Texas Cops Unlawfully Detain Driver, File False Charges - You Gotta See This

HanzHenry
-- Copping an attitude back just surrenders the moral high ground that should be required 24/7 by those in uniform and displays a TOTAL lack of professionalism. And is PETTY beyond reproach

For the most part I agree. however there are people out there who only respond when their attitude is tossed back at them. in this case, this driver is one of those people. Respect is a 2 way street. Just because a person wears a uniform does not mean they are required to stand there and be treated in that manner by a jack ass with a complex.

To give a further example - There are parts of my city where the following can occur.
On the East side, in order to get a person to have a seat while im speaking to them all I have to do is say sir / ma'am, please have a seat. They comply, no issues.

On the south side, in order for me to get a person to have a seat while I am speaking to them, I would have to say "put your ass on the ground" in order to get them to comply. As a rule of thumb, at least for me, sir / ma'am is always used, as are requests instead of commands. There are people who only respond to the latter.

HanzHenry
-- Freedom of speech shall not be infringed... i guess the part after that in the bill of rights detailing 'unless by police' must have been missed or doesn't exist

I guess when the US Supreme Court defined a lawful arrest, detention or stop, they meant for the driver to be able to act like a verbal ass hat while screaming at the cops right? A traffic stop falls under the 4th amendment, which means a persons actions can be curtailed, including speech.

HanzHenry
-- Lying while in a position of power is among the most detestable and despicable acts. anyone who would do so needs to be fired, blackballed and financially ruined for life, left to beg on a street corner for life.

again for the most part I agree. However, there are situations where it is allowable and even required. However, when the lie illicit information, we move into the realm of coercion, which has ramifications in court. Why does the court allow law enforcement to lie on occasion? Because the people we deal with also lie to us. The court gets to determine the extent of deception on both parts.

HanzHenry
-- And, overall impeding someone's right to travel freely is an afront to freedom.

Freedom of travel is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not. Stopping on the side of the road with part of your car sticking into the drive lane with no warning lights is a hazard. If the people who own the vehicle were not present the ability to tow a vehicle when impeding the flow of traffic would be met based on its location alone.

HanzHenry
And EVERYONE knows the system is corrupt or 'screwed up' yet there are those that PERPETUATE it. and profit off of it at the expense of others.. that is lacking in honor and integrity on its face value.

to take the position that the system is not corrupt is naive at the least and would bring into question IQ.
Or, dishonest at the very least and would be an insult completely.

And to assume the entire system is corrupt is just as naïve. To assume law enforcement is a part of the legal system is wrong. To assume Law Enforcement creates laws, determines guilt and imposes fines is wrong. To assume all law enforcement are revenue generators is wrong.

By all means though, feel free to continue making comments on issues you are not versed in. It reinforces my statement about people thinking they know what they are talking about and who think they know the law when in reality they don't.

Then they complain about how bad the system is.....

When I got out of the Army, I stayed in Killeen for a little while before moving to FL. While I was there, I was pulled over for an expired tag and suspended out of state license (didnt know it was suspended at the time, just never got back to NY to take care of it....another story), the cop gave me a ticket and told me, "I'm going to go THAT WAY (pointing behind and AWAY from me) so do what you gotta do," so I DROVE AWAY. Either one could have arrested me, charged me, etc, not sure what the law is about that in Texas, driving on a suspended license and expired tags.
Right before I left Killeen for good, it happened ONE MORE TIME, and the SAME THING HAPPENED. So no, not all cops in TX are buttholes, I think some are decent folk, like we got decent LEOs here as well. Not all, but some...

HanzHenry
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

Badges ARE Redcoats..

They are the same in EVERY actionable way.

I wonder where the Texas cop jockers from another threads discussion will view this. oh i know "der dee dur, most of them are good" without a SHRED of proof to back it up.

I have TONS of proof ALL badges ARE redcoats. youtube and historical examples

Is Milwaukee county sheriff David Clarke a redcoat? I find it ironic and sad that the same people crying out for tolerance are the same people who show none in return.




I also find it funny you classify them as redcoats truth be told I bet 90% would quit if the PTB went after the common man.

Xcathdra
Freedom of travel is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not. Stopping on the side of the road with part of your car sticking into the drive lane with no warning lights is a hazard. If the people who own the vehicle were not present the ability to tow a vehicle when impeding the flow of traffic would be met based on its location alone.

This is a really dangerous path to go down. Freedom of speech is protected, but written words are littering. Documents are safe from seizure, but only if they're not electronic. Homes cannot be searched without warrants, unless someone happens to own a networked camera/microphone. Freedom of Religion is fine but if you're a Satanist there will be witch trials. Self incrimination is not allowed but fingerprints/dna tests regularly happen, and people are forced to turn over passwords. We have a right to trial by jury but the system is designed to make a jury trial extremely high risk... with a plea bargain the only real outcome.

All of these are happening now (aside from the Satanic hysteria which was late 80's/early 90's)

Rights are either absolute or they don't exist at all, because new loopholes will always be created.

If you're arrested, your rights are mostly suspended. This man was not under arrest and the idea of giving him a citation for something that he was going to do rather than something he had done is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly dangerous.

Aazadan
This is a really dangerous path to go down. Freedom of speech is protected, but written words are littering. Documents are safe from seizure, but only if they're not electronic. Homes cannot be searched without warrants, unless someone happens to own a networked camera/microphone. Freedom of Religion is fine but if you're a Satanist there will be witch trials. Self incrimination is not allowed but fingerprints/dna tests regularly happen, and people are forced to turn over passwords. We have a right to trial by jury but the system is designed to make a jury trial extremely high risk... with a plea bargain the only real outcome.

All of these are happening now (aside from the Satanic hysteria which was late 80's/early 90's)

Rights are either absolute or they don't exist at all, because new loopholes will always be created.

If you're arrested, your rights are mostly suspended. This man was not under arrest and the idea of giving him a citation for something that he was going to do rather than something he had done is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly dangerous.

Respectfully, as I stated before people come to these conclusions because they do not understand how the law works.

As an example - The bill of rights originally only applied to people that dealt with the Federal system. It did not apply to state citizens. Its took the 14th amendment to apply the bill of rights to the states. Secondly, each state has their own constitution, which people don't seem to understand. The laws applied are applied at the state local level, not federal.

Its one of the main reasons federal courts, when dealing with state laws that require identification to vote in elections, have ruled them unconstitutional in application to federal elections. 2 States have laws that require identification to vote in state / local elections.

Why? The term is called separate sovereigns.

Do all constitutional amendments apply to the states? Nope -
The 7th amendment has never been applied to the states.

Is providing pedigree information to officers a constitutional violation - nope.
Can a person kill another person, be investigated, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death without ever being read their Miranda rights? - Yup

Miranda only applies when a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions. An Officer requesting a drivers license (when a motor vehicle is involved) is not a violation of any amendments or any laws - its pedigree information. Asking a person if they have had any alcohol to drink on a traffic stop is also not a violation of the Constitution.

When a person is in a position to invoke their 5th amendment, and they do (either by stating or refusing to answer questions) its absolute. Which means a person does not get to tell their side of the story and then refuse to answer questions. They either clam up completely, or they talk. They don't get to pick and choose what they will answer and what they will not.

The 1st amendment is not a 100% absolute. This was established by the US Supreme Court and the ruling dealt with speech that can adversely affect others (yelling fire in a movie theatre is the most common example). However, a traffic stop is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment, and because of that the officer in question is responsible for everyone at that scene as well as passerby's.

That means the person(s) actions can be restricted, including speech if that speech constitutes a threat or public safety issue. Its along the same lines of 3rd parties recording police actions verses a person who is the focus of the police contact trying to record.

One can be stopped, the person in contact, while the 3rd party is generally free to do what they are doing (again exceptions apply when the actions of the 3rd party interfere with the officers actions / persons rights on scene / public safety (people who like to record on highways etc).

While I understand your argument and position, people must learn how their government works, at all levels. Its not enough to state an amendment does this or that.

Is our constitution absolute and perfect? - Absolutely Not.

We had to make changes to allow all persons to vote.
Then we made changes to allow women to vote.
We made changes that outlawed alcohol.
We made changes that legalized alcohol.

The Constitution must evolve with the times, specifically for some of the reasons you listed. No where in the Constitution does it talk about electronic mediums. The Supreme Court is just now getting cases involving electronics, and they are integrating that technology into the laws.

Just as they had to do with motor vehicles and searches...
Just as they have had to do with guns...
Just as they have had to with private security / citizens arrest / etc etc etc.

If the system is as bad as people claim, then why are dash cams / body cams / mics being required in certain states? Why did the courts rule that a DWI field sobriety test that is recorded must be submitted as evidence? Why did the Supreme Court rule against law enforcement for a vehicle search incident to arrest (AZ vs. Gant). Why did the Supreme Court rule that, for certain crimes, interviews must be conducted in an area with audio / video recording?

The Supreme Court Ruling re: California and searches of residents. That ruling did not throw the 4th out the window. Prior to the ruling, in California, if 2 people living in a residence, and one person objects to a consent search, the search required a warrant. The change recently made states that if 2 people are at a house, and one person is arrested, and the other person gives consent to search, even if the arrested person objects, the search is voluntary and does not require a warrant.

If people are not going to take the time to learn how it works, then they are always, always, going to be complaining about a broken system. Just because you think something does not work, does not mean its broken. Sometimes, what is required is for the person to educate themselves on how something works. In legal areas, those people who do are called lawyers, judges, mediators etc etc.

If you think its broke, then do something to fix it. Get involved in government, at all levels. Vote... Hold your reps accountable and vote them out if they don't do their jobs.

The best advice I can give is for people to learn about the very system they hate / despise / have issues with. Just because you learn about it, does not mean you have to like it / agree with it. However, that knowledge can allow for you to make changes. Being able to articulate the problem using the same book they use, gives a leg up in the argument, resulting in a better chance of effecting the change you desire.

simply name calling / blanket comments do not do anything to resolve the issues.
People like to claim Law Enforcement will not talk to them / listen to them... I have tried to do that on this site, and for my troubles I get accused of being a part of the problem, I get called a Nazi, redcoat etc etc etc. Ironic that the people who demand communication are some of the first to ignore it and shout it down.

Respectfully.

I am reminded of the commercial of the guy surfing the web on his Ipad in the front row of a wedding. The caption was, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

While this guy was completely within his rights, and after he started with the attitude, the cops became aholes, it could have gone completely different. Being nice and respectful to the police can go a very long way. You don't have to like it, or them, but they have the power to do whatever they want at this point, and you have the ability to do nothing but what you are told. No matter what your "rights" are. So why not just be nice, and everything will go smoothly. The police will be happy, and you will be happy.

I am not a cop and I am not here to defend them, but until you know what they had to deal with that day, you have no idea what they are thinking.

network dude
I am reminded of the commercial of the guy surfing the web on his Ipad in the front row of a wedding. The caption was, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

While this guy was completely within his rights, and after he started with the attitude, the cops became aholes, it could have gone completely different. Being nice and respectful to the police can go a very long way. You don't have to like it, or them, but they have the power to do whatever they want at this point, and you have the ability to do nothing but what you are told. No matter what your "rights" are. So why not just be nice, and everything will go smoothly. The police will be happy, and you will be happy.

I am not a cop and I am not here to defend them, but until you know what they had to deal with that day, you have no idea what they are thinking.

Im sorry sir, did you watch the video, there? I cannot belive you did.

There is no such thing as a good cop. Of your occupation dictates that you make others lives temporarily difficult by enforcing petty, arbitrary, inane laws that help no one , but instead bring revenue to the treasury, or fills cells, and when the officers must lessen inceease the boundarys of these drimes in order to better fill a quota, then it os not possible, by logical, empirical definition, to be a good cop.

Help an old lady, save a puppy, catch a violent criminal, give directions to lost tourists, all in a week. But ticket a kid for blocking a public walkway when there is noone walking to block, arresting somone for standing too close to the edge of the train platform, and ticketing a person for sitting in the park bench 3 minutes past the 7 o clock cuttoff time, in that same week, you are still a bad cop. Period.

Nazi underlings were probabely tood guys to, amd just doing their job.

Xcathdra

Aazadan
This is a really dangerous path to go down. Freedom of speech is protected, but written words are littering. Documents are safe from seizure, but only if they're not electronic. Homes cannot be searched without warrants, unless someone happens to own a networked camera/microphone. Freedom of Religion is fine but if you're a Satanist there will be witch trials. Self incrimination is not allowed but fingerprints/dna tests regularly happen, and people are forced to turn over passwords. We have a right to trial by jury but the system is designed to make a jury trial extremely high risk... with a plea bargain the only real outcome.

All of these are happening now (aside from the Satanic hysteria which was late 80's/early 90's)

Rights are either absolute or they don't exist at all, because new loopholes will always be created.

If you're arrested, your rights are mostly suspended. This man was not under arrest and the idea of giving him a citation for something that he was going to do rather than something he had done is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly dangerous.

Respectfully, as I stated before people come to these conclusions because they do not understand how the law works.

As an example - The bill of rights originally only applied to people that dealt with the Federal system. It did not apply to state citizens. Its took the 14th amendment to apply the bill of rights to the states. Secondly, each state has their own constitution, which people don't seem to understand. The laws applied are applied at the state local level, not federal.

Its one of the main reasons federal courts, when dealing with state laws that require identification to vote in elections, have ruled them unconstitutional in application to federal elections. 2 States have laws that require identification to vote in state / local elections.

Why? The term is called separate sovereigns.

Do all constitutional amendments apply to the states? Nope -
The 7th amendment has never been applied to the states.

Is providing pedigree information to officers a constitutional violation - nope.
Can a person kill another person, be investigated, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death without ever being read their Miranda rights? - Yup

Miranda only applies when a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions. An Officer requesting a drivers license (when a motor vehicle is involved) is not a violation of any amendments or any laws - its pedigree information. Asking a person if they have had any alcohol to drink on a traffic stop is also not a violation of the Constitution.

When a person is in a position to invoke their 5th amendment, and they do (either by stating or refusing to answer questions) its absolute. Which means a person does not get to tell their side of the story and then refuse to answer questions. They either clam up completely, or they talk. They don't get to pick and choose what they will answer and what they will not.

The 1st amendment is not a 100% absolute. This was established by the US Supreme Court and the ruling dealt with speech that can adversely affect others (yelling fire in a movie theatre is the most common example). However, a traffic stop is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment, and because of that the officer in question is responsible for everyone at that scene as well as passerby's.

That means the person(s) actions can be restricted, including speech if that speech constitutes a threat or public safety issue. Its along the same lines of 3rd parties recording police actions verses a person who is the focus of the police contact trying to record.

One can be stopped, the person in contact, while the 3rd party is generally free to do what they are doing (again exceptions apply when the actions of the 3rd party interfere with the officers actions / persons rights on scene / public safety (people who like to record on highways etc).

While I understand your argument and position, people must learn how their government works, at all levels. Its not enough to state an amendment does this or that.

Is our constitution absolute and perfect? - Absolutely Not.

We had to make changes to allow all persons to vote.
Then we made changes to allow women to vote.
We made changes that outlawed alcohol.
We made changes that legalized alcohol.

The Constitution must evolve with the times, specifically for some of the reasons you listed. No where in the Constitution does it talk about electronic mediums. The Supreme Court is just now getting cases involving electronics, and they are integrating that technology into the laws.

Just as they had to do with motor vehicles and searches...
Just as they have had to do with guns...
Just as they have had to with private security / citizens arrest / etc etc etc.

If the system is as bad as people claim, then why are dash cams / body cams / mics being required in certain states? Why did the courts rule that a DWI field sobriety test that is recorded must be submitted as evidence? Why did the Supreme Court rule against law enforcement for a vehicle search incident to arrest (AZ vs. Gant). Why did the Supreme Court rule that, for certain crimes, interviews must be conducted in an area with audio / video recording?

The Supreme Court Ruling re: California and searches of residents. That ruling did not throw the 4th out the window. Prior to the ruling, in California, if 2 people living in a residence, and one person objects to a consent search, the search required a warrant. The change recently made states that if 2 people are at a house, and one person is arrested, and the other person gives consent to search, even if the arrested person objects, the search is voluntary and does not require a warrant.

If people are not going to take the time to learn how it works, then they are always, always, going to be complaining about a broken system. Just because you think something does not work, does not mean its broken. Sometimes, what is required is for the person to educate themselves on how something works. In legal areas, those people who do are called lawyers, judges, mediators etc etc.

If you think its broke, then do something to fix it. Get involved in government, at all levels. Vote... Hold your reps accountable and vote them out if they don't do their jobs.

The best advice I can give is for people to learn about the very system they hate / despise / have issues with. Just because you learn about it, does not mean you have to like it / agree with it. However, that knowledge can allow for you to make changes. Being able to articulate the problem using the same book they use, gives a leg up in the argument, resulting in a better chance of effecting the change you desire.

simply name calling / blanket comments do not do anything to resolve the issues.
People like to claim Law Enforcement will not talk to them / listen to them... I have tried to do that on this site, and for my troubles I get accused of being a part of the problem, I get called a Nazi, redcoat etc etc etc. Ironic that the people who demand communication are some of the first to ignore it and shout it down.

Respectfully.

edit on 4-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

You are suffering from delusion, or youoive under a rock. Either or.

If a cop is able to beat you for no reaeon, then lie why he beat youfor no reason, get caught lying about why hebeat you for no reason, and not be reprimanded, then the sytem is broken on all levels.

What good is votig going to do when the people you vote for do not uphold to anything true, and cave to the alreqdy esrablished system, and just go along with it? Or how about when the law makers dont care about your concerns amd complaints, and your votes?

Once again you are either delusional, under a rock, or a shill.

HanzHenry
exactly! this is why BADGES are REDCOATS!

ALL of them, each one.

Profiting and PERPETUATING it.. detestable.

i wish to meet each one in the ring BARE KNUCKLE> i have a few trophies in that genre, hehe 6'2 245

i'm sorry if this is some kind of violation, but someone's gotta say something...

i'd really be willing to pay good money, if you'd just shut up with this crap.

you're talking out of your ass.....

i know a number of police officers(some of whom are actually friends of mine), and they are all decent people, who think this kind of crap(what we saw in the video) is absolutely unacceptable. they have a very deep respect for the constitution, and take their oath VERY seriously.

SO.....that said, this makes your idiotic proclamation that "all badges are redcoats" completely incorrect. i'm sure i'm not the only one here who knows police officers who are NOT overbearing meathead bullies with badges....this is not to say that ALL police officers are saints either....there are obviously a great many of them who are not fit to wear the uniform, or carry the badge, and they should be purged from the ranks, and replaced with those who can do their job, the way it was meant to be done....

seriously though, could you stop with the hyperbole, and rhetoric?

bigman88
Im sorry sir, did you watch the video, there? I cannot belive you did.

There is no such thing as a good cop. Of your occupation dictates that you make others lives temporarily difficult by enforcing petty, arbitrary, inane laws that help no one............
Nazi underlings were probabely tood guys to, amd just doing their job.

Congrats, this is the most least thought through post I've seen all day.
To be clear, I am not normally a defender of police BUT......
This guy should have just showed his ID, explained the situation and moved on. Had he did, this never would have happened.
It looked like this guy was trying to get beat on. Bottom line, this guy is a bone head.
At one point, the cops were so fed up, they were trying to make him leave but instead, he argued more!
In my experience, when a cop tells you that you can go, you get out when you can. Its like the other poster was saying, if this guy was such a law expert, he should know that the court is where you fight a ticket, not the side of the road. He should have also realized, that with his attitude, no person, cop or otherwise was going to give him a break. Especially when the tickets were already written. Do you think those cops want to explain to superiors, that the reason they have two tickets missing(they are numbered) from his log was that some arrogant dude on the side of the road outsmarted him? doubt it.
A word of advise to anyone who wants to "exercise their rights" a lot of cops don't know the law as well as they should and get mad when you call them out on it.
You see all the time instances where things go wrong with cops that were avoidable. They have their power and they like it. don't test it, or they might go outside the law to mess with you. There's a good chance they get away with it. they might even get a paid leave vacation out of it. they know this and so do you.
Pick your spots people. Right and wrong does not matter a whole lot when your in handcuffs with black eyes and broken ribs.

reply to post by bigman88


I did watch the video. Did you notice that the guy who was stopped did intentionally try to flaunt his rights to the cops?

Imagine this, two cops spent the morning chasing a meth head who stole some power tools from the Home Depot, had to chase him on foot, and get scraped up, then spent the afternoon responding to a call where a guy blew his brains out and they had to be first on the scene. Kind of an Ef'ed up day to start with. For anyone. They they meet this guy who they stopped to check to see if he needed any help. And he is a cop hater who is very well aware of his rights. HE decides to act like a self riotous dick even though he is within his rights to do so. Now the cops can handle the situation any way they want, they have the guns and badges. But thinking about the previous possibilities of their day, isn't' it slightly possible to give them the benefit of the doubt and cut them a tiny bit of slack?





And yes, there are good cops, just as there are bad ones. I agree that the "thin blue line" that protects the bad ones should be erased, but most likely will not be.

I am stating a fact though. If you act professional, civilized, and respectful to the police, USUALLY they will reciprocate. They are, after all, people behind that badge.

I have gotten by for 45 years with this philosophy and it's worked nicely.

Xcathdra

spurgeonatorsrevenge
I attribute this to Texas culture.

Everyone yammers about freedom, but many are secretly happy to enforce their will on others as long as it's done with a smile and USING the words of liberty.

and we have people that yammer on about freedoms being violated when in fact they are not.

when the officers pulled up behind them, and asked if there was anything wrong, the guy politely said no,, and gave the reason, that his wife had been driving for hours and was tired, and they were switching drivers...both officers looked inside the car, nothing was suspicious, or indicated that any type of offence took place....my question for you is....why wouldn't the officers say "OK, we were just checking if everything was ok, you can go on your way"?.... I know we are not in a "Andy Griffith, Mayberry, RFD" type of world....but it appears that these LEO's automatically assumed that this guy was lying, was dangerous and/or a criminal.

edited to take out sarcastic remarks

reply to post by jimmyx


I don't think they assumed he was dangerous, more than likely they would have done more had that been their assumption. I think they simply did not like that he was uncowed by their authority. The lead officer kept prompting him to acknowledge him as an authority and he kept refusing. It was a very clear cut incident of someone drunk with authority. The defenders on here continually act as though we should just be thankful a cop doesn't crack our skulls and then arrest us. Not sure when or why police developed the attitude that we need to treat them like drill sergeants and we should act like incompetent, intimidated privates in their presence. I really admire the citizens handling of the officers in this video, the officers really come off as ignorant buffoons.

I'd love to hear a cop say sorry sometime. We teach our kids to do it, we apologize to our spouses, friends and family. Doesn't make you less of a man. Why can't a cop apologize? Sorry, I was wrong, have a nice day.

hammanderr
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I don't think they assumed he was dangerous, more than likely they would have done more had that been their assumption. I think they simply did not like that he was uncowed by their authority. The lead officer kept prompting him to acknowledge him as an authority and he kept refusing. It was a very clear cut incident of someone drunk with authority. The defenders on here continually act as though we should just be thankful a cop doesn't crack our skulls and then arrest us. Not sure when or why police developed the attitude that we need to treat them like drill sergeants and we should act like incompetent, intimidated privates in their presence. I really admire the citizens handling of the officers in this video, the officers really come off as ignorant buffoons.

I'd love to hear a cop say sorry sometime. We teach our kids to do it, we apologize to our spouses, friends and family. Doesn't make you less of a man. Why can't a cop apologize? Sorry, I was wrong, have a nice day.

edit on 4-3-2014 by hammanderr because: Closing sentence

You pretty much nailed it there! The ignorant, arrogant attitude that says (sometimes literally) I can take you to jail for any reason I can think up.
As to your last paragraph, I have had officers apologize---on two separate occasions I've been stopped unlawfully for seat belt violation only to have the officer apologize when he actually took time to read the law he was attempting to enforce and realized that it did not apply to my vehicle. Twice I've gotten, "Sorry to have inconvenienced you, M'am, you have a good day." So there are a few out there who still possess a brain and synapses that connect but the majority are roid-driven, power-hungry imbeciles who want to cart old grannies and grandpas off to jail if they show "attitude." My signature is my motto. These people are public servants who are seeking to be our Masters and that's way off base and MUST be stopped.

network dude
reply to post by bigman88

 

I did watch the video. Did you notice that the guy who was stopped did intentionally try to flaunt his rights to the cops?
...
But thinking about the previous possibilities of their day, isn't' it slightly possible to give them the benefit of the doubt and cut them a tiny bit of slack?

No. The police shouldn't be taking an approach of doing whatever they want and only stopping when someone asserts their rights. That practice shows a complete lack of respect to the concept of rights. It's done because it will occasionally find something interesting to the police but it should not be the standard. Those who enforce the laws shouldn't be stretching/breaking the laws themselves as a routine matter.

And yes, there are good cops, just as there are bad ones. I agree that the "thin blue line" that protects the bad ones should be erased, but most likely will not be.

There are no good cops. The cops that actually try and work within the system to curtail abuse, or come to a suspects defense when he's being beaten are driven out of the force. They get no opportunity to change things, and their careers are destroyed. By it's very nature the good cops are driven out of the force which leaves only the bad ones (and yes, ambivalent cops are bad).

o0oTOPCATo0o
This guy should have just showed his ID, explained the situation and moved on. Had he did, this never would have happened.
It looked like this guy was trying to get beat on. Bottom line, this guy is a bone head.

He was under no legal compulsion to identify himself at that point. He wasn't operating a vehicle and he wasn't in an area where you have to identify unless under arrest.

Pick your spots people. Right and wrong does not matter a whole lot when your in handcuffs with black eyes and broken ribs.

Really? I would say that that's when it matters the most.

Xcathdra
If the system is as bad as people claim, then why are dash cams / body cams / mics being required in certain states?

Cameras are a direct response to things being as bad as people claim. Have you noticed that dash cams are getting more and more common among the populace? This is to protect the individual from the police.

If you think its broke, then do something to fix it. Get involved in government, at all levels. Vote... Hold your reps accountable and vote them out if they don't do their jobs.

The best advice I can give is for people to learn about the very system they hate / despise / have issues with. Just because you learn about it, does not mean you have to like it / agree with it. However, that knowledge can allow for you to make changes. Being able to articulate the problem using the same book they use, gives a leg up in the argument, resulting in a better chance of effecting the change you desire.

Here's the problem. It's political suicide to be labeled soft on crime, that's why we keep expanding police powers, letting them get away with more and more. We make sentencing harder, turned the concept of probation into a joke, quota's on keeping prisons full, and so on. All because no one has the courage to stand up and say they're going to cease being as draconian as possible towards criminals. The people go along with it because we've gotten this safety>freedom mentality in our heads since 9/11. It isn't working, but politics don't allow for a change.

On top of that, just getting involved in government does nothing, to actually fix this you need to get into a position of being a rep, or a governor, or a mayor, and then start passing laws. That's not easy to do, and it requires a ton of money to bankroll a campaign. Voting has let us down. There are no real viable choices because 90% of the voting population is stuck in the R vs D dilemma.

The cops and the prosecutor in that video both said the way the system should work, is not how it does work and the guy should just accept that. Sadly it's true... a large part of me believes that the population in general does not want the system as written, so we're getting a corruption of that, which is exactly what those people are asking for.

reply to post by Xcathdra



Thank you for the education. I respect your posts and the knowledge you bring. Keep bringing it, because people need to be confronted with it.

reply to post by jimmyx


You have a safety hazard since the vehicle is stopped and partially sitting in the travel lane. Safety would dictate the officers stay close to prevent an accident from occurring until the vehicle gets going. Secondly, the officers can fall in behind the vehicle to ensure they make it into the travel lane safely without having to worry about moving vehicles and how fast they might be going.

Yes the guy gave a reason as to what was going on. However, and again based on my experience and training, sometimes not all is as it should be.

Other possibilities that would extend officer presence -
* - Are the people in the vehicle ok? (medical issue / drunk) that they don't want the officer to know about. I have had that with medical issues before. Their viewpoint is the medical condition is none of my business, and to a very large extent they are correct. Ketoacidosis is a medical condition that mimics the effects of alcohol intoxication, from inability to focus /multi task, slurred speech, glazed over eyes etc...

With that being said I have seen people speak normally and stand normally with a BAC in excess of 0.4 (legal limit is 0.08). The field sobriety tests are designed to reveal that.


* - What if injuries were caused by the male? Domestic violence situation?
* - Did she kidnap him?
* - Kidnapping? - Just because cops are present does not mean a person being held against their will is going to scream at the first moment, especially if another person's life who is not present depends on the person keeping quiet.
* - Stranded motorist - just because help is on the way does not mean the officer cannot sit there with them until help arrives. Ive done that to assist the tow truck / people helping to make sure the people are not left stranded on a road in a state / city they are not from in the dark. I also have waited to give the people in the car piece of mind that an officer is close and that they are not alone.

* - Drug transport?
* - Casing the area for quit hits (stealing)?
* - Stolen car? )Just because a plate is run does not mean a stolen vehicle is going to return on the hit (Agency must enter it into the system).
* - Does the driver have a valid driving status?
* - does the driver have warrants?
* - Did the people in the car just kill someone else?
* - Road Rage?
* - Road rage resulting in an accident who then fled the scene (Not all law enforcement agencies monitor each others traffic. generally if an accident occurs out in the county, state police usually work the call instead of the sheriffs office (in general).
* - Ambush of a car that has not passed yet?
* - Ambush of a vehicle that fled the scene (mutual violence / settling a score etc).
* - Ambush of Law Enforcement (night time / side of the road / people in the vehicle).
* - Also, just because there are people in the car, and those people say its just them, does not mean there is no one else around the area that might be involved / present a danger.

The term is situational awareness.


I can keep going but you get the idea. My guess for the extended presence was the behavior of the driver. As I stated im all for citizens knowing the law and how it works. In this case the drivers actions / comments do raise an eyebrow. Granted most people don't want contact with the police, but in this guys case not only does he not want contact and for the police to leave, he continues to remain on scene to argue with the police.

People will always be somewhat nervous when dealing with police. His actions / comments / demeanor could be considered unusual (unusual does not mean illegal, but it does make a person look hard and the entire situation, as we saw when the second officer went to the far side of the vehicle).

Here is a big one and I will preface my comment with this -
Not all people who don't like the government are sovereign citizens and not all sovereign citizens go looking for forced contact / wanting to start an altercation with police.

There are examples, just as people in here use the reverse for officers, of people intentionally behaving in a manner to illicit a police response in a sole effort to kill them / settle a score. There is also the possibility of one of the officers specifically being targeted for whatever reason. People have gone after police using friends / family the officer does not know to settle scores etc.

I am not saying these people are any of the things above. However, we still go thru the checklist to satisfy our curiosity that the reasons given for the people being present are in fact true. There are cases where officers check out and head out, only to find out later the person they had contact with was wanted / kidnapped a child / killed someone etc. Failure to ask the questions go thru the checklist can result in an officer doubting himself / being distraught and not talking about, which then places everyone in danger. The question becomes - Why didn't I ask this or request that. Did my failure to go thru the checklist directly contribute to an extremely disturbing resulting in someone's death?

People who had bad experiences with the police are on guard when in contact with the police.
Police are on guard when in contact with the citizens.

its no reason to treat a citizen like crap, and at the same time the uniform does not mean a person can treat law enforcement like crap from the outset. It serves no purpose and creates issues.

Anyway.. Hope this answer / info gives people an idea of why police act in the manner they do (and sorry for the long response).

Aazadan
Cameras are a direct response to things being as bad as people claim. Have you noticed that dash cams are getting more and more common among the populace? This is to protect the individual from the police.

That's the intedned use. Its also the reason law enforcement has begun using more camera technology in their jobs, from dash cams, to audio recording, the body cameras / audio, to Tasers recording video / audio and now, in California, several agencies are testing out duty weapon cameras.

I like the Cameras - They work in both directions. I have had accusations / complaints made against me by people I've dealt with and the cameras / audio have shown the person either left out pertinent information or outright lied. In this area im all for video / audio use, on both sides.

Aazadan
Here's the problem. It's political suicide to be labeled soft on crime, that's why we keep expanding police powers, letting them get away with more and more.

With all due respect, im a bit tired of people blaming government in this area. Get involved and fire those who don't represent the people. If you identify a problem, the next step is to find solutions to fix it. People don't ever seem to get to the fixing part, just talking, and in most cases, blaming (not you, in general).

Secondly US Supreme Court rulings do not support the expansion of police powers. If you can give me some examples I would be more than happy to take a look.

Aazadan
We make sentencing harder, turned the concept of probation into a joke, quota's on keeping prisons full, and so on. All because no one has the courage to stand up and say they're going to cease being as draconian as possible towards criminals. The people go along with it because we've gotten this safety>freedom mentality in our heads since 9/11. It isn't working, but politics don't allow for a change.

The generality above is problematic

* - harder Sentencing - states are moving to decriminalize marijuana in addition to pre diversion programs for those who were convicted. The Feds are looking at changing their mandatory minimums when it comes to the SCA. The war on drugs was around looong before 9/11.

secondly, going back to the separate sovereign comment -
The sentencing guidelines in one state are not the same in another are not the same in the federal system. Trying to compare an incident that occurred in California to an incident that occurred in Louisiana is like trying to compare pregnant Rhinos to a rock.

Aazadan
On top of that, just getting involved in government does nothing, to actually fix this you need to get into a position of being a rep, or a governor, or a mayor, and then start passing laws. That's not easy to do, and it requires a ton of money to bankroll a campaign. Voting has let us down. There are no real viable choices because 90% of the voting population is stuck in the R vs D dilemma.

Voting, to a large extent, has not worked because people, well, don't vote. they have a mindset that either A - nothing will change or B - Someone else is voting so I don't need to worry about it.

Giving up before actually trying, respectfully, is not an acceptable answer. if the people are outraged about our government, and people claim they are in the majority, then why have they not capitalized on that and worked together to elect different people with different backgrounds who are of different parties outside of Reps / Dems?


All due respect,
Directly supporting government incompetence is shameful.
Indirectly supporting government incompetence thru inaction is shameful.

Aazadan
The cops and the prosecutor in that video both said the way the system should work, is not how it does work and the guy should just accept that. Sadly it's true... a large part of me believes that the population in general does not want the system as written, so we're getting a corruption of that, which is exactly what those people are asking for.

For starters the comment about charging the guy when the chief came to court. Was that comment made about the 2 citations or the fact the guy was pretty much in contempt of court?

Secondly the PA is the final authority on whether something is prosecuted or not.

The PA also mentioned the use of video / audio recording, comparing it today to back when it did not exist.

Finally - and I don't think people understand this part - The PA does not represent the defendant. The PA has the authority to discuss the charges and offer plea deals etc. If a person is going to represent themselves, that is on them. If they don't understand the court system / procedures, that is not the fault of the court or the PA.

In that regard, did the court not uphold his rights?

Final thought - Could it have been possible that if the accused sat with the PA and watched the video, that it may have resulted in the charges being dismissed? While understand the guys point behind not talking with the PA, he made an assumption about the motives of the PA from the start.

There are problems, but the only way we can fix them is to identify the problems and develop solutions while working together on both sides for the common good of all.

Yes? no?

A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client

Xcathdra
With all due respect, im a bit tired of people blaming government in this area. Get involved and fire those who don't represent the people. If you identify a problem, the next step is to find solutions to fix it. People don't ever seem to get to the fixing part, just talking, and in most cases, blaming (not you, in general).

Secondly US Supreme Court rulings do not support the expansion of police powers. If you can give me some examples I would be more than happy to take a look.

I wasn't trying to blame the government here. I blame the people. The people elect them. The people allow laws to pass. The governments fault in this is in pushing the idea of nothing to hide, then nothing to fear and in general launching a campaign to push security over freedom. The people are the ones who either choose to accept that or not however.

The generality above is problematic

* - harder Sentencing - states are moving to decriminalize marijuana in addition to pre diversion programs for those who were convicted. The Feds are looking at changing their mandatory minimums when it comes to the SCA. The war on drugs was around looong before 9/11.

secondly, going back to the separate sovereign comment -
The sentencing guidelines in one state are not the same in another are not the same in the federal system. Trying to compare an incident that occurred in California to an incident that occurred in Louisiana is like trying to compare pregnant Rhinos to a rock.

It's more than just drugs. A couple decades ago you couldn't get a life sentence for stealing a bicycle.

Voting, to a large extent, has not worked because people, well, don't vote. they have a mindset that either A - nothing will change or B - Someone else is voting so I don't need to worry about it.

Giving up before actually trying, respectfully, is not an acceptable answer. if the people are outraged about our government, and people claim they are in the majority, then why have they not capitalized on that and worked together to elect different people with different backgrounds who are of different parties outside of Reps / Dems?

People stopped voting because the only choices the media informs them of are Republican and Democrat and the two are one in the same. Look at Obama, in speech he was different but in policies put forward he hasn't been all that different from Bush, McCain, or Romney. People see this and it makes them give up on the system all together. There's not one segment of the population to blame here either. The media has distorted our view, the politicians have let us down, and the people haven't looked for alternatives. It's a failure on every level.

For starters the comment about charging the guy when the chief came to court. Was that comment made about the 2 citations or the fact the guy was pretty much in contempt of court?

I don't have a problem with how anyone acted at the hearing. The PA seemed mostly honest (though he wasn't upfront that his job description is to get a conviction), the judge acted fine, and the police did what they were supposed to do. If anything the guy was to blame, if he simply told the PA that he wants to review the footage privately first to make sure it's usable in his defense things would have gone over much different I think.

Xcathdra

HanzHenry
And EVERYONE knows the system is corrupt or 'screwed up' yet there are those that PERPETUATE it. and profit off of it at the expense of others.. that is lacking in honor and integrity on its face value.

to take the position that the system is not corrupt is naive at the least and would bring into question IQ.
Or, dishonest at the very least and would be an insult completely.

And to assume the entire system is corrupt is just as naïve. To assume law enforcement is a part of the legal system is wrong. To assume Law Enforcement creates laws, determines guilt and imposes fines is wrong. To assume all law enforcement are revenue generators is wrong.

By all means though, feel free to continue making comments on issues you are not versed in. It reinforces my statement about people thinking they know what they are talking about and who think they know the law when in reality they don't.

Then they complain about how bad the system is.....

edit on 4-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I walked away from a career as a FEDERAL OFFICER with DHS.. dont patronize, I was also a US Marine before that and went to college between military and LE.

I truly DID walk away because the corruption disgusted me. Agents doing the drugs seized from people, accepting bribes (judges, DA's, deputies, CHP, etc)

I also worked as part of a Border Tactical Unit -- combined ops involving the Sheriff Dept, BATFE, USCS, USBP, FBI, USCG, Harbor Police, SDPD, etc..

I DO know what I talk about. and without being given a T&C I will say that with confidence our resumes are at least equal in weight.

Oh, also I was a Govt Contractor for a time. AND worked in Central and South America as part of my history. Coordinating through Joint Task Forces.

KNOW YOUR ROLL>