BF2S Forums For those who never acknowledge that cops constantly abuse their power

Bubbalo wrote:

So whoever a cop says is an asshole is an asshole?  What if two cops disagree?

enough already bubbalo: bottom line, you act like a jerk you will be treated like one. and yeah, in the situation of dealing with cops, it is his prerogative to determine that, NOT yours,

OpsChief wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

OK, I guess its time for me to chime in. I'm a Sheriff's deputy. Badge and the whole nine yards. Now, I am not a patrol or investigations officer, I'm a medic and rescue diver, but I work with those who are on a daily basis. And let me tell you, its about as shitty a job as exists.

Despite what those here want you to believe, motor vehicle checkpoints ARE legal. Depending on state law, they are either sobriety checkpoints, or vehicle registration checkpoints. They have been found legal by the Supreme Court [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990)], as well as have a foundation in case law with almost every state (see this site for more details).

This woman broke the law. There is no constitutional right to drive a car. That privilege is granted by the state government, and there are strings attached. Sobriety checkpoints are one of those strings.

If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you are legally obligated to do it. To not do so is the very definition of obstruction of justice. She broke the law. She got arrested. If she'd handed over her license, registration, and proof of insurance like she is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, she wouldn't have had this problem.

That's funny, because I saw many other cars drive by the checkpoint from the daytime when the video starts, to the night time when the video ends. It was completely random. It was not anything like a sobriety checkpoint.

The Sobriety Checkpoint was just one example no? Why can't police randomly check for no license/insurance or unsafe vehicles? Or Amber Alert perimeters? What is the Abuse of Power here?

Having been stopped over the years maybe 40 times I have never experienced an abusive officer - they tend to respond well to "yes Sir" "yes Ma'am" and straight talk. Almost everyone gets upset when it's "FU MOFO it's a free country and I should be able to yak yak yak".  If you are the perpetrator and get stopped don't blame the cops lol  that drama should be left to Made for TV Movies.

As the video sais, it's the 4th amendment. 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

It shouldn't matter that driving a car isn't a right, the same as it doesn't matter that owning a house isn't a right. You shouldn't be subjected to random, baseless searches without probable cause. The only reason vehicle isn't included in the constitution, is because it was written in 1787. Logic will tell you, that if you can't be stopped and searched of your papers as you walk down the street for no reason, nor have a knock at your door and be searched the same way without reason, then why is it any different when you're in a car? We're secure in our persons and houses, but not when in our cars?

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

Um no... I'm not going to 'get over' people breaking the intent of the constitution. How about you 'get over' the fact some people like their freedoms preserved. It is not hardly seen in the modern world. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about for one thing, and secondly you're accepting the revocation of inalienable rights. You're a pawn. Don't try and rub off on me.

Ok, I'm a pawn. Yes this may happen but a utopia will never be achieved. These kind of situations will always happen.


WOW, your protesting on a battlefield 2 forum site. Show me a vid of you protesting infront of the whitehouse and my respect for you will rise.

Sure, let me drop my life real quick, pack my bags and fly over to Washington...

Sorry, I don't live in fantasy money world...

Utopia and my opinion of what those cops should've done, is not synonymous.

What kind of crappy justification is that. If you are so passionate about the subject then money wouldnt stand in the way of your views. You could just walk

I'm assuming this is a joke.

Wow the police spent all that friggin time digging thru her car? It's night time and the tape is still rolling? Wow.

Dec45 wrote:

As the video sais, it's the 4th amendment. 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

It shouldn't matter that driving a car isn't a right, the same as it doesn't matter that owning a house isn't a right. You shouldn't be subjected to random, baseless searches without probable cause. The only reason vehicle isn't included in the constitution, is because it was written in 1787. Logic will tell you, that if you can't be stopped and searched of your papers as you walk down the street for no reason, nor have a knock at your door and be searched the same way without reason, then why is it any different when you're in a car? We're secure in our persons and houses, but not when in our cars?

The issue Dec45 is bringing up, from what I can see, is the word "unreasonable." Is is unreasonable to have these checkpoints? Personally I don't think so. While I do agree that the officers went beyond after the lady was a bitch, perhaps without probable cause (she did only just refuse to show her ID), the fact that this lady did not provide her id, a simple thing to do, in order to prove what sort of point? It takes hardly any time to just show your papers to a cop, especially if there is nothing wrong and its just a checkpoint. I mean, coming back from Mexico, getting on a plane, coming back from Canada, and at a sobriety checkpoint(the only experiences I've had where its just a checkpoint situation) I just show my driver's license and it's sort of glanced at, depending on the night I get asked a question, and that's that. Which doesn't seem too unreasonable to me...
     On the main issue of this thread, police using excessive force happens, but it's not frequent and certainly better than no police at all (as long as it continues to be infrequent). My father is a firefighter and my neighbor is a police captain, so its safe to say I've met my fair share of police officers and they've never used excessive force and while they have had a few stories of something that seems like excessive force (especially the ones from Palo Alto who know people who work in East Palo Alto(another city), which is in Northern CA, USA and it's definitely not a safe place) I disagree that cops constantly abuse their power.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

It shouldn't matter that driving a car isn't a right, the same as it doesn't matter that owning a house isn't a right. You shouldn't be subjected to random, baseless searches without probable cause. The only reason vehicle isn't included in the constitution, is because it was written in 1787. Logic will tell you, that if you can't be stopped and searched of your papers as you walk down the street for no reason, nor have a knock at your door and be searched the same way without reason, then why is it any different when you're in a car?

You don't need to prove ownership of your legs, and you don't need a licence to operate them.  So asking for your papers would be futile and pointless.

And police can stop you 'for a chat' without cause, but they need a reason to search you.  Refusing to give your name would be equivalent to not showing your driver license, and I imagine would be reason enough to search you. 

Dec45 wrote:

We're secure in our persons and houses, but not when in our cars?

Ever been on a plane?  You can be searched at any time, and you need to carry a passport with you (at least you do here in the UK... it might be a photo id or something for internal flights in America, i dunno).

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

So whoever a cop says is an asshole is an asshole?  What if two cops disagree?

enough already bubbalo: bottom line, you act like a jerk you will be treated like one. and yeah, in the situation of dealing with cops, it is his prerogative to determine that, NOT yours,

That's always my advice when dealing with the police... be polite and cooperative and they'll often return the favor.  Plus it helps if you go to court.  And you are in no way threatening they might decide not to cuff you, which might help dispose you of anything which you perhaps shouldn't have.  Of course, there are some police who will be violent and vicious without reason, but you'd have to be quite unlucky to be in a situation composed purely of this type without any who present who respond to reason.  So I almost agree with you.  Except I'd add that there are definite exceptions to the 'you get treated like your actions deserve' rule.  Perhaps proving it true?

Stooping you for a chat and asking your name?? You shouldn't have to give a police officer your name ever, if there is no reason to.. If a criminal came up to you and asked your name would you give it to them? The only difference between some Police and Criminals is the badge gives them a right to take away your money? That's just retarded and a massive violation to people which most of the masses is OK with, because they passed a Psyche test and where given a gun.. Most of the kids that I knew growing up who became police officers were fucked up individuals, and I can say that they didn't change that much from social gatherings when I've meet them. They are people who walk over the laws because they ARE above them.

UnOriginalNuttah we've all been on planes and searches is something that you agree to when purchasing your ticket, the Airlines are privately owned and the purchase of the ticket is you agreeing to there laws so Civil Laws don't count in that instance.

I'm all for being polite and courtesy, but as a civilian(which is the same as a cop but without the badge and gun) you have to be well aware of your own rights, and shouldn't let the police violate them ever.. The woman in the car was absolutely in the right and will still have this mark on her record even though it was thrown out(which is bullshit as well). Bottom line is that if you are OK with the police taking away your rights, even in one instance you shouldn't be able to call yourself an American, you are about as patriotic as a fascist or a communist when you are OK with one of these instances happening. And I belive that was Rush Limba in the video talking? A strong right winger who see's these instances as wrong?

Dec45 wrote:

Sorry folks, you can't pull someone over and check their I.D without probable cause of a violation of law. Let me ask you something...

Who won in court, and was acquitted of all charges? The lady you all said broke the law. Thanks for playing.

You can at a checkpoint.

And, if the lady isn't carrying her ID or proof of insurance...well guess what happens?

That's the law.  If she won in court, she had a very good lawyer...and she was lucky.

And not for nothing, but generally it's the right wingers who are for police abuse no matter how little it is. I always thought true conservatives are against government involvement..

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Stooping you for a chat and asking your name?? You shouldn't have to give a police officer your name ever, if there is no reason to.. If a criminal came up to you and asked your name would you give it to them? The only difference between some Police and Criminals is the badge gives them a right to take away your money? That's just retarded and a massive violation to people which most of the masses is OK with, because they passed a Psyche test and where given a gun.. Most of the kids that I knew growing up who became police officers were fucked up individuals, and I can say that they didn't change that much from social gatherings when I've meet them. They are people who walk over the laws because they ARE above them.

By stopping for a chat, I mean asking for you for information a recent crime in the area or some other reason without needing suspicion that you have been involved in a crime.  E.g., an informal chat.  Where they may ask you to account for yourself, including giving your name and where you are going.  Failing to give that would be raise suspicion. I've been stopped sooo many times, and arrested plenty too.  Here's an example where I would have been arrested if I hadn't accounted for myself:

I walked out of my front door... about 100 metres down my road the police roll up in a car, jump out and demand my name and address and where I'd just come from.  They asked if I'd been in trouble with the police.  I answered honestly (including details on my extensive rap sheet), and after they namechecked me they said they'd stopped me because there had been a report of domestic abuse from my a house opposite mine.  Since I'd given details which checked out without flinching or hestitating, they let me go on my way.  The funny thing is I had a load of weed on me and if I'd lied about any of the three points they'd asked about, they could have quite rightfully seached me, and found the weed.  Luckily I was aware that they actually can demand that information, and didn't try to be a false hero based on some rumours of what rights you have when dealing with the police gained from an internet forum. 

You have rights, yes.  And you can choose to say nothing to the police and settling things at the station.  But if you know the police officers rights and powers then you will know when it is in your interest to protect them, and when it is not.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah we've all been on planes and searches is something that you agree to when purchasing your ticket, the Airlines are privately owned and the purchase of the ticket is you agreeing to there laws so Civil Laws don't count in that instance.

And the roads are publicly owned, but there are still laws.  Essentially, a country is  a privately owned airline with the citizens as the shareholders.  And they (in theory) have approved the laws.  And they can ask to have them changed.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I'm all for being polite and courtesy, but as a civilian(which is the same as a cop but without the badge and gun) you have to be well aware of your own rights, and shouldn't let the police violate them ever..

Except when it's in your interest to do so, because you will arouse suspicion or cause yourself to be arrested.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

The woman in the car was absolutely in the right and will still have this mark on her record even though it was thrown out(which is bullshit as well).

If it was thrown out, it won't be on her record.  Although they mention that she got off the assault and resisting arrest charges, but it doesn't say what happened to the obstruction of justice to which she was originally arrested.  I suspect that charge may have stuck.  And I suspect that she was more aware of her own rights than the rights of the police in that particular situation.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Bottom line is that if you are OK with the police taking away your rights, even in one instance you shouldn't be able to call yourself an American, you are about as patriotic as a fascist or a communist when you are OK with one of these instances happening. And I belive that was Rush Limba in the video talking? A strong right winger who see's these instances as wrong?

Without the power to suspend rights, police can't make arrests.  By their very nature arrests are a suspension of rights.  Ensuring the power is used correctly is a more worthy cause than calling for it's abolition.

I don't deny that police abuse their powers, but stopping people at checkpoints and asking for proof that they are legally entitled to operate their vehicle doesn't count, IMO.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-20 14:00:38)

Very good points Unoriginal, but in all seriousness and IMO where does this all stop? Someone brought up a good point about the home searches, if it's in the interest of the community why don't they do random searches on homes looking for meth labs and the sorts? The probable cause could be a shady looking person walking into the home?

The power to suspend rights should only be used in the right circumstances, the video show was not one of them. Also with the current laws in place, they can slap anyone with a fine at any time. She might have got off the two of the charges but I'm sure it probably cost her a couple of thousand dollars to do so.

I'd rather be robbed from a crimal of the 40 dollars in my pocket then stoped for no reason and blow a couple of thousand on a wrong charge...

I actually think the police in that video were quite professional and calm.  I didn't think they abused that woman at all.  (we're talking about the OP video, right?)

Actually, they didn't trump up charges against her, they charged her for obstruction of justice.  They, stopped her, lawfully, then proceeded with their duties to ID her and verify that she is the registered owner and driving with current registration.  The stop, being a road block is the probable cause.  The procedure they performed was lawful due to the road block.  Her giving any threatening language or actions then bring us to the level of discretion for the officer.  They followed a well established and typical police practice that will continue every day they're in that uniform.

What happened in the court doesn't invalidate their procedures or the lawfullness of their procedure.  Next time they'll "find" something to qualify for probable cause..as is the case with more experienced officers. 

Your example of bumping into an officer has little to do with this topic, but if it did happen, it is going to be the officer's word against yours..and yes, we should hope there's no such officers who would do that.