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

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

Yes, you are paranoid, and it shows in your responses in this thread. I did not lie to anyone. I did not ignore Terry vs. Ohio. I cleary showed that an officer can stop someone based on percieve / observed suspicious behavior. Is someone riding a bicycle down the street at 10 pm suspicious? In a large city I would say no. In a small rural town I would say yes. In the city I work its unusual. Would I stop the person and see what they are doing? It depends on the area of the city they are in, and it depends if they are riding around, or past the same area more than once.

Your argument showed that the person should not have been stopped because he was doing nothing wrong. In the scenario I desscribed, the bicycle, guy wearing skiu mask with rifle - Absolutely nothing I described is technically illegal to do. We have open carry in this state, and no laws against wearing masks in public, or riding your bicycle on a city street. however, the behavior is out of the normal for this area, and appears suspicious, therefore allowing me to at the very least find out what, if anything, is going on.

The USSC has determined the length of investigatory stops, and allows us leaway in doing them. So while you continue to argue for your 4th amendment violations, I once again point out that the 4th amendement does not apply to the individual. It applies to the Government. It forces Law Enforcement to have reasons for their actions.

You also need to understand acting in good faith. This term also covers law enforcement for doing their jobs. When a citizen tells me a crime has been comitted, I am acting in good faith that the citizen is telling the truth. If you are lieing, and it ends up causing an innocent person to be charged with a crime because of that lie, I am covered because I was acting on good faith. This same standard applies to Law Enforcement working with other LEO agencies.

Again, I ask you to state what exactly your problem is and back it up. I ahve no problem countering what you think your interpretations are. What I take exception to is you calling me a liar, then ranting on about stuff that has been established.

Dear ATS,

I failed you and myself last night.

Last night I was riding my bicycle to the store again through my neighborhood (I live in an area that was recently incorporated into a city, it is not rural it is suburban and people are out at night. It's not a place where 'no one is outside at night'. I live by the biggest commerce area in my entire town and the stores are open either 24/7 or until 11 PM.

Last night it was approximately 22:30 and I was pulled over again, this time by an unmarked police car that was parked in my neighborhood by my house. The car was actually turned off and I rode by and then it turned on, I still didn't know it was the police for sure, I thought it might be just a blacked out crown vic because it didn't have anything designating it as police.

Anyway, I hear a voice coming from behind and it says "Pull over your bike!"

and to large male police officers get out, both of them have their hands already on their weapons and they seem like they are angry or something.

One said, "Let me see your ID" and I was intimidated and did so (not going to lie to you ATS). Since one officer had his hand on his baton thing and the other had his hand on his pistol and I was unarmed and combined with how they were talking I was honestly VERY frightened.

I get asked if I've ever been arrested before and say that I have not, and then one of them actually scoffs at me and says "really..." like I'm a liar.

Then the other cop says to the cop who said really, "We have eyes on us." and the demeanor of the entire stop changed completely, they ran my identity and I was let go.

I really believe that last night I almost got the # beat out of me and that if whoever the "eyes" that were on them (I didn't see whoever that cop saw, or maybe he just saw that his partner was about to do bad things and said that so he wouldn't, I don't know) basically saved me from SOMETHING.

Whether it be a false arrest or an ass beating, something was definitely going to happen to me otherwise I can't see why they would say "We have eyes on us." Why should their behavior be different if they have "eyes" on them?

I failed you guys, I was really worried that this was a retribution stop because of the phone call I made. I've never been stopped by an unmarked car that apparently just had cops waiting for me to ride my bike by and pull me over before.

Right now I'm pretty miserable because I faltered and because I was pulled over yet again, this time in the most aggressive manner I have EVER experienced with a police officer.

The whole thing is BS!

I ride on the sidewalk all the time so I'm not obstructing traffic.

If a car gets behind me on the street they could cause an accident trying to go around me.

reply to post by DARKCYDE_CROWLEY


you have no idea man my town NEVER had these problems before it incorporated into a city.

before this # i could ride my bike at 1 in the morning all over the area and no one would care now it's a criminal activity because the new police are choosing to treat it that way

Originally posted by sremmos
reply to post by DARKCYDE_CROWLEY

 

you have no idea man my town NEVER had these problems before it incorporated into a city.

before this # i could ride my bike at 1 in the morning all over the area and no one would care now it's a criminal activity because the new police are choosing to treat it that way

If what you described is happening, in the manner you are describing, then you need to file an IA complaint. Since you provided more info in terms that the area was incorperated into the city, you need to find out what city has jusrisdiction now, and see what the ordinances are for bicycles (Light needed at night, can you ride on sidewalk or must ride in street, etc).

What you are describing is a gross over reaction by Law Enforcement. In this description you gave, I see absolutely no grounds for their actions or behavior, since this has now occured 4 times. once, or twice I can see as LEO beocming fmailiar with new area, and new regulars. Beyond this you start to run into real issues.

File an IA complaint, and I would speak with a lawyer.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

Originally posted by DARKCYDE_CROWLEY
The whole thing is BS!

I ride on the sidewalk all the time so I'm not obstructing traffic.

If a car gets behind me on the street they could cause an accident trying to go around me.

Courts have given people who ride bicycles the ability to ride on a city street instead of sidewalks. Some places have ordinances saying dont ride on sidewalks, some places dont. Depnds on your area.

As far as common sense goes, I would prefer people ride their bike on a sidewalk unless they are the hardcore bicycle people who peddle at 35mph for training lol.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

reply to post by Wolfenz


Interesting information. However, I do not have any jurisdiction on tribal territory as they are considered autonomous and operate soley with the Federal Government (in essence The United States has hundreds of small sovierng nations within it). Does it make up for what happened to the Natives - No sadly. We cannot undoe what has been done.

What we can do is try to learn from past mistakes, from History, and try not to repeat them.

To the OP, I think you're being picked on as retaliation for asserting
your rights.

It is a war your can win, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

While my selfish half wants to encourage you to "take one for the team",
as in gather evidence of harassment and take legal action, my better
half suggests you keep turning the other cheek and let the fun drain
out of it for these LEOs...to great a risk, not enough reward.

My father was a LEO for 26 years, and I've heard many stories of clever tactics he and his peers have used to safely navigate (read; bend) the law
and impose their will.

Good luck.

reply to post by rival


I am going to continue this fight, I won't let myself fail again. Clearly it's not stopping so I'll have more opportunities to film in the near future.

I've installed a light that can be seen from 300 ft on my bicycle as well so that there is no chance that can be used against me in the future. I am going to assert my rights because otherwise I am betraying the men and women who lost their lives to create our nation and spitting on their faces by silently watching our freedoms disappear hoping 'someone else' will fix it for me. I'm going to fix it # this.

reply to post by Xcathdra


From what I understand I only need to have a light on my bicycle if I'm on a highway, but I don't know what the legal definition of a "highway" is. Is the road inside of a suburban home area (residential roads) considered a "highway?"

I don't know and I don't want to make assumptions and be wrong, so I've put a little light on my bike to turn on when I'm on any kind of public road until I get clarification.

Other than that, it is legal to ride bicycles on the sidewalk and I do know which city our police are coming from (called them as well). The only exception is you cannot ride your bicycle on the sidewalk by the mall and specific business districts within that actual city (not mine).

I am not going to go to internal affairs until I have real evidence because I think that's a bad idea, but when I have more evidence I will definitely try to contact them.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by sremmos]

reply to post by sremmos


Without knowing where you live or what road you are on, I could not tell you if it is a highway. I do know, at least in my city, that a "highway" runs through it (State Highway). Inside my city limits its a highway, but it has a different name until you clear city limits.

I would start to document the date, times, location and if possible the officers name when you get stopped. I would recomend you do it after the encounter so you dont get in trouble. The IA complaint, imo, should be filed without waiting. They have already established a pattern of bad behavior, and are now (Based on the info you provided) crossing a line. You can speak with the chief or one of the command staff over uniformed operations and speak to them about whats going on. Depending on how that goes its possible for the supervisor to look into it and speak with the officers.

Either way, start a paper trail.

Also, I am in no way, shape or form offering legal advice, and would suggest you speak to a lawyer to see what they have to say about this.

As a side note, I am finding it unusual for this many incidents to occur in the same city, in the same week, in the same area. Its entirely possible they have labeled it a high crime area with dedicated patrol. It doesnt excuse what they are doing, however there might be a breakdown in communication in the department about the newly annexed portion.

If you dont mind could you send me a pvt message with more detailed information about the incidents. Im not looking for personal identifing info on you. This just doesnt sound right to me.


What is a Policeman


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Xcathdra]

reply to post by Xcathdra

Yes, you are paranoid, and it shows in your responses in this thread. I did not lie to anyone. I did not ignore Terry vs. Ohio.

If you are not lying, then at best, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Indeed, in the post I am replying to you actually quoted me as saying:

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.

And now you respond to that by saying that you did not ignore the Terry ruling. Either you are being artful in you language, i.e. lying, or you just have a problem reading, and comprehending what was written. Either way, this makes you very dangerous as a police officer.

I called you a liar because in an earlier post I made responding to links of Wikipedia articles you posted. One of those Wikipedia links you posted cited Terry v Ohio as authority. I am the one who then actually linked the Terry ruling and broke down what was held. In response to that you said:

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?

However, while I clearly showed that the Terry ruling upheld the 4th Amendment as sacrosanct, I also acknowledged that they supported the detectives actions in that case, and I supported that ruling. Here is what I said:

It was fairly well established in the Terry ruling that there was "reasonable suspicion" and that reasonable suspicion turned out more than reasonable and produced evidence to a crime. Thus, the exclusionary rule in that case did not apply, but the Court makes perfectly clear that just because they held this that doesn't mean that there are not other remedies the people can seek when dealing with police abuse of power.

I have bolded that part that shows I fairly represented the Terry ruling and the detectives justifiable actions in that case, to help you with your little reading problem. I also said this regarding the Terry ruling:

There is a Grand Canyon of difference between the suspicious behavior of the three men described in the Terry Case, and that of the story the O.P. told. Common sense will dictate that detective McFadden was relying on reasonable suspicion indeed, and this has nothing to do with pulling someone over riding their bicycle simply because it is late at night. There is just no comparison, and common sense dictates this.

Once again to help you with your reading comprehension I have bolded my obvious support of what was held in the Terry ruling. I then went on to say this:

Under the circumstances of the Terry case, the SCOTUS is correct, and common sense certainly backs that ruling up. It has nothing at all to do with the O.P. and his case.

This is, in fact, why I am inclined to believe you are lying instead of having a reading problem. I was clear in my language and you write too well to make it plausible that you have a reading comprehension problem. You can call it paranoia all you like, but it was you who said:

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?

But common sense dictates that no reasonable person reading my arguments would come to that conclusion, but you came to that conclusion, didn't you. This suggests you are not a reasonable person, and being a police officer, given your unreasonable nature, and your proclivity towards lying, this in fact, (not paranoia), makes you a dangerous person.

I cleary showed that an officer can stop someone based on percieve / observed suspicious behavior.

No, you did not clearly show this. What you did was link two Wikipedia articles of which then I took the time to quote actual content from those articles, as well as speak to the court rulings cited in one of those articles. I clearly showed that it is reasonable suspicion that was upheld, not simply just a hunch, or as you put it "based on perceive/observed suspicious behavior." It is important to pay attention to your language, versus the language of the court holdings. What is upheld is actual observed suspicious behavior, not the perceived/observed suspicious behavior. If you are a racist your perceptions will then affect your observations. If you are a megalomaniac then this will affect your perceptions. If those perceptions to not hold true, then you are not protected by the court rulings that have granted LEO's leeway in regards to "Terry stops", or "stop and frisks", or even just detaining a person to ask them for identification.

Is someone riding a bicycle down the street at 10 pm suspicious? In a large city I would say no. In a small rural town I would say yes. In the city I work its unusual. Would I stop the person and see what they are doing? It depends on the area of the city they are in, and it depends if they are riding around, or past the same area more than once.

There is nothing wrong with a police officer asking someone in a rural area, or even a large city what they are doing out at a late hour. I spend most of time living in the wee hours of the morning, and will often take walks. This is how I have come to learn the law regarding police officers detaining a person. It used to be that I was too often subjugated to "stop and frisks", simply because of the hour of the morning.

Since I have learned the law, I no longer have a problem with this embarrassing circumstances. Indeed, for me the straw that broke the camels back was when a police officer stopped me in my own neighborhood and called for back-up. Two more police cruisers showed up, all with their lights on, waking up half the neighborhood so that they could witness me being frisked by a police officer. At this point I did not understand the law as I do now, and that embarrassing moment led me to learn the law.

Since that time, I still walk late at night, and still have police officers pull over to find out what I am doing. The difference is, I am never frisked now, I never ever give identification, because of the nature of contract law regarding DMV licenses, of which I fully explain to any police officer who asks for my identification. I do give them my name, and my address, and make clear that I am more than willing to swear a verified oath that I am who I say I am if necessary. I explain I am walking at night because of the nature of my work, and that I have a right to take walks just like people who walk in the day time. I do this politely and respectfully and I have been fortunate enough, for the most part, to deal with reasonable police officers who understand I have not in any way granted them jurisdiction over me, and thus, I am no longer frisked simply because they "perceive" I am suspicious.

There was one time since that camel back broken incident where a police officer did again call for back up, and also believed I was being non-cooperative and combative. I was not being combative and respectfully told him I was challenging the jurisdiction. By the time back up finally arrived, again waking up my neighbors, I had all ready insisted several time that the initial police officer call the Sheriff's and have a deputy come to the scene, as they are the deputy's of the duly elected law enforcement and if anyone had jurisdiction, it would be The Sheriff or one of his deputies.

Once the back up arrived, and now three police officers were on the scene listening to my respectful insistence that I am not required to carry identification by any law just to take a walk in my own neighborhood, one of the police officers who arrived told the initial police officer that I was right. He heard me insisting that a deputy Sheriff should be called, and he kindly told me that this would not be necessary because he believed I was being truthful. He talked to the initial police officer in private, and they both came back and the initial police officer apologized for any convenience and explained he was just doing his job. I accepted this but insisted that each officer present shake my hand before leaving. The initial police officer seemed offended by this and asked me why? I pointed to a neighbor that was looking out their window at the scene. All three police officers laughed, shook my hand, and went on their way.

Your argument showed that the person should not have been stopped because he was doing nothing wrong. In the scenario I desscribed, the bicycle, guy wearing skiu mask with rifle - Absolutely nothing I described is technically illegal to do.

No sir, my argument showed that the O.P. was not doing anything suspicious, and in fact riding a bicycle home at 10pm at night is not reasonable suspicion. Riding a bicycle wearing a ski mask, with a gun slung over your shoulder, while riding back and forth in front of a bank is indeed reasonable suspicion. You are being disingenuous when you say that those actions are legal, and they are, but they are also suspicious. What the O.P. was doing was not suspicious, and it matters not that paranoid police officers see it as being suspicious.


Continued...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Continued...

The USSC has determined the length of investigatory stops, and allows us leaway in doing them. So while you continue to argue for your 4th amendment violations, I once again point out that the 4th amendement does not apply to the individual. It applies to the Government. It forces Law Enforcement to have reasons for their actions.

Really? My, my, my, for a person who insists he read Terry v Ohio, you sure seem to be selective in your reading:

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.

While you are partially correct that the 4th Amendment is fundamentally a prohibition on government, it most certainly applies to the individual, and the SCOTUS has upheld this time and time again. This is just one reason why you should not be trusted. You pretend to be reasonable, but a careful reading of your own language reveals the profound disregard you have for we the people.

You also need to understand acting in good faith. This term also covers law enforcement for doing their jobs. When a citizen tells me a crime has been comitted, I am acting in good faith that the citizen is telling the truth. If you are lieing, and it ends up causing an innocent person to be charged with a crime because of that lie, I am covered because I was acting on good faith. This same standard applies to Law Enforcement working with other LEO agencies.

If I, or the O.P. have been pulled over because a police officer is acting in good faith, and a citizen, or any person for that matter, told the officer a crime has been committed, then we have a right to know this when we are pulled over, which was why in my initial post to the O.P. I advised he respectfully ask the officer who pulls him over if he is suspected of committing a crime, or fits the description of someone who recently committed a crime.

Further, if you have been truly paying attention to my posts, you would then have read where I advised Endisnighe that the best thing to do is file a verified oath. A verified oath is far more than just heresay, when someone is reporting a crime, it is an oath taken under penalty of perjury, which means if I am lying I can certainly go to jail for that.

Again, I ask you to state what exactly your problem is and back it up. I ahve no problem countering what you think your interpretations are. What I take exception to is you calling me a liar, then ranting on about stuff that has been established.

Your smug and condescending attitude about people knowing the law is my problem specifically with you, and I have backed this up. However, you seem to have serious problem in understanding and knowing the law yourself, which I have stated on several occasions in this thread, makes you a very dangerous police officer. You can take exception to me calling you a liar all you want. You should not have lied when you said:

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?

I never made any such argument, and this is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. If you are not willing to admit this, then I stand by my words and continue to insist that you are a liar. If you want to go back and read my posts, and if upon reading them again, you would like to admit that you misread what I argued, I will accept that, and if that is the case I will retract my accusations of you being a liar, but I will only do this when you admit that I never argued that a police officer cannot use reasonable suspicion as an excuse to pull someone over.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You are cross combining statements from other peoples posts and responding as if I said them. The wikipedia article was linked, and then the actual case from Cornell Law was linked as well.

Lets see if this helps shed some light on this:
Source - FindLaw

4) An officer who reasonably believes that criminal activity may be afoot in a public place is authorized to stop any person who is suspected of participating in that criminal activity and conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect's outer clothing for weapons that may be used against the officer (see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [1968]). The officer may also ask for identification, but the suspect is under no obligation to produce it. However, A suspect's refusal to identify himself together with surrounding events may create probable cause to arrest (see People v. Loudermilk, 241 Cal. Rptr. 208 (Cal. App. 1987). This kind of warrantless search, called a Terry stop or a Terry frisk, is designed to protect officers from hidden weapons. Accordingly, items that do not feel like weapons, such as a baggie of soft, granular substance tucked inside a jacket pocket, cannot be seized during a Terry frisk, even if it turns out that the item is contraband.

In addition to this, The State the OP resides in has their own set of "intresting" laws when it comes to what they consider suspicious and what their Law Enforcement can and cannot do.

We can throw case Law and expereice back and forth at each other all day if you want, but chances are we are not going to find common ground. I honestly get the impression from your last post talking about your incident with the Police, that you now percieve Law Enforcement (all) as corrupt, incompetent and evil with a sole purpose of stripping people of their consitutional rights.

Question - What was the result of your encounter? Did you file a complaint? Sue them for a civil rights violation? What was the outcome? All you stated was what you perceived, which is just one side of the story.
If you dont want to share that, thats fine.

I will continue to do my jobin the manner the Law prescribes. Disgree with it if you want, it makes no difference to me.

I am going to refrain from responding to your posts from here on out as the outcome no longer matters. You accuse me of lieing among other falacies, without backing up your statements, or using information from other peoples posts and then credit me as saying it, which frankly reduces your credibility.

You are apparently the expert on this issue, so please, by all means, educate us on how the Officers hatched an evial plot to pull the OP over for no other reason than to purposely violate his rights in an ever increasing scam to take over the world.

If you want to have a civilized, rational discussion let me know and I will be more than happy to particiapte.

To the OP - I responded to your private message and gave some more info for you to look into. If you need anything send me a pvt message. I am going to move on from this topic as I belive the horse has been beaten enough.

Here is the bottom line:

Cops CANNOT ' articulate' any reasonable suspicion from perfectly legal conduct. Unless there is an ACTUAL alert fitting the person closely, there is no grounds to detain and question anyone. it is pure and simple cop harrassment, lied about and under the guise of ' proactive' policing, which means that a PRECRIME mentality has been adopted by the coppers involved.

All the nonsense about bicycle laws mean nothing...it is a ruse to try and justify a stop, and nothing more. If a person is stopped for NO reason, and it happens all the time, it is best to idenify ones' self and then say nothing more. File official complaints against any cops that detain you for no reason, and extending a detention because you refuse to give up your right to remain silent makes the cops crimes even worse.

Thats right, it is a CRIME, a Federal felony, to unlawfully detain citizens under the color of law..and cops are guilty of this constantly. Few people are willing to file a lawsuit and pursue the offending cops, and that is why they keep on abusing our rights.

Give cops the minimum; let them know that you are doing nothing wrong, and resent being bhothered and detained at all. you have a RIGHT to move about freely; cops want you to think that your time and attention are worth nothing, as their is, but you do not have to accept that. Let them know that your time is valuable and not worth wasting on them.

you can do that by simply clamming up and refusing to answer any questions without a lawyer present. If a cop hears you invoke your rights, he knows that you are likely savvy and have a lawyer, things cops hate and fear. cops hate and fear educated citizens and any and all defense lawyers. They hate them because they expose the cops' crimes and lies and stormtrooper tactics.

We have all seen cops sitting smugly in a courtroom, thinking that they can lie and it doesn't matter who knows it because it cannot be proven...and then all of a sudden a lawyer whips out a videotape and proves the cop a perjurer....that is worth a million bucks...the face of a cop caught in his crimes..and they should be thrown into a dungeon with the worst of the worst to contemplate their crimes against the People.

You are cross combining statements from other peoples posts and responding as if I said them.

No I am not! I gave you an opportunity to take an out, and had you done so I would have honored my promise to retract my assertions that you are a liar. Instead, you now tell another lie, and don't just tell this lie once, but twice:

I am going to refrain from responding to your posts from here on out as the outcome no longer matters. You accuse me of lieing among other falacies, without backing up your statements, or using information from other peoples posts and then credit me as saying it, which frankly reduces your credibility.

I not only backed up my assertions that you are a liar, I quoted the lie you told several times: I will quote that lie one more time which can be found in a post you made here:

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?

I have now backed up it up again, and yet while you keep claiming I have not backed it up, you then tell another lie and say I am cross combining other posters and confusing them with you, but you don't back up this assertion, you just tell the lie and assume people will actually believe you. It is your credibility that is in question here, not mine. I have been honest and straight forward throughout this thread. You on the other hand have no been caught twice willfully lying, and of course, since you have boldly claimed you are not going to respond to my posts any further, if you do, that will expose yet another lie of yours.

You are not a person to be trusted, and frankly no one here really knows if you truly are a police officer or not, but if you are, you are a police officer that can not be trusted. Sadly, the lies you have told do not gain you anything, and can only hurt you, but you had an opportunity to admit that you simply misread my arguments and based on that made your claims, and this would have not hurt your credibility as all people make mistakes, but you had plenty to loose by not taking that out, and accepting my offer to retract my accusations. Instead, you intractably made sure you were seen as a liar.



Edit to Add: This post is in reply to a post by Xcathdra

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Just a couple of questions for you:

Is there anything like lots (I know, pretty indefinite term) of crime in the area? Or gang activity?

Could the neighborhood/township govt. asked for increased police presence as a result of this?

So for as behaviour is concerned? You did exactly the right thing. Be cooperative until you've a chance to deal with figures in authority over them. Arguing with them, or resisting will just get you arrested/detained, or hurt, possibly worse. Pick your fights with authority carefully...

I'm sure there is crime here but it's not an environment where I've actuallt ever encountered it in the street and I've been a bike rider for years. I have nothing to fear riding my bike from my house to the store and never had before. The only encounters I have while travelling are with the police who have been pulling me over.

I see other people riding bikes and walking but recently less so, still I see some though. Worst offense I ever witness is like someone smoking some weed in front if their house.

That said there is still crime that I don't witness and so police should be patrolling and talking to people they have reason to believe are currently or about to or recentky committed a crime, not bicydle riders trying to get food.

reply to post by sremmos


Doesn't sound, from your description, that too much in the way on anything abnormal is going on...though there could be something going on that's more beneath the surface...

But...

I think you're handling it about as well as you can.

My advice is, don't go vigilante... As difficult as it may seem, working within the system until such time as it becomes evident that it's not going to work is your best bet.

I had a similar issue a few (my god, was it really twenty years ago?) years back with a police officer of similar bent...

I worked within the system and eventually got the dirtbag fired. It can be done.

Good luck.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Interesting information. However, I do not have any jurisdiction on tribal territory as they are considered autonomous and operate soley with the Federal Government (in essence The United States has hundreds of small sovierng nations within it). Does it make up for what happened to the Natives - No sadly. We cannot undoe what has been done.

What we can do is try to learn from past mistakes, from History, and try not to repeat them.

When will that Happen the Learning Part its been repeating over and Over on Reservations in both country's Especially the Mohawk Nation's

Just as soon as Any Native American (Mohawk ) leaves the Reservation on both sides of the Boarder they have a high chance getting Harassed it is all to common here

the Boarder Patrol and the State police and Royal Mounted Police & OPP
are Like Hiding in the Bushes to Pounce! on you Literately


A border runs through it: Mohawk sovereignty and the Canadian state
By Henry Martin
Briarpatch Magazine
July/August 2010
briarpatchmagazine.com...

Mohawks Kick Cops Off Rez ( a Good Read)
Wii’nimkiikaa, Issue One, 2004
wiinimkiikaa.wordpress.com...


Fiery Speech on Native Rights, Solidarity

youtube poster Gregmentuck

This fiery speech by native leader George Erasmus is an indicator of what has yet to happen. The emotion and raw aggression in his voice is firm and clear. The ability to use your voice to relay our inherent and indigenous rights is important and our leaders of today and tomorrow must speak the same path of understanding of current and future issues.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Wolfenz]