Is that a Drill Sergeant or a Police Officer? Belligerent Cop Loses it On Man for Knowing His Rights

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: FlySolo

I agree with this statement 100%, once I turned about 30 I started chatting up the officers whenever I got pulled over and haven't gotten a ticket since. One cop got me for speeding in a school zone, he asked where I was headed I told him I was late getting to my nephews football game he ran me through the computer and said "You haven't got a ticket in almost 20 years, I'm not gonna break your streak" and sent me on my way.

Also I wonder about what happens in the HQ. They're told to stop people at a check point for whatever reason...maybe there have been a lot of drunk driving deaths...and every ATS-type lawyer gives them a 20 minute constitutional rights lesson while traffic is backing up. What is he to do? Wave everyone through and tell his superior officer that "yeah, I could've prevented that drunk driving accident down the road but I had no right to stop the guy." No way that would fly.

At the same time as a cop you should expect not everyone to comply with your requests and know how to act like a non-psychotic. The answer IMO is more training for cops...ongoing training. Cop training, not military training. This particular cop needs some sort of disciplinarian action against him for sure. And be evaluated for anger issues.

My wife is a teacher and has to take classes all the time to keep being a teacher. Does anyone know if police have to keep their skills and knowledge of the law fresh?

I've never had a cop like that, and quite frankly find it indicative of how bad our system is that your story happened. Justice is blind. You were speeding in a school zone, you deserved a ticket. Someone else will now get that ticket in order for the officer to make their quota.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Yeah well in a perfect world but the guys human. Could have been tired, hungry, had a fight with his wife who knows. If we could all act the way we're supposed to all the time we wouldn't even need police. Anyway he's not robocop he's a human. a reply to: jhn7537

Sorry. That excuse doesn't work with cops. They are given the legal authority to detain you, strip your rights, and kill you. Furthermore their word is worth more than your word plus evidence in court. If they are to have such benefits then they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. If they're just human then they shouldn't be given such authority.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: FlySolo
Your argument doesnt make sense otherwise you're saying life is not a right but a privilege, because the state can take it away.

I've got others to respond to but I'll respond to you first seeing yours is the easiest to answer. People aren't born with cars. They're born with two feet. It is your god given right to walk. That's all you get regarding transportation. Anything that the government regulates, means you have to ASK for it and jump through the appropriate hoops to obtain a PERMIT. Clearly, anyone who thinks it is their god given right to drive a car must have been born in the 90's. It says right here in the Driving Ed front page:

Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right

Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road. If you fail to demonstrate this ability, you will be issued traffic tickets, or even have your license suspended or revoked. No one has more right to the road than anyone else. If you're going to drive, you owe it to the other drivers and yourself to operate the vehicle in a safe manner.

And none of you took the time to do a .000009 sec search but instead defiantly and adamantly proclaim your ignorance on the matter.

originally posted by: justaquicknote88
a reply to: milkyway12
Hey there buddy. Couldn't help but reply to your post. TRAVELING IS NOT A PRIVILEGE. All free men and women have a right to travel on their own roads in their own vehicles. This is called TRAVELING. We have a right to travel in and out of states freely without prevention by our servants. This is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Being forced to carry a driver's license is a violation of that law. The entire purpose of the law is to prevent states from taxing (i.e. requiring a driver's license) individuals to travel. It is not only the right, but the duty of free men and women to stand against unconstitutional laws.

This

Finally, differentiation of one's right to ravel and the commercial activity of driving.

High courts have held this difference before, during, and since the inception of the automobile as the dominant means of conveyance.

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221

The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941

Some others...
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579
Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125

To say that states can impose licensing et al on a right is also mistaken.
Bennet v. Boggs, 1Baldw 60
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 492
Miller v. US, 230 F486, at 489
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

On mobile device so cannot easily quote every case. Nice stack to read through simply to understand traveling and why it has be beat into us as being the commercial activity of driving.

originally posted by: mal1970

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jhn7537

What's wrong with just getting your id ready, show it to them and be on your way? If they asked him to step out and starting making a fuss about nothing then perhaps he would have a point.

And THIS right here is exactly why we're at where we are today. It's called incrementalism. Next year it won't be just showing ID at a checkpoint. It'll be getting out of your car & getting frisked while another officer searches your car. 5 years from now it'll be supplying DNA via mouth swap. It will never stop. It will only get worse until we say NO.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps these are minor incremental phases to help desensitize the public for a more larger and intrusive plan. But, for the time being, it's a check stop and you must produce your license. Making an issue of it will only exacerbate the problem, like it did. The ridiculous things this guy was saying didn't make him sound like a lawyer who knew is his rights, but more of a dick weed asking for attention. Cop 2 sensed that and that's why he called him out. Where was his bountiful armory of vast legal knowledge then?? It was yes sir, right away sir, sorry sir. "Am I being detained?" really? Do I need a lawyer? Jesus, it's a check stop.

Point is, making a stink at the road check doesn't change laws. You need to call your elected officials and do it the old fashioned way.

originally posted by: onequestion
Can't blame the police officer here he's being put into this situation by the department.

Take issue with your local authorities.

You can't blame the police officer for losing it, and ripping a guy's door open? Seriously?

a reply to: RedParrotHead

What is he to do? Wave everyone through and tell his superior officer that "yeah, I could've prevented that drunk driving accident down the road but I had no right to stop the guy." No way that would fly.

That was another point I was going to bring up. People really think police have no right to ask you for id. That they can pull into a check stop, roll down the window a crack and say "No officer I'm not showing you my drivers license" and then casually drive off. The cops says "yes sir, your right, I cannot ask you for your license because it is your right to drive, sorry for the inconvenience, have a nice day"

What tv show am I on?

a reply to: onequestion

BULL# you can't... That's like saying you can't hold SS soldiers accountable for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews because they were just following orders.

You have to make a personal decision to violate the rights and break your oath to uphold the constitution.

Jaden

a reply to: Sremmos80

Roadside safety check is a synonym for illegal search and seizure...

Jaden

a reply to: FlySolo

Humans are not born with pens sticking out of an appendage either. I suppose that you view the written word as a privilege. Bye bye First Amendment.
No weapons in my hands when I popped out of my mommy.... so much for the Second Amendment.
I was not born owning a house.... So the government can quarter soldiers in one if I buy one later.

a reply to: FlySolo

No that's the RIGHT thing to do. I know you're from Canada so you don't understand what freedom is about, but here we are supposed to have the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and just rolling over when those searches and seizures occur is NOT the right thing to do.

Jaden

a reply to: MysticPearl

A citizen operating a motor vehicle is not required by law to provide a drivers license or registration IF the stop is not initiated by a violation.

Show where it says you must have done a violation?

If you are stopped and questioned while driving, you must show your driver’s license as well as your vehicle registration and insurance. If you do not produce these documents, you can be charged with offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

mtcsalc.org...

The police can stop cars at any time to determine if a driver has consumed alcohol or drugs, to see whether a car is mechanically fit, to check whether a driver has a valid licence, or to make sure a driver has insurance. The police may also stop your car if they suspect that you have committed a driving offence.

If the police ask to see your driver’s licence, car registration and insurance, you are required by law to produce these documents. If any of these documents are in the glove compartment, tell the officer that you are reaching for the document before doing so.

svan.ca...

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You're obviously not well versed in traffic law and constitutionality. A cop pulled you over for a legitimate reason (speeding) he only gave you a ticket...

Had he wanted you to consent to a search of your vehicle and then insisted or done one anyways, then that would've been wrong and for you to go along with it is wrong. It makes it harder when those of us who AREN;T willing to give up our rights don't give them up.

He was stopped for NO legal reason, so he doesn't have to furnish id, they can't detain him for even 30 seconds without the belief that he has committed a crime.

Your being pulled over for a traffic violation is COMPLETELY different because the cop had a reason to believe that you had broken a law (speeding) so he was legally justified to ensure that you had a legal authority to drive (furnish a driver's license) and insurance on the vehicle if your state requires insurance in order to legally drive.

The officers here did NOT have a reasonable suspicion that ANY crime had been committed and giving in to their demands would be wrong and just empowers them to expect others to give in to their demands as well.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: FlySolo

No that's the RIGHT thing to do. I know you're from Canada so you don't understand what freedom is about, but here we are supposed to have the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and just rolling over when those searches and seizures occur is NOT the right thing to do.

Jaden

Canadian's don't understand what freedom is? Did you really just type that lol, and here you're all complaining how your freedom is eroding away? lmao

a reply to: Pilgrum

yes it is. They have to believe that you are guilty of an offense to require you to produce ID or to even stop you.

Jaden

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: FlySolo

Humans are not born with pens sticking out of an appendage either. I suppose that you view the written word as a privilege. Bye bye First Amendment.
No weapons in my hands when I popped out of my mommy.... so much for the Second Amendment.
I was not born owning a house.... So the government can quarter soldiers in one if I buy one later.

Pens = freedom of speech which is a right. Don't know what you're going on about there...
Guns = I was hoping no one would bring that up cause that's a whoooooole other animal
Homes = Everyone has the right to BASIC shelter.

a reply to: Masterjaden

You're flat out wrong

a reply to: milkyway12

UHH the supreme court thinks differently. You do NOT have the authority to require ID at any point in the interest of performing your duties. To require someone to provide ID, you have to have reasonable suspicion that their identity is germane to your duties.

Jaden

a reply to: milkyway12

oh ok so iow, you lie and make up # to justify your illegal searches and seizures, way to illustrate your case...

guys like you that have been entrusted with the authority we've given them make me sick.

Jaden

a reply to: nighthawk1954
People might be surprised just how ignorant a lot of cops are
of the rights of citizens.

Rebel 5