Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

2006-11-20 14:56:33
ronmexico86
Member
+2|6585

cpt.fass1 wrote:

What do you think happened to the police who abused that woman? And the real problem is, as the Police power grows and the civilians power shrinks who is going to police the police?

And if you read the past 3 pages of this post you will see how many people actually support it by defending the arresting officers actions..
I doubt if these people were polled and the question was "Do you support police abuse?" that any of them, except in jest, would answer yes. So, if you want to take this one action and generalize it to the fact that they support police abuse, well I suppose feel free but I disagree, they just have a different view on this one specific case.

     I agree with you that police power shouldn't be unlimited and the concern you have is valid (it would be an interesting new thread). But is this police power growing? The cops didn't "get away" with this abuse did they? Anyways, back to the topic of police power, hopefully our elected representatives will be able to keep the police power from growing and the court systems will continue to deter police from acting beyond the limits of their power.

     And I have no idea what happened to the police, I'd imagine that they were disciplined in some way, if I'm wrong correct me, thanks.
2006-11-20 15:01:58
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6693|Northern California
CHECKPOINT = roadside stop.  They set up a check point where they have the ability to (and intentions) to keep unlawful drivers off the roads.  That's how they stopped her.  They didn't pursue and pull her over.

There's checkpoints all the time.  Sometimes they're sobriety checkpoints around major holidays, sometimes for there's hazzard related ones (putting on chains before heading into the snow), and some are just law enforcement looking for drivers with warrants.  Those are lawful checkpoints.  They don't infringe on the rights of motorists because motorists don't have the right to drive.  When they are questioned about driving laws or simply identifying themselves, they can be netted if they have no ID, registration, proof of insurance, have illegal items in plain view (although because of the patriot act, this civil right is overlooked giving police the ability to search any car for ANY reason regardless of if the driver is under arrest or not).

About your trust issue.  I often have it too.  And if my wife is driving without me, she knows to not pull over if she suspects the police car of being a fake.  And she's protected in doing so.  In fact, I believe that because there was a police impersonater here in the SF Bay Area a few months ago (got caught) who raped women he pulled over, local laws were cited and among them are the reasonable latitude a driver has to exit a road or "pull over" somewhere safe.  Likewise, if it's an unmarked car, you are able to even call the police and ID the car behind you and the officer is also required to ID himself if not uniformed AND driving an unmarked car.

I'm glad there's not many rural roads around here, even though this can happen on ANY road.  So be vigilant!
2006-11-20 15:03:54
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6693|Northern California

ronmexico86 wrote:

The cops didn't "get away" with this abuse did they?
Exactly.  The law (or "handling" of the law by smart attorneys) saved this woman from her arrest.  And with genuine cases of police abuse, I have hope that such cases will be justly dealt with.
2006-11-20 15:15:48
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6898|NJ
Well other then the news reporter saying it was a Checkpoint I didn't see anything really indicating that. Well in such a way as we have laws against Frivilous lawsuits shouldn't there be a way to protect the citizens from abuse. I'm talking about abuse in such a way as unlawful stops? Even to check for warrents and if they have current paperwork..
2006-11-20 15:45:08
redhawk454
Member
+50|6750|Divided States of America
All I have to say is the next time your car is stolen remember, the police cant ID the driver because its his right not to give it to the police. There are cars every where that look the same and plates can be changed. So sometimes comparing the registration with the legal plates and drivers license are the way to "verify" ownership.
2006-11-20 15:50:57
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6904|Little Rock, Arkansas

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well other then the news reporter saying it was a Checkpoint I didn't see anything really indicating that. Well in such a way as we have laws against Frivilous lawsuits shouldn't there be a way to protect the citizens from abuse. I'm talking about abuse in such a way as unlawful stops? Even to check for warrents and if they have current paperwork..
See, the problem here is that you have no idea what a lawful stop is. You just think you do. And you're wrong. The steps that have to be satisified before a checkpoint can be put into motion are both clearly defined and difficult to achieve. Its not just a couple of bored officers sitting at IHOP that say, hey man, lets go have a sobriety checkpoint.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Stopped her lawfully, for no reason? If that's lawfully they need to change the laws in that state because it's unconstatutional.
I realize that the Supreme Court uses big words and all, but did you read the decision I cited? Checkpoints are legal. See, here in the United States, its not up to each individual person to interpet what the constitution means. We have this body, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, that gets paid to do just that. And whether or not you agree, what they say is the law of the land. Period.

Don't like it? Move to another country, or become a lawywer and get on the Supreme Court. Those are your options.
2006-11-20 16:03:45
Dec45
Member
+12|6843

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 licence, 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 favour.  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?
If you're stopped walking down the street, and a cop doesn't give you reason or probable cause, you don't have to identify yourself. You live in the UK, you don't know our laws.

The plane belongs to a company, and not to any of the passengers. It's privatized public transport. No analogy.
2006-11-20 16:07:26
Dec45
Member
+12|6843

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:


Ask a cop.  Probable cause can be created on the spot, not that you need it.  And in that video, the lady was pulled over at a check point..she wasn't randomly pulled over.  Once you are pulled over, they have the right to ID you because that is how cops net fugitives and people with warrants.  that's probable cause enough.
Probable cause cannot be made up, without some affiliation to a true subject they're looking for. Again, I ask... Why do you think she won the case? Because there was no probable cause. See, the thing some of you are missing, is that the checkpoint, whether approved or not... is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Check points are not unconstitutional.  They frequently run them around here during the holidays looking for intoxicated drivers.  Once in awhile they will run them to verify valid license/registration/proof of insurance. 

Such checkpoints are not a federal matter.  These are set at state, county, and city levels.
Who sais they're constitutional? You? No, the people trying to take away rights.
2006-11-20 16:13:09
Dec45
Member
+12|6843

OpsChief wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

OpsChief wrote:


I bet I would not be remotely surprised. I think the complaints are also likely suspect in validity. The unreported/unfiled events may be because the person knew they were wrong and didn't want to blow things out of proportion.
So if you did commit a crime, cops don't have to worry about how they treat you, because you won't fight the initial case? That's completely fair and just?
Logical Fallacy and not answering my comment. You need to be able to deal in percentages not absolutes.

That "Some people don't complain" does not mean all people do or don't.  If someone didn't commit a crime, abused a cop during the arrest process and the cop got rough they have a choice to complain, if they feel they should be able to abuse law enforcement without retaliation then they will probably file. If they recognized they provoked the action they will likely not file. There are many variations of this I will not explain them all. But that doesn't mean they aren't there.
I'm sorry, but you don't know what your talking about by experience. It wasn't a logical fallacy of generalization. I realize that it doesn't mean ALL do or don't. That's not what I said. You obviously haven't had much experience with plea bargains, nor do you understand the probability of a cop being accused of any type of abuse. It takes a severe amount of evidence to mount a case, and at that, you'll still have plenty of people (I.E Many of the P.O.Vs you see here at this forum) who will take the side of the police, even when it's caught on tape. There is such a thing as the blue wall of silence, and cops lie more then many people think. The percentages you presented aren't absolute.
2006-11-20 16:18:34
Dec45
Member
+12|6843

OpsChief wrote:

answers to some recent replies:

A reason to search can be that a crime was commited with x miles and x minutes of your location and you meet the available description of the perpetrator.  The description may be vague for many reasons. Asking for a DL is not violating personal papers - you don't own your State Drivers License the state does!!!

Vehicles did exist in 1787!!!!  wtf is a horse and buggy?

Once a stop is made a persons demeanor and actions may dictate probable cause in the eyes of the officer. If you are beligerent or evasive suspicion arrises "why is this person screaming at me for asking for a DL? hmmmm, maybe I need to ask more questions to find out what is wrong"...

Cops make mistakes as much as anyone else but forcing a situation that may cause a mistake is just as bad as a hidden speed trap or planting evidence. Activities which a small percentage of people engage in on both sides but the police have the added problem of people using every little mistake to take to court for a settlement.


There were three blind men from Iowa standing on a road in Africa.  Something bumps into all three of them at once and they each proclaim they know what it is. "It's a snake like creature" shouts the first "it is long and winding around my arm!!!". The second replies "no no no sir, it's more like a giant cow but stringy hair and saggy skin!", the third discredulously exclaims "you guys are stupid this is a tree trunk with strange prickly bark!" What they found was an elephant but each could only describe a small part they came in contact with but, still with confidence, declared it the "Whole Truth". To take sides on this issue so broad and complex ignoring valid points is the only real obstacle to solving the problem.
Wow this is totally incoherent. You're just making excuses. Vehicles in 1787? We're talking about automobiles. You're being far too technical. People do NOT take every little mistake to take to court for a settlement. You're making this up as you go. But you're right... Cops make mistakes, like this one and they shouldn't be accepted with a bunch of excuses such as yours.
2006-11-20 16:21:32
Dec45
Member
+12|6843
"If it was thrown out, it won't be on her record."

Yes it will, you don't know what you're talking about.

"Without the power to suspend rights, police can't make arrests."

Some people just don't understand freedom.
2006-11-20 16:38:02
Riddick51PB
Member
+21|6710|Lincoln.ne.us
Dec45: she made the first mistake.  the cop asked for her papers, she refused to give papers.  that's where she screwed up.  she went downhill from there.

using "911" on the video title is way out of bounds.

Last edited by Riddick51PB (2006-11-20 16:39:16)

2006-11-20 17:42:55
OpsChief
Member
+101|6878|Southern California

Dec45 wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

answers to some recent replies:

A reason to search can be that a crime was commited with x miles and x minutes of your location and you meet the available description of the perpetrator.  The description may be vague for many reasons. Asking for a DL is not violating personal papers - you don't own your State Drivers License the state does!!!

Vehicles did exist in 1787!!!!  wtf is a horse and buggy?

Once a stop is made a persons demeanor and actions may dictate probable cause in the eyes of the officer. If you are beligerent or evasive suspicion arrises "why is this person screaming at me for asking for a DL? hmmmm, maybe I need to ask more questions to find out what is wrong"...

Cops make mistakes as much as anyone else but forcing a situation that may cause a mistake is just as bad as a hidden speed trap or planting evidence. Activities which a small percentage of people engage in on both sides but the police have the added problem of people using every little mistake to take to court for a settlement.


There were three blind men from Iowa standing on a road in Africa.  Something bumps into all three of them at once and they each proclaim they know what it is. "It's a snake like creature" shouts the first "it is long and winding around my arm!!!". The second replies "no no no sir, it's more like a giant cow but stringy hair and saggy skin!", the third discredulously exclaims "you guys are stupid this is a tree trunk with strange prickly bark!" What they found was an elephant but each could only describe a small part they came in contact with but, still with confidence, declared it the "Whole Truth". To take sides on this issue so broad and complex ignoring valid points is the only real obstacle to solving the problem.
Wow this is totally incoherent. You're just making excuses. Vehicles in 1787? We're talking about automobiles. You're being far too technical. People do NOT take every little mistake to take to court for a settlement. You're making this up as you go. But you're right... Cops make mistakes, like this one and they shouldn't be accepted with a bunch of excuses such as yours.
In answer to both your replies.  Law is technical, evidence is required not only to convict but to even bring a case forward. Me? No experience? You have this on personal knowledge do you? rofl

I did not suggest people take every little thing to court. You must have been thionking about someone else, in fact go back and read all my replies I already covered what you are telling me that I don't know.

The founding fathers were referred to in context to what they intended with the laws and rights of citizens and how they might have conceived the meanings. The concept of a vehicle existed at the time. People were arrested from there vehicles then as now. People were stopped and asked for ID papers then as now. Just because you didn't take time to think about what was said doesn't make me incoherent.

OK kiddo go have fun with this.
2006-11-20 21:08:38
Dec45
Member
+12|6843
"but the police have the added problem of people using every little mistake to take to court for a settlement."

Yes you did say this, and it is false.

If you knew what you were talking about by experience, then why don't you acknowledge the ease at which an officer can abuse his power once a criminal is faced with a charge, and a decision of plea is made on a case to which he doesn't feel he can win? No one is going to go to court to mention how a cop threw his face into the street for no reason for instance (I've seen with my own eyes, in a specific case), when the court is going to toss his accusation out because of the fact he did break a law before that. The jury doesn't give a shit about someone's abuse claims, when they were convicted of a charge in the process. It's a common problem, and if you're not addressing it, then you're either speaking out of inexperience or your trying too hard in your bias. On top of that, 5-9% I believe you said, are filed. Imagine how many people wish they could file. That's a very significant projection of numbers.
2006-11-21 08:26:16
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6744|Texas - Bigger than France
Is it too hard to do what the cop says?  Show an ID?

Getting all worked up over this is stupid.  A 10 second ID flick and the lady is back in her double-wide watching Oprah.
2006-11-21 08:26:53
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763
What's a double-wide?
2006-11-21 08:28:01
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6744|Texas - Bigger than France
trailer/mobile home
2006-11-21 08:28:28
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763
Hm........fascinating.................thank you
2006-11-21 08:31:40
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6803|132 and Bush

Don't you have to be under arrest for something before you can be charged with resisting arrest?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-11-21 08:32:45
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763
She may have been under arrest for not having her drivers license, maybe?
2006-11-21 08:34:41
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6803|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

She may have been under arrest for not having her drivers license, maybe?
No, that would just be a ticket.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-11-21 08:36:54
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763
And they know she has a license how?
2006-11-21 08:42:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6803|132 and Bush

Bubbalo wrote:

And they know she has a license how?
They don't. In any sense not having a license is not an arestable offense. I am just trying to figure out on what grounds she was aressted. You can't start with the charge of resisting arrest, which is exactly what he said, adding assault on to it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-11-21 08:52:54
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6898|NJ

Bubbalo wrote:

What's a double-wide?
I trailer that is two trailers put together
2006-11-21 08:55:09
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6898|NJ
Well kmarion according to the people on this forum is that it's the state's constitiuation right to check peoples I.D's for no reason because that's how they interperate it. You can be arrested for sitting in your car and asking why they are asking for your ID.  Knowing the Constituation means you are a member of the KKK or against the american government, and communism is the New Right.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard