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

HanzHenry
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.

Thank you for your service.

I'm not patronizing you. I am making a point about the system and the manner in which some people view it. Being you come from that background you of all people should know that there is not 100% corruption.

HanzHenry
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)

To play devils advocate then. Since you were in a position to observe the corruption, did you do anything to stop or / report it? Or did you just get disgusted by seeing it and just walked away without doing anything? If you took no action, respectfully, would that not make you a part of the corruption / problem - respectfully.

HanzHenry
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.

Im not trying to play tit for tat on careers. We both have had our experiences, which has in turn shaped our viewpoint on this topic. I don't accept there is 100% corruption in the system.

HanzHenryOh, 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>

My roll is to uphold the Federal / State constitution and enforce the laws / ordinances of my city. My roll is to act in good faith while using the authority the people have entrusted to me.

My roll is not to just say screw it, make a blanket comment that the entire system is corrupt, and then just walk away while doing nothing but stating what the problems are without tying to fix them / working to find solutions with those I work for.

I know what my role is as law enforcement...
I know what my role is as a US citizen...
I know what my role is as a citizen of my state...

Respectfully, do you know what your role is?

I doubt its to constantly complain / attack anything government related in generalities while, in appearance, looking like you are doing nothing to resolve / correct the issues.

I won't walk away because the system has problems. When we surrender in that manner, we become a part of the problem by sacrificing public trust. Doing nothing is just as bad as participating in the corruption.

reply to post by Xcathdra


i feel that the only way to defeat the corrupt system is to walk away, not participate in it. I feel that when something is beneath you, walk away.

And I did bring down 2 people that each had 17 and 14 years service, were supervisory. But the 'big fish' were unscathed, and I was accused of heinous acts to discredit.

I knew going into the gambit of snakes, this would happen but was so repulsed by the hypocrisy and graft could not sleep.

If the big fish could always scapegoat and get away, the system from Governors, Senators, and their rich connections run the entire system.

This guy also tried and died, www.colonelsabow.com

at least I left with my life intact. And brought down 2 guys. 2 for 1. If all the decent cops would follow suit instead of 'laying low' and sacrifice their own financial well being for the greater good and take out 2 snakes, we would be in a much better nation

reply to post by Xcathdra



"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."

Could you please give me a citation on this? When did the Black Dress Tribe say that the First didn't apply during a traffic stop? Just a link to the decision will be much appreciated.

Aazadan
There are no good cops.

I really wish people would stop saying that. If your getting to the point that, seeing evil and not doing anything is just as evil type of thing; I get it, but come on man. Pretty broad statement.

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.

Aazadan
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.

Not the point. I am not saying this because the guy was out of line, nor outside of his rights. I am saying this because YOU O NOT give cops a reason. I have seen countless videos of people who have done way less and received way worse. Guess what!? In most cases, the cops got away with it. If I'm not mistaken, he can get the cops badge number upon request, right?
JUST SHOW YOUR ID- If your scared of that, you're too paranoid or you have warrants. If its the later, take care of it and quit putting people around you in a position to go down with you.

o0oTOPCATo0o
Pick your spots people. Right and wrong does not matter a whole lot when your in handcuffs with black eyes and broken ribs.

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

Ask the thousands harassed/beat by police who get ZERO justice. When someone is kicking your arse, your rights are nill. Also, when cops are bad enough to do something like that, they are bad enough to lie and cheat their way out of it/cover it up. Probably stick you wit an extra charge while they're at it. Resisting or assault most likely.
I get what your saying, though. Also, I probably didn't word that in the best way.
What I was trying to say was, he could have taken his bogus violations to court with absolutely NO confrontation with officers on the side of the road. Hell, they might not have given him any citations, if he had cooperated in the first place.
Before anybody starts, NO he didn't cooperate.
"Can I see your I.D. real quick?" ----As he is turning away, with hand at his pockets/belt line
Turns around with the bear claws up,
with an attitude "I'm sorry! Am I under arrest for something?"
"No, nah. We're just checking to make sure everythings OK"
"Yep, we're good." ----Then just turns around like he's going to get back in the car and leave.
What did this guy expect?
I mean, look at how he "verbally objects" to the cop searching his van......
He goes int the drivers side door when the other cop wasn't looking at him (cops fault)
Look at the guys hands in the beginning. Look at his posture later on.
As one poster said before, this video is highly edited. Notably , the time before Woods opened the passenger door. Keep in mind this is the dummy's editing. He looks like a fool in the parts he keeps in. I can only imagine the directors cut.
If I was a cop, I would definitely think this guy had something to hide.
Bottom Line. This was AVOIDABLE. BUT
All that being said. This idiot happens to be a hero, for confronting the world with an example of a criminally unjust justice system.

diggindirt
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

"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."

Could you please give me a citation on this? When did the Black Dress Tribe say that the First didn't apply during a traffic stop? Just a link to the decision will be much appreciated.

United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.
Sean KING, Plaintif-Appellant, v. Kevin AMBS, Columbia Township Police Officer, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-2054. Argued:  April 17, 2007. -- March 21, 2008

Towards the end of the brief are US Supreme Court case law dealing with various incidents where argumentative speech can be construed as interference in an investigation and that an arrest for obstruction is not a violation of the 4th amendment nor the 1st amendment.

In essence, local and state laws dealing with obstructing an officer are valid and are not constitutional violations in certain situations. Traffic stops being one of those situations. The burden, as always, falls on the officer and specific articulation of the elements (actions) that violated the law.

The US Supreme Court has ruled an officer must have a thicker skin when it comes to belligerent speech directed towards them. However the use of the 1st amendment in an effort to obstruct an investigation is not protected speech. Also, the manner in which a person speaks is also a consideration (does the statements come across as a threat).

EX: A - I don't give consent to search my vehicle
B - I didn't tell you that you could search my vehicle jack ass so get the hell away or ill move you away.

The definition of obstruction will depend on what state you reside in, however its based off the appeals ruling (precedent). As an example a case in Florida where a person was cited for obstruction. The court ruled that the distraction was insufficient for speech to constitute interference, and the obstruction charge was tossed.

There are various side rulings (term I use) that also deal with passengers in vehicles in addition to 3rd parties in the area who are not a part of the stop.

IE apply common sense. In this case, after an officer tells a person they are free to leave, and that person wants to argue with the officers on the side of the road, based on totality of circumstances, the person was moving into an area of speech that would not be protected. In addition he moved into an area where he is failing to obey a lawful command (no trouble with his vehicle while refusing to remove his vehicle from a public right of way where part of his vehicle is obstructing the flow of traffic.

The court is the setting to challenge officer actions, not the side of the road.

The slang term for this area is "contempt of cop", where the officer perceives the individuals argumentative nature as being disrespectful towards the officer / officer's authority. Hence the narrow rulings coming from these incidents. the court is trying to balance things out.

The reason for that is the Us Supreme Court has established general guidelines for length of traffic stops. The longer the stop, the more the officer is required to justify the delay. Arguing with police, and then getting pissed on how long you were out with them, can cause issues.

A final note - A traffic stop is a technical seizure. The officer is responsible for all parties involved. The longer a traffic stop is dragged out on the side of the road, the larger the liability. Police actions are measured against public safety.

Also, the officer could just ignore the person and leave. That is certainly one option (I have used it before).

Hope this is what you were looking for.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Houston v Hill. A LEO cannot bring charges of obstruction or interference for you speaking to him when he'd rather you shut up, excluding fighting words.

Bedlam
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Houston v Hill. A LEO cannot bring charges of obstruction or interference for you speaking to him when he'd rather you shut up, excluding fighting words.

Hence the reason I noted that its based on state law and the criteria established. The Supreme Court ruling allows it, state law defines it. The ruling does not prohibit the act, it requires it to be specific.

In the Hill case the Supreme Court found the ordinance overly broad. It also noted the ordinance itself did not define an assault to include verbal language. Hill had been arrested 3 times prior, under the same ordinance. In those cases the application of the law was valid. The Court also noted that the Houston ordinance was pre-empted by a state law in the manner it was used in the last incident.

Also - I note that in the Hill case his actions were as a 3rd party. In the discussion above, the focus is on the driver / passengers in the vehicle and their ability to "argue" with law enforcement during a traffic stop, where the driver / passenger freedoms are temporarily curtailed under the 4th amendment.

reply to post by HanzHenry


Semper Fi to you. I spent 5 years in as well. Best 5 years of my life. There are 2 careers paths I contemplated in the years since I left: LE and politics. Both because I wanted to effect change.

I made an attempt to join the local City Police force 5 or 6 years ago. I came away from the experience disgusted. I actually failed one of the tests during the physical portion of the "tryouts." I failed the vertical jump. As you most likely know they use this to determine whether or not a candidate could scale a wall. As you also know from our time in the O-course, merely jumping won't get you over a wall. Pretty stupid failure, considering I was among the fastest out there as well.

What really turned me off though was doing well on the written test, and getting yanked aside with a group of other candidates and having an overweight jerk tell us that we were "worthless and pathetic and %90 of the world population could kick our asses." Pretty much killed LE for me.

As for politics, I got sick of how stuff was going in my district, and seriously considered running until the guy that would have been my campaign manager wanted to you use my then-imminent wedding as a campaign platform. Awesome.

I said all of that to get across that though I agree with Xcathdra with all of the finer points of the law, I agree with you in regards to corruption and an overall complex with the people in power. The way the jerks at the Academy treated people who weren't even in Academy yet was disgusting. Had no place outside the Academy, just like a Marine recruiter wouldn't be a jackass to a poolee. The "I'm better than you even though my fat rump couldn't be forklifted over a wall" mentality actually extends to the vast majority of black and whites on the road here. Lousy.

reply to post by JackSparrow17


the ENTIRE system is corrupt. From the CIC on down. Both houses of congress, ALL major corps, etc.

The cops are like storm troopers to the evil empire.

Engaging, participating and profiting from a corrupt system takes a SUSPECT moral and ethical person.

What is needed is a complete dismantling. And that will NEVER happen while working on the inside..

The ONLY method s to have thousands of cops to walk away from it, LEAD protests and when TPTB appear to quell protests, DESTROY THEM..

All I know is that any state law that violates a individuals civil liberties is null and void.

reply to post by HanzHenry


Having said that though, I know of one cop in particular. He is a good man, and doesn't behave like any cops I've ever known. Very compassionate guy. If only there were more like him instead of the growing STASI types. Again, I think Xcathdra is spot-on in regards to ignorant buffoon citizens acting the fool much of the time. I also firmly believe most of these officers forget that they're public servants, and they are to uphold the law. Many times I've witnessed officers speeding and showing disregard for traffic laws and public safety, all the while not en route to a call. Many city cops are no better that thuggish enforcers. I have far more respect for Sheriff Deputies though. they are usually the ones who are more down to earth.

JackSparrow17
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

Having said that though, I know of one cop in particular. He is a good man, and doesn't behave like any cops I've ever known. Very compassionate guy. If only there were more like him instead of the growing STASI types.
Again, I think Xcathdra is spot-on in regards to ignorant buffoon citizens acting the fool much of the time.

I think there are good people who beyond the badge are great. My quarrel is with the system.
Xcathdra in my opinion is a very decent man. And respectful beyond what I envision.

the buffoonery people out there would possibly have more respect, save some personal past run-in that went sour.

The Police, through their very POWERFUL unions and the solidarity could have done MUCH if they act as PATRIOTS first, and 'lawmen' second.

Imagine, just imagine if there was a protest like Occupy where the cops LEAD the march inside the ivory towers and gave the "rodney king" to ALL the corrupt banksters, and THEN to ALL the corrupt politicians.

I KNOW the military, nor the National Guard would do anything other than APPLAUD

reply to post by Xcathdra

EX: A - I don't give consent to search my vehicle
B - I didn't tell you that you could search my vehicle jack ass so get the hell away or ill move you away.

Perfect. When someone is unfortunately involved with the police, it is imperative one remains out of the B Zone.

I am also quite impressed with the level of your effort in this thread. Thank you!!

o0oTOPCATo0o

Aazadan
There are no good cops.

I really wish people would stop saying that. If your getting to the point that, seeing evil and not doing anything is just as evil type of thing; I get it, but come on man. Pretty broad statement.

You seem to have got my meaning. I think a lot of cops want to be good cops, and they almost universally all see themselves as good cops. The problem though is how things work out in practice. There's a lot of abuses to our rights that are done in the name of protecting the police officer, and officers in general push things as much as possible. I don't blame the people as much as I blame the system. They react in the way they've been trained. The few that do try to challenge the system find themselves with short, unpleasant, unfulfilled careers.

Inevitably you end up with a system where the bad cops commit abuses, the average cops let it happen for the sake of themselves and their family, and the good cops are driven out. Those who act as facilitators fall into the bad cop category because they're not trying to fix the system.

Not the point. I am not saying this because the guy was out of line, nor outside of his rights. I am saying this because YOU O NOT give cops a reason. I have seen countless videos of people who have done way less and received way worse. Guess what!? In most cases, the cops got away with it. If I'm not mistaken, he can get the cops badge number upon request, right?
JUST SHOW YOUR ID- If your scared of that, you're too paranoid or you have warrants. If its the later, take care of it and quit putting people around you in a position to go down with you.

You can say just show your ID but that's tacit admission that we do not have our system of rights. Compromising on one issue leads to compromising on all issues. The prosecutor in that video summed it all up perfectly. Cops have been trained to get a certain result, they don't give a damn about rights... they're trained not to. They're trained to get the information they want, and if it's in violation to let the courts deal with it. This is what is leading to the major problems in my opinion. Those who are supposed to enforce the law are taught to break our most fundamental laws as part of their job duties, and then to let the courts handle what few cases they see.

Xcathdra

diggindirt
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

"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."

Could you please give me a citation on this? When did the Black Dress Tribe say that the First didn't apply during a traffic stop? Just a link to the decision will be much appreciated.

United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.
Sean KING, Plaintif-Appellant, v. Kevin AMBS, Columbia Township Police Officer, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-2054. Argued:  April 17, 2007. -- March 21, 2008

Towards the end of the brief are US Supreme Court case law dealing with various incidents where argumentative speech can be construed as interference in an investigation and that an arrest for obstruction is not a violation of the 4th amendment nor the 1st amendment.

In essence, local and state laws dealing with obstructing an officer are valid and are not constitutional violations in certain situations. Traffic stops being one of those situations. The burden, as always, falls on the officer and specific articulation of the elements (actions) that violated the law.

The US Supreme Court has ruled an officer must have a thicker skin when it comes to belligerent speech directed towards them. However the use of the 1st amendment in an effort to obstruct an investigation is not protected speech. Also, the manner in which a person speaks is also a consideration (does the statements come across as a threat).

EX: A - I don't give consent to search my vehicle
B - I didn't tell you that you could search my vehicle jack ass so get the hell away or ill move you away.

The definition of obstruction will depend on what state you reside in, however its based off the appeals ruling (precedent). As an example a case in Florida where a person was cited for obstruction. The court ruled that the distraction was insufficient for speech to constitute interference, and the obstruction charge was tossed.

There are various side rulings (term I use) that also deal with passengers in vehicles in addition to 3rd parties in the area who are not a part of the stop.

IE apply common sense. In this case, after an officer tells a person they are free to leave, and that person wants to argue with the officers on the side of the road, based on totality of circumstances, the person was moving into an area of speech that would not be protected. In addition he moved into an area where he is failing to obey a lawful command (no trouble with his vehicle while refusing to remove his vehicle from a public right of way where part of his vehicle is obstructing the flow of traffic.

The court is the setting to challenge officer actions, not the side of the road.

The slang term for this area is "contempt of cop", where the officer perceives the individuals argumentative nature as being disrespectful towards the officer / officer's authority. Hence the narrow rulings coming from these incidents. the court is trying to balance things out.

The reason for that is the Us Supreme Court has established general guidelines for length of traffic stops. The longer the stop, the more the officer is required to justify the delay. Arguing with police, and then getting pissed on how long you were out with them, can cause issues.

A final note - A traffic stop is a technical seizure. The officer is responsible for all parties involved. The longer a traffic stop is dragged out on the side of the road, the larger the liability. Police actions are measured against public safety.

Also, the officer could just ignore the person and leave. That is certainly one option (I have used it before).

Hope this is what you were looking for.

edit on 5-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the cite. It was an interesting read but didn't address my request.
This case deals with a third party interfering with a police investigation of an illegally parked vehicle, not a traffic stop at all. While it mentions several cases having to do with traffic stops and interference from third parties (Hill v. Houston) I can find no ruling that declares that a traffic stop constitutes a "seizure" rather than a detention.
The case of the man in the video didn't have a "third party" element at all. He simply questioned the officer as to how the officer was citing him with a moving violation when no movement had occurred. "You're fixin' to..." isn't in the legal definition of operating a motor vehicle and in a sane world, a citizen should not have to take half a day to attend a court just because a police officer was somehow offended. How is his question in any way "interfering" with an investigation that has apparently already concluded since citations have been issued?

I fully agree with those who have said it is always good to be courteous to law enforcement. I've always addressed them in a civil and courteous manner. For about 55 years of my life in my interactions with law enforcement (few though they've been) were civil on both sides. It was only about 5 years ago that I encountered the attitude as exhibited by the cops in the video, i.e, the attitude that police officers can use abusive and threatening language toward citizens who have done nothing illegal and the citizen cannot respond in any way. I've had more encounters with police in the past five years than in my previous 55 years and with 3 notable exceptions, the officers involved were arrogant, rude and even threatening---for absolutely no good reason. All these officers now have letters of complaint filed against them with their superior and I have apologies from their superiors. That's my method of fighting the wrong I see.

So if you could, please cite for me a case in which the SC declared that a traffic stop is a "seizure" as you stated: "A final note - A traffic stop is a technical seizure. The officer is responsible for all parties involved. The longer a traffic stop is dragged out on the side of the road, the larger the liability. Police actions are measured against public safety."
I'm not trying to be snarky here, I am seeking information. My reading of law has been pretty much confined to Commonwealth of Kentucky law and rulings and your definition of seizure does not fit with my understanding of the term legally. It is my understanding that under Kentucky statutes a "seizure" can only occur in process of, or, after an arrest or court ruling. Since not all traffic stops include an arrest, I fail to understand how the simple action of a LEO conducting a traffic stop could be construed as a seizure rather than a detention. An officer can detain a citizen if they have probable cause but seizure only happens legally when an arrest is made in criminal law. (Yes, I am aware that various alphabet agencies in the War on Victimless Crimes have made seizures without arrest but there are a mountain of those cases still making their way through the courts.)
For instance, if a traffic stop is a "temporary seizure" as you state, then the 10th Amendment of the Kentucky Constitution and the 4th of the US Constitution would just go out the window wouldn't they? Both state that particulars (who, what, where) must be provided before search or seizure can occur. If your contention is correct, the cops in the video were perfectly within their rights to search without a warrant because they had "technically seized" the vehicle despite the fact that no arrest had been made and no "traffic stop" had occurred? While you may believe that, I have doubts that it would stand in a Texas courtroom.
So I renew my request for a citation of the SC court ruling that a traffic stop is a "technical seizure" wherein the 1st and 4th Amendments to the US Constitution are suspended.
Thanks for the discussion.

reply to post by diggindirt


Sorry I misunderstood your request -

A traffic stop being a technical seizure under the 4th Amendment -
Cornell Law - BRENDLIN v. CALIFORNIA 2007

Restrictions placed on speech is cited in my last response. In those rulings an obstruction charge can be permissible under state law (per Federal appeals ruling with no further challeneg), when specific, when language moves from protected to non protected speech. The Hill decision is geared towards a 3rd party. The Supreme Court has ruled an officer's peace cannot be disturbed, removing that argument (restricting law enforcement's use of that statute). Hence Obstruction.

The info below is the Wikipedia breakdown.
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

Opinion of the Court
A person is "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when physical force or a show of authority terminates or restrains his freedom of movement. If the police's intent to restrain an individual is unclear, or if an individual's submission to a show of authority takes the form of passive acquiescence, a seizure does not occur unless a reasonable person would not feel free to leave in light of all the circumstances. If, however, the person has no desire to leave for reasons unrelated to the traffic stop, there is no seizure.

Before the Court's decision in this case, the law was clear that a traffic stop seized the driver of the car. The Court had also repeatedly suggested—but never formally held—that a traffic stop in fact seizes everyone in the vehicle. With its decision in this case, the Court expressly so held. "We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission."

A traffic stop necessarily curtails the freedom of movement of all within the vehicle, and a reasonable person riding in a stopped vehicle would know that some wrongdoing led the police to stop the vehicle. At the same time, any occupant of the vehicle cannot be sure of the reason for the stop. "If the likely wrongdoing is not the driving, the passenger will reasonably feel subject to suspicion owing to close association; but even when the wrongdoing is only bad driving, the passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave the scene would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the officer that no reasonable passenger would feel free to leave in the first place." Moreover, no passenger could expect an officer to allow him to move around in ways that might jeopardize the officer's safety.

The California Supreme Court went astray by making three assumptions with which the Court disagreed. First, it reasoned that Brendlin was not the initial focus of the police's investigation, being concerned as they were with verifying the registration of the car, which Brendlin did not own. But the Court pointed out that this reasoning ignores the focus of the Fourth Amendment on what a reasonable person would believe, not the subjective intentions of the officers. Second, the California court reasoned that Brendlin was not in a position to submit to the officers' show of authority because only the driver of the car could do so. But the acts that constitute submission to a show of authority depend on what the person was doing beforehand. As a passenger in a vehicle, Brendlin could not affirmatively submit until the vehicle was stopped on the side of the road. Third, the California Supreme Court resisted the conclusion the Court drew because it feared that occupants of cars merely stuck in traffic would also be "seized" under a contrary holding. But the Court noted that "incidental restrictions on freedom of movement would not tend to affect an individual's sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile." Indeed, the California court's holding was a kind of incentive for the police to conduct "roving patrols" that would violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers.

ETA (Not trying to be disrespectful / condescending so if you are familiar with my comment here just disregard) - US Supreme Court rulings will apply to all states and commonwealths / territories of the US unless otherwise noted. As an example, in Tennessee vs. Garner The US Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement could not shoot a fleeing felon in the back unless that felon posed an immediate risk to the public at large.

That ruling applied to the state of MO (my state). However, under MO law the criteria established for use of deadly force was any felony. Which means if a person tries to write a bad check, they are technically committing a felony, and MO law would allow deadly force to be used.

With that being said, in MO blue book (state statutes issued to law enforcement / any one who wants one) it specifically noted the Supreme Court ruling and noted MO law was in violation of it. So its possible to have legal definitions being different from state to state. The US Supreme Court is the law of the land, so it over rules MO law.

Another example is the federal HIPAA Law (medical). While it is a Federal law, it is defined by state laws.

Aazadan
You can say just show your ID but that's tacit admission that we do not have our system of rights.

If you don't mind me asking, what supports the above statement?

Respectfully, I know of no where in the US Constitution or my State Constitution that states pedigree information (name / dob / address / etc) and Law Enforcement requesting that information (when appropriate / required) is protected as a right.

Not trying to argue, but I am curious what led to that conclusion.

reply to post by HanzHenry


After a little thought and a night to sleep on it, the one thing I take issue with in regards to Xcathdra's responses are simple: they exemplify the system's ideology that "ignorance is not an excuse." The unfortunate truth is that there are so many local ordinances, which on top are State Law, and on top of that stacked Federal Law, that the average citizen cannot expect to understand, let alone know if he/she may or may not be breaking a law at any given time. Laws upon laws upon laws.

An individual may know the state or local laws for an area, or the federal laws. However, they may or may not know how they apply and in what situation. It's a hopelessly convoluted system that almost seems designed to ensnare someone at least once in their life just from the sheer complexity. There's a reason normal people aren't governors or senators or presidents anymore: only lawyers can wade through the muck that is our judicial system, and even they don't very well.

I think that many LEOs may get it in their heads that everyone should know all of the laws of the land and how it applies to them; and if they don't, they become a little impatient and haughty. As for me, I just use the 10 Commandments as a blueprint, since the majority of our laws are based from them on some level.

rangerdanger
Honestly, if you're so fed up, and want to make a change, pick up a badge, and change it yourself. Creating fear won't change anything.

While I appreciate your sentiment, real change has never occurred from within. Nobody is going to pick up a badge and change the system, not real change anyway. Doesn't and will never happen.

Look at the LAPD after the riots. They didn't change, they merely hired better PR, damage control, and spin doctors.

Real change is painful and bloody, that's the truth whether we want to believe it or not. And the current soci-economic cycle we are in trying to "change" anything is going to make it worse.