Anti_Government Man and Son kill police in shootout

Oh the anti cop bandwagon rolls on!

I don't know what kind of cops y'all have been dealing with, but nearly every cop I have met has just been someone trying to do a job. (sure, there were a couple of jerks, but overall they have been nice professional people) But I guess that's the nature of the board here right? Anyone in authority must be an evil automaton trying to make sure you are "kept under the gubermints thumb".

Maybe, just maybe, if you all acted in a civil manner to the cops the next time you were stopped, you would receive a nice pleasant reaction from that diabolical evil police officer in return.

I would rant on, but it's pointless on this board, many people here are so insane with idiocy that it's pointless to try and use reason.

reply to post by whatukno


The guys running the gas chambers were just "someone trying to do a job"

Just like IRS agents that will come into your home if you don't pay half your paycheck to the bankers.

Hey, they are just trying to do their job.

"Just doing your job" isn't good enough.

Police are sworn to the Constitution first, the laws second.

They have a responsibility to protect and serve - AND uphold the constitution.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Again you are still confusing the two. Searching in your pockets, contents or vehicle is illegal without consent or probable cause.

A frisk or pat down is legal and is called a Terry Search and was established during the Terry vs Ohio case before the supreme court. The frisk is when the offer feels for weapons without going into pockets or your personal belongings. If an officer goes into your pockets without reasonable cause that what he feels is a weapon, then it would be considered illegal.

This is a law that protects officers from potential weapons a suspect may be carrying.

Frisking (also called a patdown or pat down) is a search of a person's outer clothing wherein a police officer or other law enforcement agent runs his or her hands along the outer garments to detect any concealed weapons In the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States held that police have the authority to do a limited search for weapons based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and dangerous".

The authority to briefly detain a person upon reasonable suspicion less than probable cause has become known as a Terry stop; when a search for weapons is also authorized, the procedure is known as a stop and frisk. To justify the stop, a law enforcement officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

If the officer reasonably suspects that the suspect is in possession of a weapon that is of danger to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a patdown of the suspect's outer garments to search for weapons. Pursuant to the "plain feel" doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband's identity is immediately apparent at the time of the frisk.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by zarlaan]