Told by police that being outside at night is probable cause to pull me over and question/weapons ch

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Uhm... ok. Everything you stated made absolutely no sense in terms of what my job is, and how I do it. I fail to understand your anger towards law enforcement, when its very apparent your grief is with the Government itself. Everything we do is based on laws that are passed, not by us, but by the government.

Take it up with them and get it changed.

As a side note, The Patriot Act has nothing to do with my job at the state local level.

Please do more research before posting please. While I have no issues with people challenging authority / Government, most of what you replied with is incorrect.

Never meant to challenging authority or government, since BOTH are MY power. Can you remember this component-

By the consent of the PEOPLE! Hmmmm, seems to ME that the people are righteously getting PISSED!

The only state that has taken to the polls about federal mandates has RULED against the feds 71% to 29%. Tell me oh enforcer of statutes, when the people tell you to arrest your masters, who the FRELL are you going to listen to?

Please, do YOU actually think, that the asshats that hired you are your bosses? Tell me, what OATH have you sworn to? The oath of the slave, or the oath to protect and to serve those that are your true bosses?

Policy and rules, the ONLY policy you should be following is the DAMN Constitution!

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by vasaga
To the people saying they're just doing their job, I'll just leave this here.. What you do with it is up to you..

*Youtube video*

Ughh.. While I appriciate the sentiment of the video, I take exception to it. Law Enforcement Officers take an oath to protect and preserve the constitution of the United States, as well as the Constituion of the State they work in.

Ya.. And at the same time they make up laws and excuses on the spot to try and arrest you. They're not here to protect and to serve the people anymore. They're here to protect the system and the corporations, just like the government is doing, and most of the time they don't even know it.

I am not cmoing for anyone, whether it be communist, capiatalist or what have you.

So you are one.. Not surprising considering your reaction.. Please do yourself a favor and wake up.. Maybe this will do something for you. Do with it what you will. You can skip to 3:20 if you want the relevant part, or you can just watch the whole thing if you're up to it.

Here is a thought though, so take it for what it is worth. People need to stop complaining abuut what the Police do. We do not make any laws, we just enforce the ones that "you" have elected to represent your intrests have created. If you do not like a particular law, then take part in the process and have the law changed.

Uhm.. Many laws are created that none of us elected. In most cases, it does not matter what you vote for, the direction they're going is still the same. See how Obama and Bush basically made no difference at all? And if you think it did, you should look at the facts. We don't vote for particular laws. This whole voting thing is an illusion...

Only you have the ability to effect change with our Government here in the US. Get out and Vote - quit being apathetic followed up with thigs will never change, so why try.

No offense, but you are part of the problem. Things can easily change, but they won't change because people like you think they can't, while they can. And you're asking me to vote? I don't do that, and I have my reasons, but you probably won't understand, so I won't bother explaining. You will find out when you're ready.

Complaining with no action taken is nothing more than complaining - Do something about it. The majority of the cities, counties and state governments, as well as the Federal Government have process in place for citizens to create bills / laws with a sponsor.

If you try to speak out in public, you get thrown in jail. Don't believe me? Here's an example:



This is in Canada, but, if you think you think the US or UK is any different, you're mistaken. There enough examples in those countries as well. Even in The Netherlands (where I live) it's the same story.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Margaret Mead

Nice quote, and I agree, but I think it's kind of ironic coming from you, after stating that people should not be "apathetic followed up with things will never change ".

I can only tell you one thing.. Do your own research and stop following what you're being told.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by vasaga]

Someone stated "mindset", and as far as that goes, I get concerned when some person wants to rifle through my pockets, armed, and find out who I am.
And, there I am setting there looking at a piece of tin-foil that reads akin to "Mr./Ms. X".

No, I don't trust many, let alone someone walking around with a gun, and a piece of shield, that I find amusing is a 'protection' gamble...

There is such a thing as being too paranoid, especially to the exent some of you go - seeing conspiracies in everything.

To endisnighe
You are mistaking Law Enforcement for Government. I get my authority from the consent of the people, which means you, me and everyone else I serve and protect, enforcing laws that you and the rest of the people put into place.

If someone told me to arrest someone, I would tell them the same thing I would tell you - Whats going on? Give me information and I will look into it, if it is a criminal offense. My investigation at that point would be derived from your information, and not mine. I have given the presiding county comissioner a citation for having expired plates. I would have no issues arresting anyone if a crime occured, going all the way up to the mayor of my city.

As far as the consitution goes, please read it again. Anything that is not specifically laid out for sole use by the Federal Government, is reserved for the states. Like I said, we have dual citizenship - Sate and Country, hence my oath to defend both.

again, I suggest to excersize common sense, partake in the process and make the changes.

To vasaga
I am not sure why you lump all law enforcement into your evil view outlook. I have consitantly stated people need to get involved in Government, or things wont change. If you are referring to my other comment about citing court cases to officers, I stand by that stattement that it would do no good telling an officer about it, because we have nothing to do with Judicial. Arguing with a police officer road side about case law would be no better than arguing with a judge about when I can use my sidearm. They have nothing to do wih each other.

I am part of the problem? Please re-read the text of mine you highlighted. I have made several suggestions for people to take part in Government to make changes, just like I do (I vote). The argument countering what I typed, then ending it with I have my own reasons doesn't help your cause in anyway. Explain to us why you are refusing to vote? And you should know, by not voting you are also part of the problem.

Arrested for speaking out, then showing a video of an incident in Canada.. Hmmm ok. I dont work there, I work in the United States. People are free to protest and speak out all they want. There is a right and wrong way to do that. Obstructin a public right of way (street) is usually what we have issues with, in addition to those who want to break into stores and oher issues during protests. We also hav issues with people fighting in public during protests. So while you can think they are being arrested for speaking their mind, in actuality it stems from other criminal offenses

Ok - Voting - Bush and Obama. For starters we do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative republic. You vote for who you want to represent you (House) and your state (Senate) in the best possible manner.

Nothing changed form Bush to Obama - No kidding. They have no power to do what what we are talking about here. The President oversees foriegn policy and acts as our head of state and leader of our country.

Congress is responsible for passing laws, and the day to day running of this country, Not the President.

As far as the quote goes, I have many more I like. Am I am Police Officer - Yes I am. Am I one that is being described by most of the posts.. I am not. I firmly beleive in citizen government, as well as the individual right to bear arms.

An armed population are called citizens. An unarmed population are called subjects.

I know what my job is, and how the laws work.

I took an oath to protect and preserve the constitution of my state and that of the United States. To serve and protect the people who gave me the authorty. Those same people can take it away by voting and putting people in positions to effect the change some of you want.

The people who are part of the problem are the ones who complain yet do absolutely nothing to change the situation. I do my research, and deal with this on a daily basis in addition to actively taking part in the process. Its the only way to keep the Government in check and to ensure the citizens remain in control.

I am not real sure what it is you exactly want here.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Out of curiosity you do understand that as a Citizen of the United States that you hold dual citizenship? You are a citizen of the State you reside in, as well as being a Citizen of the United States of America.

People who are complaining about a National ID card, try to look at it this way. The Federal Government already has access to your state information (DL, address, etc) just as local law enforcement having access to some of your Federal information. All this is, to boil it down, is an Id card for being a US Citizen.

When I do a traffic stop and run someone, it goes through our local wants (warrants), then hits the State Database, then hits the Federal (NCIC), and depending on agency it can also check Interpol warrants, Mexican legal and Canadian legal for their warrants.

You have a drivers license, and get get a State ID if you do not want to drive and need ID. You are not required to get an ID at the state level. From what I have read, and it may have changed since its been some time, you also can decide not to get a Federal ID.

Is it possible to have collected information be used inappropriately? Yup, and again this is where participation in government comes in.

chuckle yes i do understand that State and Federal but i never heard that you have to to lose your Home State Citizenship for living in another State I guess when you go to the DMV and eventually have to get a Drivers License in the State your Living In .. and you dont even know it ..

but do you know on the Reservation of Akwesasne your Automatically
Dual Citizenship in both nations ! it has been disputed many times with the Treaty Canada and United States Of America
and they are allowed do cross Freely as Akwesasne is right in the Middle
as the Canadian side mostly have the Problem with it

Akwesasne
en.wikipedia.org...

Akwesasne Homeland Insecurity
www.akwesasne.ca...

Me Im not Duel I wasn't Born or raised on the reservation I could tho
Im 1/3rd Mohawk and Cree and I have Relations on both sides of the Boarder


and for the ID Card as you said Drivers License should me more Enough

I consider the ID CARD like the Papers you would have to show to a guy dressed in a Gray or Black Uniform or Green Uniform with some Arm Band or Badge and your Sweating & praying that they are in Order & and not mistaken for someone else's or Pray its Functioning Correctly and Hoping they don't Check you over thinking your a Jew/Illegal wait that happened in Nazi Germany and it looks like the Same Cookie Pattern is repeating
Well Israel is doing now They are doing the same BS what was done to them back in Nazi Germany

and of Course you can check the whole history of someone There whole life is recorded thanks to the NSA

State ID National ID Federal ID WOW
Soon a Retna scan, Dna Scan or a Chip Implant will be next and how will they do that hmmm Ever Heard story of how to catch wild pigs ?

but what if your Duel Citizen ? and the Problem like the Reservation that is Between the Boarders ? what then ? You know that when your on the Reservation and your Native There is no Boarders Within the Reservation !
go Look up St Regis and Snye ... but non native's have go to Customs
before they can get into St Regis or Snye






[edit on 6-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by Xcathdra


you Answer here ..

about rights defending your land and Law enforcement.. Harassment..

here is something for you to Learn about


The Mohawk Warrior Society
The Reservations Personal National Guard both State and Canadian
Protecting Homeland Security since 1492 well officially last century or since Champlain invaded ...

en.wikipedia.org...
Oka Crisis

Reason non native Canadians were trying to make a Golf Course out of a Sacred Burial Ground ! the Akwsasne on the American Side was involved in the Crisis Dont Mess with Native American (Indian ) Burial Ground!


The Full Documentary
video.google.com...#

Mark Maracle speaks at the 2009 AIM Fall Conference (pt 1 of 2)


The Warriors and the French Canadian Army


Thanks for watching ...



[edit on 6-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by Xcathdra
To vasaga
I am not sure why you lump all law enforcement into your evil view outlook.

It's simple really. They do what they are told. I'm not against individuals, so don't take it personal, but I am against the way certain organizations go about.

I have consitantly stated people need to get involved in Government, or things wont change. If you are referring to my other comment about citing court cases to officers, I stand by that stattement that it would do no good telling an officer about it, because we have nothing to do with Judicial. Arguing with a police officer road side about case law would be no better than arguing with a judge about when I can use my sidearm. They have nothing to do wih each other.

But you are the ones performing it. You still have the power to stop performing the nonsense they tell you to. As an example, terrorism is performed to increase security. Terrorism is not "out there". It's being caused. HOw many countries have we bombarded because of "weapons of mass destruction" that have never been found? And yeah, real smart, lets throw bombs on the place that has bombs to stop bombing...

I am part of the problem? Please re-read the text of mine you highlighted. I have made several suggestions for people to take part in Government to make changes, just like I do (I vote). The argument countering what I typed, then ending it with I have my own reasons doesn't help your cause in anyway. Explain to us why you are refusing to vote? And you should know, by not voting you are also part of the problem.

No.. By not voting I am part of the solution. Why? Because I refuse to say yes to something that is not what I want. When voting, there's always a huge part that you don't agree with, but, people vote anyway to not let the other side win. They are always choosing for the "lesser evil". How about not choosing for evil at all? This goes very deep.. It starts with our money system. If you start from there, trace it to the government, then you'll see why voting is useless and why we are nothing more than slaves being harvested. Do you know where money comes from?

Arrested for speaking out, then showing a video of an incident in Canada.. Hmmm ok. I dont work there, I work in the United States. People are free to protest and speak out all they want.

I knew this answer was coming.. This is a global problem, not a Canada problem.

There is a right and wrong way to do that. Obstructin a public right of way (street) is usually what we have issues with, in addition to those who want to break into stores and oher issues during protests. We also hav issues with people fighting in public during protests. So while you can think they are being arrested for speaking their mind, in actuality it stems from other criminal offenses

You don't get it do you? If you ask what you're being arrested for, that's already seen as "resisting arrest", which is seen as a criminal offense, and that will get you in jail for no apparent reason.

Ok - Voting - Bush and Obama. For starters we do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative republic. You vote for who you want to represent you (House) and your state (Senate) in the best possible manner.

Nothing changed form Bush to Obama - No kidding. They have no power to do what what we are talking about here. The President oversees foriegn policy and acts as our head of state and leader of our country.

Congress is responsible for passing laws, and the day to day running of this country, Not the President.

So you are agreeing that they can invent any law they want without people choosing for it.

As far as the quote goes, I have many more I like. Am I am Police Officer - Yes I am. Am I one that is being described by most of the posts.. I am not. I firmly beleive in citizen government, as well as the individual right to bear arms.

An armed population are called citizens. An unarmed population are called subjects.

I know what my job is, and how the laws work.

I took an oath to protect and preserve the constitution of my state and that of the United States. To serve and protect the people who gave me the authorty.

Who gave you the authority? The people? After being manipulated into thinking "terrorists" that want to kill everyone for fun did it?

Those same people can take it away by voting and putting people in positions to effect the change some of you want.

The people who are part of the problem are the ones who complain yet do absolutely nothing to change the situation. I do my research, and deal with this on a daily basis in addition to actively taking part in the process. Its the only way to keep the Government in check and to ensure the citizens remain in control.

I am not real sure what it is you exactly want here.

I'm trying to let you understand that taking part in the whole game they are playing is not the way to get what you want. It will still be their game. The only way to do that, is to step out of their game, and play or make your own game. We as people need to do that. I'm not trying to say all cops are bad. I'm sure most of them are trying to do the right thing, but, just like girls are being manipulated into thinking they are only beautiful when they are skinny and half-naked, cops and military etc have been manipulated into thinking that what they are doing is the right thing.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by vasaga]

reply to post by whatukno



whatukno said..

You also have to understand the typical ATS member's mindset as far as how they think that police work.........

come live in my Area and Look Native American
if that what what you think !

ATS Mindset lol

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by vasaga


the Video you posted at the beginning is what is below
for anyone want some more Info

Border patrol alleged to have beat up and tazed pastor, smashed his car, on US soil, because he insisted on 4th Amendment rights


CNN Report On Arizona Pastor Tazering By Border Patrol Check Point


In the Future, Everyone Will Be Tazed for Fifteen Minutes (CBS)


we can learn alot from this video Enjoy

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters


Xcathdra go to 21.50 Showing the ID is this True ?


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by Xcathdra

ooook... You are missing some key points, and I am not sure how to explain this anymore than I have. If something looks suspicious, law enforcement can check into it, wheter its someone walking down the street at 3 am, or riding a bicycle late at night.

Oooookay...you are missing some key points, and I am not sure how to explain this any clearer than I have. If someone looks suspicious is the key point. Riding a bicycle at 10pm at night is not a suspicious act. It is certainly not a crime. There has to be compelling evidence other than the time of day to justify the stop.

Based on your arguments above, if I observe someone riding their bicycle with a rifle slung over there shoulders, wearing a ski mask, riding back and forth in front of a bank, I cannot stop and see what they are doing?

Here is where you not only lack common sense, you are willfully misrepresenting the truth of my argument, and that makes you a dangerous police officer. I clearly supported the Terry ruling, of which there were far less exigent circumstances than the one you just described, and yet I said, in no uncertain terms that common sense supported what that detective did in that instance. Common sense would also tell you that the O.P. was not riding his bicycle with a rifle slung over his shoulder, wearing a ski mask, riding back and forth in front of a bank. Your willingness to lie is deeply troubling, given that you are a police officer. Do you lie under oath as well?

The terminology used is totality of circumstances. I am very well aquainted with the 4th amendment, and what I can and cannot do as a Police Officer.

I am well aware of the 4th Amendment and what an LEO can do as well, and the reason the police officer gave the O.P. for pulling him over was not reasonable suspicion.

An officer is empowered to investigate anything that looks suspicious, and Terry Vs. Ohio established part of that with stop and frisk was allowed by the courts ruling.

The Terry ruling also established that a an officer must show compelling evidence that reasonable suspicion existed. Obviously, with your willingness to misrepresent the truth, you would attempt to lie and create some set of circumstances in the O.P.'s case in an attempt to convince a judge, but a good attorney will catch you at your lies and you will have a problem.

How many people ride their bikes at 10pm at night in the OP's town? Was the area the op was riding his bike in heavily patrolled because of crime? Also you will need to see what the ordinaces are concerning riding bikes at night. Some require reflectors, some require headlights, and if you are riding on a public street some places require yu have the pedal restraints for your feet to fit in.

It is irrelevant how many people ride their bikes at 10pm in that town. The 4th Amendment applies to the minority just as much as it applies to the majority. A heavily patrolled area because of crime is not enough to make a person reasonably suspicious. I have all ready presented ordinances for as did the O.P. and both instances there were no ordinances to support the police officers contention that the O.P. was committing a crime, that being riding his bicycle on the sidewalk. You have obviously not bothered to carefully read the O.P.'s story with these questions you are asking, and if you can't be bothered to actually read this thread, why should anyone believe that as a police officer you can be bothered to actually be bothered to pay attention to the facts out there in the streets?

Its alsp possible the officers were conducting Field Interview REports. Basic information is collected on the off chance crime has occured in the area.

The police officer that pulled over the O.P. did not relay any such information, as opposed to the Hiibel case where the Humboldt county deputy Sheriff did.

For an entire week in my city I observed 3 young guys (18-19) walking around the neighborhoods. The first few days I noted it in my log, but made no contact. Towards the end of the week, I made contact with them and asked what they were doing. I explained I have seen them a few times that week, at night (usually around 1:30 - 3:30AM) riding around neighborhoods. I requested their names and DOB's and did a Field interview report. A few days later we had a 1st degree burglary occur (house breakin with people present in the house other than the suspects). A subsequent investigation found the people who did the break in were the people I checked on.

This has nothing to do with the O.P. circumstances and comparing apples to oranges does not justify acting under color of law.

Excert from the ruling (Terry Vs. Ohio) (c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions

Excerpt from Terry v. Ohio that clearly explains the circumstances in which that officer was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct:

A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names.

Terry v Ohio

If you cannot differentiate between the circumstances of that case and that of the O.P.'s circumstances then you are in no position to lecture other people about exercising common sense.

I still think I am going to listen to a law professor, a distinguished LEO and the supreme court justice I sited earlier.

What do you think JPZ, use something that has PROVEN to be effective or should I listen to the officer?

I mean, I think I have heard that a LEO can LIE to anyone they want. Was I wrong in that assumption? Or can they REALLY lie?

I think I am right, I will keep my mouth SHUT and ask for assistance from a counselor.

Anyway, a supreme court justice or a LEO and WUK, hmmmmm, tough question!

reply to post by endisnighe


As demonstrated right here in this thread police officers will gladly misrepresent the truth in order to defend their actions of color of law. It is indeed deeply troubling and very disappointing.

There is also a smugness and condescending attitude demonstrated in this thread by government officials that only they understand the law. As was also demonstrated, they will dismiss any citations of case law that we the people point to and then they themselves turn around and cite case law that has no relevance to support their own personal bias as an excuse to act under color of law.

Further, where that particular officer claims that he would investigate any crime you or someone else told him about, I would suggest not bothering to go down that road, as it was clear by his own language that he would make the determination of whether or not the claim had any validity. If a government official, such as the mayor is guilty of a crime, it is best to then make a verified oath:

A verified petition is a formal written request to a court for an order of the court (1) under oath taken before a notary public or other officer authorized to take affidavits and to administer oaths or (2) under a declaration stating in substance "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct" and further stating the date and place of execution. Verification, in the legal context, refers to a declaration under oath or upon penalty of perjury that a statement or pleading is true. The verification is located at the end of a document. False information given in a verified legal pleading is subject to penalties for perjury.

Such an oath would force an LEO to investigate and act upon that verified oath according to their mandate, and they cannot rely upon their own discretion to decide whether or not such an oath has any validity.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am going to laugh about it, because if I think that is the way officers of the court are trained, I would cry. Anyway, yes they seem to be smug-



SMUG ALERT!

I am a sovereign individual, I have the rights bestowed upon me by my very existence. I do not acqire them from being a citizen, I acquire them from being HUMAN.

I use to think about what you said about illegals, I do agree, but once they break the law, all else means nothing.

Now, the LAW I am talking about is harm or the infringement component. If an illegal could exist here without breaking any true criminal offense, I would give them a pass.

Later, my friend.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Cool videos. I'll throw some more out there..





Amazing in the 2nd one how they really don't know what to do, but they keep increasing in numbers.. Also, it's very interesting that corporations are allowed to wear a police uniform on their private property. So for all you know, it might not be an officer at all.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Yeah that would be an issue. Although it shows the officer speaking to dispatch, it doesnt cleary show if the officer was dispatched and notifing dispatch of their arrival, or if it was a self initiated call, and he was letting dispatch know what they were doing.

If it was called in by someone else, then the officers are required to at the very least check to see whats going on. The extent they went in the video is wrong, but that comes from the type of video it is and the reason behind the video, which is to "show" people from a lawyers view what can happen.





[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

reply to post by vasaga




Those are not US style Law Enforcement uniforms or insignias.. I am asuming that is from Britain?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wow.. Really not even sure how to speak with you. You appear so paranoid about Law Enforcement its not even funny. Think what you want, and see where it takes you.

I know what the Law says, and how its enforced in my state. Your interpretations are so far off its sad, so I am not going to try to explain anything else. You hve your mind made up already.

Good luck to you.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Wow.. Really not even sure how to speak with you. You appear so paranoid about Law Enforcement its not even funny. Think what you want, and see where it takes you.

I know what the Law says, and how its enforced in my state. Your interpretations are so far off its sad, so I am not going to try to explain anything else. You hve your mind made up already.

Good luck to you.

Paranoid? You were flat out caught in your lie. You ignored all I said in support of the Terry ruling and then claimed that I was arguing that an LEO couldn't pull over a bicycle rider with a rifle slung over his shoulder, wearing a ski mask and riding back and forth in front of a bank. This was a lie perpetuated by you, and you are on record here in this thread as lying. That is not paranoia, that is a fact.

Your interpretations of the law is what is a great concern here, because it is your interpretations that justify acting under color of law and obstruction of justice, and demonstrate the very thin blue line between thugs and police officers. Not all police officers are thugs, your insistence you have the right to be a thug represents you, not all police officers, just you.

Good luck to you, you will need it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by vasaga

 

Those are not US style Law Enforcement uniforms or insignias.. I am asuming that is from Britain?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

Yes that is the UK =) But, Wolfenz has already provided you with some US examples. We've covered Canada, US and UK. You need to understand, that this is a global issue, and not a local issue. The whole globe is on the watch for terrorism stuff because of propaganda, and all the authorities are enforcing almost the same laws, and acting in almost the same way. You can say "it happens in those countries but not in mine", but that's denial I think. There are good ones out there, and I know that they do risk their lives in certain situations, however, it is not ok harass people BEFORE committing any crime, and that's happening everywhere, and nothing is being done about it, except for the people who are going out there and trying to expose that this is happening.

reply to post by vasaga


Some fair valid points. I am not a fan of "globalization of laws". I am a firm believer in national soviergnty, and rule by the consent of the people. The intermingeling of Laws has occured between the Us and the UK, and that stems from our legal system coming from theirs (except Louisiana, not sure what there deal is lol).

Trying to balance civil rights against protecting society is a very tough issue. As Law Enforcement, we strive to be firm but fair, operating within the laws established. In my state, with the many laws on the books, I am only required to act on 2 - Confirming an active warrant and arresting, and beleive it or not, issuing a citation if a driver cannot provide valid proof of insurance (although if they have it, they can present it to the PA and the ticket is dismissed).

Everything else we do is discretionary. The courts have acknowledged that fact, but have stated we need to be consistent in how we do our jobs, and for the most part, each officer develops their way of doing things that complys with that suggestion by the judicial.

The arguments presented in this thread raise some intresting questions that neither I, nor any other people in this thread, will find common ground on. This is based on training, application, knowledge and experiences of each person.

Do Officers have the ability to stop someone on a bicycle riding down the street to see what they are doing without violating that persons consiturional rights - Yup, although people will disgree.

Without more information provided we will continue to argue in circles with each other because we see it from different angles.


To answer an allegation made - I did not ignore anything from Terry Vs. Ohio. I pointed out that the court case in addition to establishing a terry frisk, upheld that suspicious behavior observed by an officer was jsutification to stop and see what was going on. It also upheld the ability of an officer to pat a person down for officer safety reasons. You need to clearly articulate what your prolbme is with the action taken, and explain clealy how his civil rights were violated, including his 4th amendments rights, and how terry vs. ohio applies to him in the essence somethin was done wrong by law enforcement.

If I randomly stop someone not in a vehicle (voluntary contact) and talk to them, I am under no obligation to tell the person they are free to leave. They are free to ask that question, and I have to tell them yes they can leave, but I dont have to offer that. If you dont care for that, that is not my problem. Arguing about it doesnt change the fact it can be done, and arguing about it doesnt change the law. Take your argument to the Supreme Court, when you find legal standing, and when ou have taken it through the court system.

Can Law Enforcement Lie to the public? We sure can, and that has been upheld by the court. Where we cannot lie is in our reports, or our court room testimony. Can citizens lie to the Police without getting in trouble - For the most part yes. We cannot make up reasons to stop people. We cannot make up Laws to charge people.

Both parties, Law Enforcement and Private Citizen can both be held accountible for lieing during certain portions of enforcement action and cooperation / investigations. I have never lied in a report, nor have I ever lied on the stand. I am a bit tired of continually being lumped into that paranoid category others persist with. You dont know me, and you have never dealt with me in an offical capacity - so stop judging me. Glass walls break failry easy.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]