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

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, you are correct. However the supreme court has ruled pretty clearly that states have some leeway when it comes to how they govern themselves. Some states have ruled certain types of stops (e.g. DUI Checkpoints, Man Hunts etc) are legal, others have ruled they are illegal. The supreme court upheld both sides. So if you think DUI checkpoints are illegal, you better check with your state and local laws because chances are, in most states, you are wrong.

This guy kept asking the question "Am I being detained" which does not apply to his situation. Check IL state law. Road Side Safety Checks and DUI Checkpoints are both LEGAL and are considered TRAFFIC STOPS. By definition all rules which apply to being pulled over apply to these stops. It is obvious that IL is an extremely leftist state who likes to legalize these types of rights violations. The supreme court has told them they are in the clear, so this guy has no idea what he is doing when he is asking "Am I being detained", other than just being an ignorant dick. The officer started off in a fine mood, and the guy just kept asking the question over and over again, when it has no application to his situation.

If that guy doesn't like the laws of IL, he should probably move. That's the beauty of the USA. Alaska is a good choice, all random checkpoints are illegal there.

a reply to: nighthawk1954


The driver's attitude was the cause of that confrontation..... Who in their right mind would ask a cop if they were being detained immediately after being approached by said cop?

In my view it's someone trying to prove something. In this case all he did was prove what a fool he is....

a reply to: eNaR

Exactly, all he did was prove that he has no idea what the laws are in his state. The office seemed quite sure and if you do even 5 minutes of research on IL state laws you can find out that the officer was correct and the guy in the car was just a moron who probably watched some stupid "how to act at stops" on infowars...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: eNaR

Exactly, all he did was prove that he has no idea what the laws are in his state. The office seemed quite sure and if you do even 5 minutes of research on IL state laws you can find out that the officer was correct and the guy in the car was just a moron who probably watched some stupid "how to act at stops" on infowars...

Those how to act at stops videos are from youtube.

What has infowars got to do with it?

Some people will try and use any excuse to spread crap about Alex Jones. Makes me think that what hes says carries some weight.

a reply to: Masterjaden

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. State drivers licenses are issued by the state. Hence government. Stop talking

a reply to: smithjustinb
well now I'm more informed about rights, so thanks for that. However, you are still wrong about driving being a right. It is not a right, it is a privilege no matter how bad you want it to be a right.

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: smithjustinb
well now I'm more informed about rights, so thanks for that. However, you are still wrong about driving being a right. It is not a right, it is a privilege no matter how bad you want it to be a right.

Traveling on the common way IS a right. Unfortunately when you accept a Driver's License from the state, you have given up your right to travel for the privilege of driving. In doing this you have given the state the permission to lay on you any BS codes & regs they feel like creating. You have voluntarily accepted their control over your locomotion.

a reply to: mal1970

Travelling is a right, driving is not. Driving without a license is illegal so it's not like you can choose to not get a DL and be in the clear...

Are there really debates going on regarding whether or not driving is a privilege or a right?


I lost mine a couple weeks ago, but on my IL license I think I remember seeing some text that stated that the ID was property of the state. With that being said, wouldn't that make any activities you participate in that legally require the use of that license (such as driving) ones that you are simply being permitted to do, as opposed to entitled to (which would make it a right)?

And although I do not agree with how that LEO acted when pulling the door open and yelling like that, I will say that the guy in the car seemed like he didn't really know what he was talking about, and since those checkpoints are legal and announced ahead of time, I feel like he could have truly avoided it if it were such an issue. But that is just my $.02

I am in now way a lawyer or scholar of the law, so even this confuses me a little regarding the legality and constitutionality of these DUI checkpoints, so I will withhold such judgement.

originally posted by: MrJack

I am in now way a lawyer or scholar of the law, so even this confuses me a little regarding the legality and constitutionality of these , so I will withhold such judgement.

DUI checkpoints are very unconstitutional...

-The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

EXACTLY it's ASININE to pick a FIGHT here. Just SHOW your CREDS and MOVE on GEEZE.
Search ? NO.
DETAIN? no.

a reply to: mal1970
I definitely agree with you on that one. Traveling is a right, but driving is not; and I think it is stupid that we as citizens make decisions like getting a drivers licence because of mere convenience and because it seems to be the norm. We sure love to give or trade our rights away.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement
I'm aware of that now and thank you for the detailed info.

a reply to: imitator

Nope, sorry. And the SCOTUS disagrees with you. They have deemed DUI and Road Safety Checkpoints to be perfectly legal unless specifically made illegal by the state.

I absolutely think it is a violation of rights. However, the law is the law. And the law says it isn't.

SCOTUS determined that by stopping someone from driving their travel is not being impeded, as they can choose other modes of transportation. Driving is a privilege, not a right, as determined by the highest court in the country.

What is it with you yanks and being so goddamn difficult in any and every simple situation that involves police officers. Every one of these videos, which are becoming more common, the police ask to see papers (ahhh my FREEDOMS!!) and people flip out with this "am I being detained" (a crowd favourite) crap. Just show the man your license so he can do his job... it's just youtube culture and everyone wants to poke them enough to make them flip out so they can post it online and say "woah this guy just went off on me for NO reason!!!". I'd understand this bloke lost it and ripped his door open from the get-go but I'd probably lose my cool over someone being such a pain in the ass aswell.

a reply to: Zehll

I haven't tallied up the yes vs no people here but I think the majority of americans on this thread believe they can do whatever they want and get away with it. They think cops are nothing but security guards and don't have any authority to stop you, ask you for your ID or ask you a question. They can drive through road blocks, flip off cops, yell at cops, challenge cops, drive without a license or insurance, be disrespectful or plead the 5th at a traffic stop. Am I missing anything?

Mind blowing.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: nighthawk1954

See the "good cop" behind him, doing nothing. This guys in a rage for no reason yet the others just let him be.

America, land of the Police State. When they say jump, you say how high.

You really hit on one of the bigger issues we're facing with law enforcement.

Sure there's bad apples, there's bad apples in every profession and every walk of life. However, the so called "good apples" or good cops, just stand by and let this criminal behavior continue, much of it behavior that if you or I were seen doing something similar would see us locked up behind bars.

Good cops want to protect. Well, here's an idea, how about starting with protecting law abiding citizens from the criminals you call brothers in arms.

The fact that the many (not all) of the good cops stand by until the s#!t gets too thick. Like the Oklahoma troopers raping and sexually assaulting females they stop. Their shenanigans are not easily hid and eventually cause those really bad apples to be throw out (we hope). Like an open wound hemorrhaging, it's the only time we see bad cops get booted.

There are plenty of other things bad cops do and get away with that the good cops simply look the other way.

a reply to: raymundoko


Not entirely true, The Fourth Amendment considers DUI checkpoints unconstitutional.

SCOTUS basically leaves this for the state to decide... A state who conducts DUI checkpoints will be in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, they are forcing drivers to participate in unconstitutional search and seizures. Thus one can obtain legal representation and challenge the constitutionality if arrested at a check point and get their charges dismissed.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Zehll
Am I missing anything?

If you are, it certainly isn't grandiose hyperbole.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Zehll

I haven't tallied up the yes vs no people here but I think the majority of americans on this thread believe they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

Well, actually, we can, as long as it's not unlawful.

They think cops are nothing but security guards and don't have any authority to stop you,

You don't, as long as my activity is lawful. eta: You also don't if you're out of your jurisdiction, or if you are trying to issue an unlawful order. I've had both of those tried on me by cops, btw. The unlawful order one looked us in the eye and said "I'm the law, and I'm giving you an order, so it's a lawful order". He made the argument that that's how he was trained at the police academy. It's not true. "Lawful order" is very tightly scoped. In that case, the city caved within hours of being notified that there was a 13th amendment civil rights violation on the way. You can't make me pick up garbage. Trust me on that one.

ask you for your ID or ask you a question.

You don't, unless it's a stop and identify state. 24/50, you can. 26/50, you can't.

Or, as Supreme Court justice Byron White said, you can ask, but you can't require an answer.

They can drive through road blocks,

Nope, that gets really negative attention. However, may I add a suggestion? I DID drive through one once. I drove up, stopped, and the cops all walked off. I was left there stopped with no one at the window. They were all back on the road shoulder yukking it up. So I drove through slowly after about 30 seconds. They pitched a fit - if you walk off, how the # am I to know what you want? The staties down the road running a similar block had it down to a science. The locals, not so much.

If you run a grabastic road block, you get random results. Just sayin'.

flip off cops

John Swartz (citizen) vs Richard Insogna (cop)
Not only did the court dismiss Insogna's charges, they also removed his qualified immunity for the countersuit, Insogna arrested Swartz for flipping him off. The court was not amused and slapped Insogna into the dirt.

The appeals court deemed his conclusion unreasonable. "Indeed, such a gesture alone cannot establish probable cause to believe a disorderly conduct violation has occurred," court documents read.

Swartz's lawyer, Elmer Robert Keach III, praised the court's decision, calling it an "important victory for civil rights."

"It reaffirms that just because you insult a police officer doesn't give that police officer the right to detain you or arrest you and take away your liberty," he said.

Or, as Professor Ira Robbins would say: "This Article argues that, although most convictions are ultimately overturned on appeal, the pursuit of criminal sanctions for use of the middle finger infringes on First Amendment rights, violates fundamental principles of criminal justice, wastes valuable judicial resources, and defies good sense. Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently held that speech may not be prohibited simply because some may find it offensive. Criminal law generally aims to protect persons, property, or the state from serious harm, but use of the middle finger simply does not raise these concerns."

So, yep, you can flip off a cop. And as Insogna found out, a reaction on the cop's part might prove financially foolish. Nothing like a nice bankruptcy to change your attitude.

, yell at cops,

While I wouldn't do this, how can a cop yell at me, but I can't yell at a cop? Both are assault. Wait...that's right, the police unions bought off the prosecutor. Never mind.

challenge cops,

Houston v Hill. The law is...yes. I can dispute you. You can't charge with obstruction for me disagreeing. I know the law sucks, but there you go. You purport to enforce it, you have to live with it, too.

drive without a license or insurance,

That's just nuts. Of course you have to have a license and insurance. Heck, I even agree with road stops.

be disrespectful

In all honesty, why SHOULD I respect you? I save that for people I know who deserve it. If by respect you mean fear, forget it. I've been yelled at by the best. You don't rate. Civility, yes. I'll give you that, as I would anyone else, at least at first. I have had an officer go absolutely bat# because I didn't call him sir. Tough.

or plead the 5th at a traffic stop. Am I missing anything?

Mind blowing.

In truth, while I don't know how it works in Vancouver, here, at a traffic stop in 26/50 states, I DON'T have to answer your questions. I most likely would (the guy in the video is a jerk) but where I live, during a Terry stop, I don't have to tell you crap if I don't want to. And if we get into court about it, if you say "He wouldn't answer my questions", you'll get a reprimand from the bench. My not answering you is never grounds for arrest. You either enforce the law, or you're no good. The law says I don't have to answer you unless I'm formally arrested, and at that point all I'm forced to give you is my pedigree info. If you don't like it, tough.

eta: Oh, yeah. If you start telling me how to talk when you're questioning me, you can expect to get bupkes from that point on. I have had cops flip out from me saying # or # or even # during questioning. Not in anger, but just in conversation. We're both adults. I received a #load of training to use the word # for every figure of speech. You guys do too. Don't try to correct me like some constipated granny. I have a real hard time not saying # in casual speech. Hell, I got an award for making it through Networks I without ever uttering the word #. I treasure that trophy. It's up there with my other attaboys.