, 20, was shot dead in Brownsville 30 minutes after cops, acting on his tip, found crack and a gun in an apartment. Velez was reportedly in the apartment at the time but was not arrested.

Internal Affairs investigators are trying to determine if Velez was killed in retribution for being an informant and if police had exposed him as their tipster.

At the time of his death, Velez was not a registered informant, a violation that could lead to disciplinary action under the new guidelines.

Meanwhile, in a separate case, a federal judge in March told the NYPD it must disclose any documents explaining its policy regarding protecting informants.

The order was made in connection with a lawsuit by a man who, in a $50-million suit against the city, claims the department failed to protect him after he agreed to become a snitch following a 2001 drug bust in Bayside.

That man, Robert Matican, now 40, has said that after the dealer made bail, he slashed Matican in the face with a box cutter and accused him on giving him up to police.

0
THUROBREAZY

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #14 
Yeah Legal, you ain't got nuthin to say to that. All your "law" knowledge and it's obvious you have no idea what the "real world" is like when it comes to the court system. If your a Lawyer where are you practicing, in Alaska? Why are so many men from my state suing the police department as we speak? Because they have all been convicted of crimes they haven't committed and served 5+ years for it. Some have logged 10 years or more. Because police use BOGUS information to convict people, especially when the case is high profile and the community is looking for answers. Now MANY of these convictions have recently been overturned and each because the info used such as "alleged witnesses" have been found to be BAD POLICE WORK.
0
Scaledog4

Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THUROBREAZY
I don't know what state you live in buddy, but where I'm from? An informant is MORE THAN ENOUGH for them boys to come and get you!

Dudes like legal03 don't know SHIT about what goes on out here. For example, my boy and his friend were arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm. My boy has a LENGHTY criminal record while his friend has a "few" incidents on his rap sheet. The gun was his friends and was found under the seat of DRIVER side of the car. My boy was the passenger. The car was registered to his friend. Even though the gun belonged to his friend, which his friend acknowledged to the police, detectives know a soft heart when they see one. They made his friend give testimony that the gun belonged to my boy and he was holding it for him. If dudes reading this don't worry, your profile as well as the TRANSCRIPTS will be posted here shortly you fucking SNITCH!!
Quote:


This is exactly what I am talking about " Cops in Massachusetts are corrupt " Look at what these over aggressive , power hungry , dirty cops did to your son...The cops should be removed from the force....They are suppose to serve and protect...These type of cops are way below rats...snitches...herion junkies....they are the scumbags of our police society.....
0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Yeah Legal, you ain't got nuthin to say to that. All your "law" knowledge and it's obvious you have no idea what the "real world" is like when it comes to the court system.


Well, actually, I do have something to say about that!

I DO NOT practice in Alaska, first of all. I practice in one of the country's largest metropolitan areas. That being said, I should also point out that I started my career in the Public Defender's office - so while I know all about how the court system works and what the "real world" is like. You (Thurobreazy) may have been to a trial or two or ten, but I have been to HUNDREDS so I think I know a little better how the justice system works. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that you have to attack me in my professional and personal capacity.

As for informants testifying falsly that is, of course, a problem. Rats are just that, RATS - no question. However, it is the lawyer's (defense) job to discredit that informant's testimony. I understand that that is the purpose of this site, but I just wonder how many "good" informants and good law enforcement officers will have to suffer so that the bad ones can be outed.
0
pfstein

Registered:
Posts: 71
Reply with quote  #17 
Legal If you are a defense attorney who are your clients? law enforcement or rats because one might be concerened if he was not a rat or a cop and got you as a attorney.
0
admin

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 535
Reply with quote  #18 
Legal03 says,
but I just wonder how many "good" informants and good law enforcement officers will have to suffer so that the bad ones can be outed.

_______________________________________________________


Legal03,

Do you evan remotely understand how many good Americans suffer everyday because of bad informants and corrupt law enforcement officers?
0
THUROBREAZY

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #19 
Legal, it's so typical of you to critisize this site because you wonder how many "good" rats and law enforcement officials will suffer because of it. How about how many "alleged" criminals will benefit? Nooooo, you're on the other side of the law so that doesn't concern you. Well guess what? Praise be to freedom of speech cause this is a VERY GOOD site and there's nuthin you and your law enforcement buddies can do about it. It's always about "good" cops and "good" citizens that help them solve their cases. I've watched so called "good" cops raise their right hand and give an oathe that their testimony is nothing less than truthful. Bullshit. Legal, you probably have been to more trials than me, it's your job. Try attending a trial when it's you or your loved ones life on the line. It's a little different then huh? You don't have a clue to what that is like because your a "law abiding citizen" I'm sure. Whatever man. I don't appreciate you trying to ridicule my knowledge just because you walk around with a briefcase. I know FIRST HAND what cases and trials is all about and not because I get paid to be around this environment, Legal the "all-knowing attorney". This is life to me not a paycheck. You just get the case in the courtroom. There's a whole lot more that occurs during the initial charge on the street and in the police station that you have either NO KNOWLEDGE of or just choose to ignore it. Sounds like both to me.
0
josephwelch

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #20 
You're all missing the point- it doesn't matter whether we're talking about good or bad informants or good or bad cops.

Even if someone is charged with a crime based on the information from a "good" informant they have a right to investigate and defend their case. The accused has a right to confront the witnesses against him.

If I knew that a witness against my client was a "good" informant then I would be better able to advise my client whether or not to accept a plea bargain.

__________________
Joseph P. Welch,Attorney
http://FightTheTicket.com/rat.html
0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Legal If you are a defense attorney who are your clients? law enforcement or rats because one might be concerened if he was not a rat or a cop and got you as a attorney.


I said I started my career in the PD's office - not that I am still there. I am now a civil attorney - but handled hundreds of cases a PD.
As for being concerned about having me as an atty - why - because I am good at my job and don't need potentially bogus information from websites where anyone can post false information about someone they have a gripe with.


0
legal03

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Do you evan remotely understand how many good americans suffer everyday because of bad informants and corupt law enforcement officers?


Yes, unfortunatley I do. There are many flaws in our justice system, no doubt.

The main problem I have with this site is the danger that it puts law enforcement officers in - particularly federal agents who work undercover. Posting their information and pictures not only puts them at risk, but also the lives of their family members. I have seen, first hand, retaliation against prosecutors and agents - mainly by defendants harassing and going after their (agent's/prosecutor's) families.

While I realize that all defendants have a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against them, I do not think that publishing information and pictures of federal agents and local cops who work undercover is the right way to go about accomplishing your mission.

0
shelaka

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #23 
In Sonoma County California, over the past several years the Sheriffs Dept. and other law enforcement agencies have a new tactic for eliciting information out of snitches...l.
When person is arrested for small amounts of narcotics, if the defendant gives up their dealer to the Police. They usually have their charges either lowered, or completely dropped!!!!! Now, I personally have been harassed by the local Law when I do not do drugs, nor do I sell drugs etc. We managed a mobile home park and the tweak freak who couldn't keep track of his 3 year old son, was arrested for having a meth pipe in his back pocket. Released on OR 2 days later, and my boyfriend while leaving the park to take his son to Wal-mart was pulled over, searched and questioned as to his sales of drugs. It took awhile, but he proved that he was just the manager and he knew it was the tweak from hell who gave them the false info. She (the Officer) reiterated the fact that Tweak Freaks roll to get off and don't care who it is they give up. Especially if they are ticked that you where hired to get rid of the Freaks in a mobile home park. On a separate occasion when I had been living in another city and came just to visit while I had court. We had just dropped off to sleep, when we were visited by two officers claiming domestic violence, drugs and guns. They illegal searched the house, insisted that I was protecting my boyfriend, I also needed to tell them where all the weapons were hidden and the drugs. This is while my boyfriend was cuffed out in one of the cars....
They harangued me relentlessly for over an hour. I needed to get some sleep before court.. So, I lied and stated that I was the violent one, and could they please cuff me and quickly arrest me so I could get some sleep. They cuffed me and I made them put on my sneakers and tie them before they took me outside and placed me in the car while they spoke to my other half. I was never read any Miranda rights, but was told I was going to jail... They spoke with him and he stated that he would not make a statement concerning my statement or anything else without a lawyer present. They then came and informed me that I needed to find someone to come and take me somewhere else to sleep since I was not safe in our home.... I convinced them I was perfectly safe, and then we asked them to call dispatch and find out if Tweaky and his wife were the reporters!!!!!!

Lo and behold a snitch that keeps on going and going and going like the bunny. Sonoma County will work deals for 1210 drug court for dealers, real or imagined. In fact the local law has even given interviews on the new policy when it first came into effect. So don't stick up for snitches...They are usually only trying to save their own addicted, worthless carcasses at the expense of the Innocent. No true addict cuts off his nose to spite his face!!!!!!
If they gave up the true dealer, they would become dry, they also could have asked for a death wish...That is the reality of snitches in So Co Ca,
0
rat_n_a_gibbet

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #24 
Being new to this site and having generated an opinion after reading the sparring statements from pro-law enforcement legal03, and the rest of the user's. It is clear that if you are someone who participated in the systems use of informants and snitches with success then your opinion is going to be that this site is damaging to the future of your successful use of these people. On the other hand if you are or know someone who has been abused by this system then you are all for the exposure of these RATS.

I have a slightly different outlook on the issue at hand and whether, or not, this site has any validity. My first thought is that for anyone to believe that law enforcement is flawless and without compromise is foolish. Just the same if you believe that all law enforcement is capable of being corrupt and without scruples you are equally foolish. It is in the human nature to be capable of both good and evil, or right and wrong, at any given moment. It is not a decision we make once, but an ongoing series of decisions throughout our lives that dictate how we respond at any given moment to a given situation. So to believe as some of the user's have stated that there is black and white tones only to this topic is in itself foolish.

This site is as good as those who use it, only. This site is not designed to endanger anyone, nor is it intended to facilitate any criminal activity. This site is as oblique and innocous as any other tool that man has ever designed. Almost any tool can be an instrument of great assistance in constructing something, or conversely most any tool can become a weapon to be used to destroy something. To which this site is a perfect example of just such a tool.

The police are given the tool of snitches and informants to which deals can be made. On the part of many this tool is an effective part of an investigation. Then too there has been and will still be many missuse's of this tool. These wrong use's of informants is not rampant, but neither are they few in number. The probability of there being a missuse of these people is directly proportional to the zeal of those making the decisions. So with this being the case there should always be a way to monitor the use of questionable practices by those entrusted to enforce the laws of this country.

Now that brings up my final thought. Since we live in a free society, (that is a qualified statement), we as citizens should not fear the public access to information. If some enterprising souls develope a web site like this you can not hide your head in the sand or pretend that you have a right to stiffle the dissemination of information in a legal format simply because it might make things harder for you. The rights of Americans are for the accused as well as those who profess total adherence to the laws.

Simply put Legal03 is a classic case of the type of person that would violate constitutional law so that the enforcers can continue to secretly decide when they will adhere to the law and when they might deviate a little.

0
admin

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 535
Reply with quote  #25 
"rat-n-a-gibbet" your writing is very impressive, I am looking forward to reading the reply from legal03
0
proXaim

Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #26 
On this subject of potential harm to cops and informants by posting information about them here on this site. There are a couple of things that come to mind. First of all in some places it is illegal to expose an undercover agent particularly in the field of narcotics simply because the retaliation of the drug criminals is a very real danger. Threats and violent criminal actions against police do happen. Often.

But there is the other side and the other side I am afraid is a lot more likely to happen. And this consist of police using illegal procedures to gain the information that they think they want. These procedures include in part coercion of so called witnesses that are coached on what to say on the witness stand or in front of a judge or even into a recorder or video device in order to get a warrant. This information is initially based from speculation and conjecture or as a get back to someone that the so informant or police person has a grudge against.
There is also the use of illegal electronic surveillance, which happens many more times than you may realize. For instance almost every time you have any discussion with law enforcement you are being recorded. Regardless of the nature of the discussion. Even if you walk up to an officer and ask directions, he or she will probably turn on their pocket recorder. They are taught this as a "cover your ass" precaution. It is these CYA precautions that have helped screw up the judicial process so badly. In the direction of looking out for themselves they (the cops) have dropped the ball on the civil rights of the average citizen. Remember a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. What I witness more often than not is the cops thinking that they are the judge the jury and the executioner with no respect for the constitution or the bill of rights.
Just watching the T.V. show "Cops" for instance, you can witness all kinds of violations against peoples rights, even to the point where cops murder innocent people. And never a question from the public. (I wonder why no one comes to the victim's defense?).
In short the whole judicial process has been tainted by lack of attention and commitment and the caliber of people that I see that are police officers have no business being police officers, they simply don't have the mentality and certainly not the compassion nor empathy that one should have in that all so important roll in society.
Too the other officers of the court, I'm speaking of attorneys, often are guilty of the same constitutional negligence or lethargy maybe even ignorance. Consequently many of these people do not understand what they are destroying.

I do not advocate any harm to anyone, however until the system gets back to what it should be, this site and others like it are necessary in order to keep a balance that is most important in the preservation of our judicial system.

If a person commits a criminal act then that person should be held accountable and be responsible for said actions. This should include law enforcement officers and officers of the courts. This does not appear to be the case. They often get by with murder literally. The cops and prosecuting attorneys as well as some lazy defense lawyers who simply do not want to go to the trouble to shepardize a case thoroughly and had rather take the money and run and informants should all be posted on this site. In order to have fair and unbiased justice one needs information equivalent to what the accusers have.
People are getting tired of being pushed and bullied by
jack booted thugs and various bureaucratic and judicial tyrants. This site and others like it may be a good way to stop this erosion of our rights.
As for the cops, well they knew what they were getting into when they signed on. And if they or anyone else in the judicial system can't play with the rules outlined in the bill of rights then to heck with them. They deserve what they get.


0
RatHater

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #27 
Most people looking for snitches/bitches, RATS want to know so that the charges don't get filed and the case never begins. FUCK ALL THE OTHER REASONS Rats should be properly xxxxosed "edited" of, take that as you will everyone!
0
railroaded

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #28 
Legal03:
Quote:
Quote:
once an informant is proven to be unreliable, they are of no use to the police. If the person is not guilty, then the information the informant provided will not lead to any admissible evidence and there will be no case against them.


What is YOUR method for discovering the bad reputations of informants? How well does it work?

Sites like this right here will improve the system. Now let me ask you. Why do you not see that?

Legal03:
Quote:
I understand that that is the purpose of this site, but I just wonder how many "good" informants and good law enforcement officers will have to suffer so that the bad ones can be outed.


There. See? You answered your own question. But then you claim you are concerned about people getting hurt from this site. WABOS! The whole purpose of this site is to KEEP innocent people from getting hurt by YOUR FU’d system (which I’m sure you see every day).

If you are truly a defense attorney, you do not speak like one. You would seem to defend your opposition. Duh! Of course! I realize you are in the ABA system and are required to use BarSpeak if uwant to remain in good standing. Defense lawyers have been often characterized as informants themselves.

NOTE TO ALL:
There will obviously be a barrage of Orwellian information deposited here by a chorus of planted gov “actors”, for the sole purpose of sabotage. So readers beware! This a free-for-all and it’s up to us to glean out the truth. One thing is for sure though – thank god for the internet – because we have them outnumbered

The truth will spontaneously reoccur without high maintenance. Just give it time. But god help us in the mean time!

0
railroaded

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #29 
ratnagibbet:
Quote:
My first thought is that for anyone to believe that law enforcement is flawless and without compromise is foolish. Just the same if you believe that all law enforcement is capable of being corrupt and without scruples you are equally foolish. It is in the human nature to be capable of both good and evil, or right and wrong, at any given moment. It is not a decision we make once, but an ongoing series of decisions throughout our lives that dictate how we respond at any given moment to a given situation.


That sounds all nice and reasonable until you enter an especially unconstitutional and abusive and corrupting influence like the drug war. (Which we have raging stronger and stronger everyday in America in case u hadn't noticed.) If it weren't for drug prohibition, sites like this would not bee needed. You don't need snitches to prosecute real crimes and true violent criminals.
0
proudcop

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker
Its just the thought of a rat.informent or what ever you call them....they are a trader period. beadict arnold all the fucken rats can go to hell. they are evel


Beautiful writing. What a genius. You are a credit to our society. I'm sure you are a very productive member. Have fun rotting in jail with the rest of the fucking criminals in this country.

Don't you know all cops are bad, evil people trying to set up all of you innocent model citizens. Everyone in jail is fucking innocent, everyone has a bullshit story about how they got set up. No, you idiot, your dumbass got caught. Face it, you criminals are idiots that couldn't get a real job and can't even succeed at crime. I absolutely LOVE putting retards like you in jail. Oh, it just makes my day.

And by the way, informants are great and all, but most of the time you dumbasses provide us with enough evidence to convict just on your own stupidity. I love the story of the guy riding in the car with the unregistered gun that "wasn't his". Why the fuck are you hanging around idiots who carry illegal guns anyway? Let me guess, you are a wannabe gangsta who is going to pack his gat and shoot up some homies from another set? Laughable, absolutely laughable.
0
proXaim

Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #31 
I'm betting that beating the hell out of someone while their handcuffed in a closed elevator also gets you off. Do you use your pr24 at home?


Quote:
Originally Posted by proudcop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker
Its just the thought of a rat.informent or what ever you call them....they are a trader period. beadict arnold all the fucken rats can go to hell. they are evel


Beautiful writing. What a genius. You are a credit to our society. I'm sure you are a very productive member. Have fun rotting in jail with the rest of the fucking criminals in this country.

Don't you know all cops are bad, evil people trying to set up all of you innocent model citizens. Everyone in jail is fucking innocent, everyone has a bullshit story about how they got set up. No, you idiot, your dumbass got caught. Face it, you criminals are idiots that couldn't get a real job and can't even succeed at crime. I absolutely LOVE putting retards like you in jail. Oh, it just makes my day.

And by the way, informants are great and all, but most of the time you dumbasses provide us with enough evidence to convict just on your own stupidity. I love the story of the guy riding in the car with the unregistered gun that "wasn't his". Why the fuck are you hanging around idiots who carry illegal guns anyway? Let me guess, you are a wannabe gangsta who is going to pack his gat and shoot up some homies from another set? Laughable, absolutely laughable.
0
valliesgirl

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #32 
As one falsely accused by an informant, let me comment on the previous postings. In my Oklahoma county, one confidential informant (CI) is all that is required to obtain a probable cause search warrant. In my case, additional circumstantial facts (1-3 year old observations) were added to prop up the CI's allegation.

Upon further research, I discovered that not one request for a search warrant was denied in the past 5 years. One might chalk that up to Law Enforcement's only requesting valid search warrants supported by numerous reasons for probable cause.

One that assumes the above hasn't read search warrants issued in this county. At present, my atty. has filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of my home. Strangely, the judge hearing this motion is the same one that signed the search warrant initially. Doesn't this violate some sort of conflict of interest?

Additionally, in this county CI's are further protected by the judicial system by not being used for trial. Typically, upon request by the defense for identification and access to the CI, the motion is denied on the grounds that the CI will not be called to testify at trial. So, a CI's word is sufficient to obtain the search warrant but not required to testify in court? The ends justifies the means?

There are so many more questionable practices by law enforcement as well as the judicial system I have observed since my inadvertant plunge into this mess almost a year ago. But I will save those for a later post.
0
WONDERingWOMAN

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #33 
I believe that this website is a positive and appropriate recourse for defendants and defense attorneys who are trying to get together information about the people who have accused them. I understand that undercover work for law enforcement is often a part of criminal investigations but somewhere along the line things became terribly blurred and wrong. We are called irresponsible for discussing informants when I don't see them showing any concern for the people they're informing on. Lets get real, most of these informants aren't what you'd call upstanding citizens but rather criminals themselves saving their own skin at the expense of others. To be in a position to report, the informant usually has to participate in the illegal activity to some extent as well. Unreliable information based on desperation and dishonesty will result in the reporting of "many innocent people, who will be investigated, questioned, detained and, on occasion framed." The standards for the use of intelligence informants are contained in internal FBI directives that are not available to the public. Have reliable informants really been developed? Perhaps it is "detrimental to the security of the public whom the agents are trying to protect." but some of these people are the very people you should be protecting the public from. To the creators and administration of this website: Keep up the Good Work! "Men may be without restraints upon their liberty; they may pass to and fro at pleasure: but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators -- who shall say that they are free?"
0
1260bill

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #34 
to mr proudcop
you sound like a want to be cop or a rent a cop.IL bet your ass is as big as your mouth from eating all them donuts.i mean darn man Calm down.what happened to you did the bad guy get away you was chasing?yes there is good cops and also there is good people who has been put in jail for braken the law.
0
fite4rite

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #35 
....its not to hard to understand their stance...they are no-longer  holding all the trump caeds for the naty little games they play..!  Play fair??  Yea Right!  Thats exactly why this site i needed.......and since when has all of THEIR INFORMATION BEEN ACCURATE?   I am a prime example of mis-information   by the LAW!!!  
__________________
Attitude is everything. Pick a good one.
0
fite4rite

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #36 
  OK Officer, or Deputy, or who or what ever you are-
Here is the openner....

People who help police arrest drug dealers can earn thousands of dollars and avoid drug charges of their own. But some continue to commit crimes and falsely accuse suspects. This three-part series examines the role of confidential informants in the so-called "War on Drugs."

  Here is the link- http://www.wvgazette.com/static/series/snitches/index.html

I suppose this doesnt make you happy either, but hey...I wasnt put here to make or break your day...

__________________
Attitude is everything. Pick a good one.
0
STAINGLASS

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #37 
I have a question what constitutes a "good snitch"?
__________________
Stainglass
0
rat_n_a_gibbet

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #38 

0
rat_n_a_gibbet

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #39 
Since last posting on this thread there appears to a continuing discourse that questions good versus bad cops, informants, laws, systems, evidence, etc. So it is with that thought in mind that I pose the following view point.

When you examine the "Good" versus "Bad" issues and you are not neutral in your examination you will corrupt the results with your own prejudicial opinions. This is true because humans, no matter who they are, or how much they try, cannot remain unbiased in their search for a answer when they are polarized in their beliefs. Being human is not a shameful, or insulting thing to be, it is quite simply a predictable characteristic resulting from having the ability to rationalize, analyze, and categorize.

Good is not necessarily right, nor is Bad necessarily wrong they are simply terms used to generate conscious visions of an idea being expressed. The results of using simple generic terms, like "Good" and "Bad", to express an idea is that the reader is left to their own perceptions of what is meant by those simple terms. Since every response in this thread has two things in common it is easy to see where, and why, the continuing debate reaches no consensus and the posts are viewed simply as rants.

Each response is from someone who is unable to evoke impartial thoughts when reading a post that they disagree with in principal. The second thing is the continued use of simply terms to express complex feelings, ideas, and opinions. Perhaps if some of the respondents were to examine these abstacts before writing their next replies the resulting posts will appear dramatically different and lend themselves to a discourse that shows a progressively meaningful dialog on the merits of this site pro or con.

To that end each readers motivation in this effort should be to use this forum to its best possible outcome. Thinking along those lines some factual presentations of case histories along with logical approachs to defending, or defaming this site would give great credence to its educational aspects.

If you are adamantly opposed to "Snitches" and "Informants", to the point where you genuinely believe that this site is "Good", then you owe it to yourself to use your posts to educate and help those who view your thoughts.

Likewise if you believe that to expose such use of "Snitches" and "Informants" would unnecessarily endanger not only them, but others as well, isn't it then your responsibility to take a moment to move away from the rhetoric of hateful name calling and the use of venemous accusations. Shouldn't you be making every effort to educate others as to why this exposure should not be allowed.It is to your advantage to use this forum in the most educational way possible if you believe that lives are endangered by the dissemination of a confidential  informants identification.

Personally this site represents to me a genuine effort to allow the people of these United States to engage in the freedoms that our constitution guarantees. It is not inherent in the constitution that only the rights of the Cops, Government Officials, or "Law Abiding citizens" are to be protected. It is in fact exactly the opposite. The protections of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the resulting interpretations that have stood the test of time, are the instruments that guarantee our freedoms.

So whether you are a citizen or not, a criminal or not, guilty or not, a member of law enforcement or not, you are guaranteed equal protection to use a "Rat", be a "Rat", or expose a "Rat".

Now based on that simple premise let me say that if you use, or are a "Rat," you should expect to be fitted for your own Gibbet. Though now it is more of a social figure of speech than the reality it once was.
0
KingAmdo

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #40 
I just want to say as well the following....

You, your country, your way of life, your way of thinking, your system, and your karma is fucked.

Bye bye america/american.

Allah Akbar.

King Amdo
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
?