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

Dec45 wrote:

"If it was thrown out, it won't be on her record."

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

Obviously you don't know what the concept of presumption of innocence is.  That means that your not guilty verdict won't count against you in subsequent cases, even for the same crime.  Are we even talking about the same record here?

Dec45 wrote:

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

Some people just don't understand freedom.

Let me try and clarify, which is difficult given this simplicity of the premise:  Liberty is a right, but in order to arrest people, police must have the power to suspend that right.

golgoj4 wrote:

i believe there was a recent supreme court case which puts this to bed...if cops ask for ID you have to show it. Im no fan of it, but thats how it is. And if everyone here hates the cops so much, please dont annoy them when you have a real situation. Fact: People are dicks, uniform or not. Fact- Every cop is not a power hungry asshole. If you cant separate the two, i feel sorry for ya. But then im black and have been pulled over in ct, ri, ny, ma, wa, mo, az, ca, and or...never got my ass kicked by any troopers on any backroads...but then maybe i wasnt being a little prick @ the time too.

And im not saying that everyone who has ever been brutalized by the cops was 'asking' for it.  But IMO, If I assume every cop is a prick before he gets outta his car, arent I askin for a confrontation? Considering how many times ive gotten off with a joke rather than a 'fuck you pig' I think its all in how you deal with the police. Maybe its just me but I prefer to be more optimistic about things until proven otherwise.

And he's never driven in New Jersey, he always keeps a white friend close by to do that. hahaha j/k kinda

antin0de wrote:

You know, I used to subscribe to the "fuck the police" packaged rebellion.  But then I realized that's a silly stance for a white suburban kid to take.  As long as I don't break any silly laws (or get caught), I won't have to deal with any possible "abuses of power."  OK so I smoke weed.  But it's not the cops' fault that weed's illegal.  All the cops do is enforce the laws, whether they agree with them or not.

What if the kid at UCLA would've simply complied and left?  He didn't have a student ID, so he was trespassing.  And when they tried to remove him, he went limp.  At that point, they were out of line with the repeated taser shocks.  But it didn't have to progress to that point... stupid kid.

I know *real* cops have to experience taser shocks during training, but do campus rent-a-cops?

Would you want to deal with scum on a daily basis, for the pay that cops get?

"We call them our heroes, but we pay them like schmucks." - Bill Maher

He was leaving when they grabbed him.

If you're a suburban white kid, it's understandable you have a choice to ignore what the police do. But, just because you're not forced into the demographic of those more often abused, doesn't mean you can't take a stance against the fact that it does happen.

antin0de wrote:

I know *real* cops have to experience taser shocks during training, but do campus rent-a-cops?

Campus police at UCLA are a subset of the state police. So yes. They do.

And as someone who has been tased in the past, it sucks. Pepper spray sucks more.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

She was arrested for obstruction of justice. When she resisted, she got resisting arrest. When she struck out at the officer, she got assualt.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

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.

Dude, get a clue. Its not how WE interpet it. Its how the SUPREME COURT interpets it.

I find it interesting that you argue with everyone else BUT me. Rather than going on and on bitching about what others say, why not just debate with me the legality of Supreme Court decisions.

You know, you might acutally learn something.

Anyway, to follow up on the rest of that innane post, you cannot be arrested for sitting in your car and refusing to show ID if you're in your driveway. When you enter a public road, you are, in effect, trading your right to privacy for the privilidge of using the public roadways, as the public has a vested interest in seeing that you are following the rules and proscriptions of driving. That's why I could drive the farm pickup all over our farm when I was 13, but wasn't allowed to take it onto the roads. Its private vs. public property.

I know my constitutional rights backwards and forwards. And I've never had an issue with the police. Ever. You CAN be proactive with your rights without being a worthless asshole. That's the compromise that your martyr in the video wasn't able to attain.

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

I can't believe people in this thread don't understand why she was arrested.

It's called a DUI checkpoint. You pull up to the checkpoint and they check you to see if your intoxicated. They also check to see if you have a drivers license and proof of auto insurance.

The dumb bitch wanted to act all high and mighty, like she was above the law, and she got OWNED.

edit: deciding to not show ID =obstruction of justice. She then decided to resist arrest and shoved the police officer back(assualt).

Funny thing, he didn't tell her why she was pulled over up until after he had asked for her ID and opened her door.

Dec45 wrote:

Funny thing, he didn't tell her why she was pulled over up until after he had asked for her ID and opened her door.

Which he is free to do.

blisteringsilence wrote:

antin0de wrote:

I know *real* cops have to experience taser shocks during training, but do campus rent-a-cops?

Campus police at UCLA are a subset of the state police. So yes. They do.

And as someone who has been tased in the past, it sucks. Pepper spray sucks more.

Kmarion wrote:

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.

She was arrested for obstruction of justice. When she resisted, she got resisting arrest. When she struck out at the officer, she got assualt.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

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.

Dude, get a clue. Its not how WE interpet it. Its how the SUPREME COURT interpets it.

I find it interesting that you argue with everyone else BUT me. Rather than going on and on bitching about what others say, why not just debate with me the legality of Supreme Court decisions.

You know, you might acutally learn something.

Anyway, to follow up on the rest of that innane post, you cannot be arrested for sitting in your car and refusing to show ID if you're in your driveway. When you enter a public road, you are, in effect, trading your right to privacy for the privilidge of using the public roadways, as the public has a vested interest in seeing that you are following the rules and proscriptions of driving. That's why I could drive the farm pickup all over our farm when I was 13, but wasn't allowed to take it onto the roads. Its private vs. public property.

I know my constitutional rights backwards and forwards. And I've never had an issue with the police. Ever. You CAN be proactive with your rights without being a worthless asshole. That's the compromise that your martyr in the video wasn't able to attain.

Well I wasn't online last night didn't see this till the morning, just got into work but since you want my Opion on the subject.. I don't belive that it was a checkpoint stop at all, to tell you the truth there is nothing in the video or from the cops mouth that says it is. If it was a checkpoint I would imagine when she asked why she was stoped he would have stated "It's a checkpoint Ma'am, we're looking to make sure your papers are in order, if you bare with me we'll get you moving in a second" as appose to "you didn't do anything wrong"...

But the officer didn't state that, and the only thing that states that it is a checkpoint is that the News Lady said so. You can be arrested for sitting in your car in you driveway, you can be arrested for driving a lawnmower while drinking a beer in my state, this is why I have such a problem with this. Also the timing of it, is a little early for a DWI checkpoint or any other checkpoint I can think of. So my feeling on this, is that it's an unlawful stop.

The law is different on farms because usually in those instances you are doing it to produce an income for your family.  In New Jersey you can get a license at 15 if you work on a farm but you can only use it on public roads if it's farming related.

In a few years when the government puts into effect the Federal ID for everyone, are you going to sit around and say good now we'll be able to keep track of the Illegals in the country. Or are you going to be worried about how close an eye they are keeping on us?

Pug wrote:

Dec45 wrote:

Funny thing, he didn't tell her why she was pulled over up until after he had asked for her ID and opened her door.

Funny thing about checkpoints, they can pull everyone over.  Funny thing about opening the door...refusing to show an ID and generally being an ass to the cops will cause issues for you.

I repeat.  How hard is it to comply with the LAW, where you must produce an ID at a checkpoint?

I hear the same logic over and over again... Just comply... Just conform... Just do what they say...

I don't agree with what was done to that woman. As the video defined it, it's un-American. She took a stand, and felt her constitutional rights were being violated, and everyone calls her an asshole. For what? For finding contradiction in what those officers were doing, and the fourth amendment?

Parker wrote:

can you remind me what the fourth amendment is again? i forget.

They actually changed it to "shut the fuck up and take it"

Dec45 wrote:

I hear the same logic over and over again... Just comply... Just conform... Just do what they say...

Aside from the fact that the biggest statement of conformity is driving a car in the first place:  Since there was a court ruling that police can have roadblocks and ask for ID, the place to fight that is in court.  Not at the roadblock.  Hold a protest, write to a senator, raise awareness, whatever.  But if you voluntarily put yourself in the firing line by directly contradicting an earlier court ruling on the legality of the checkpoint, then don't be suprised if you ruffle some feathers when you do so.  But the price of being arrested, humiliated and dragged through court is worth it... if you get the law about checkpoints changed. 

That's why I'd like to hear about the obstruction of justice charge, and whether she even bothered to fight it, whether it was dropped, or whether she copped out and pleaded guilty.  If she insisted on fighting that charge despite the risk, I'd have respect for her roadside protest.  Otherwise, what was the point?

see PATRIOT ACT for any reference to the new bill of rights.  the old ones were just too freedom loving

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-11-22 10:59:44)

hits too close for me brother.  an episode of my life that im glad is over.  10 months of court dates because of two racist sheriffs deputies that lie on police reports