Dealing with cops, understanding your rights,.... by a cop.

This one is another excellent source for information regarding dealing with police encounters.

always listen to the guy with the gun

I understand that some of you don't agree with everything the OP said, but you have to respect him for giving us this sound advice. He or she did it with good intention and responsibility to contribute something helpful and believed to be necessary that we can all use. There's no need to blast your disagreements with the OP without first giving respect and thanks for the information posted. Thanks OP for the valuable information posted. Most of us can benefit from using this advice when dealing with cops. If everyone in society were to approach situations with cops like this, maybe and I have to put great emphasis on maybe (only because of things that I've seen and each situation is so complex and difficult for both sides), both sides could get along better. Star & Flag

reply to post by Mr Knowledge


The problem with that is usually we just get police on here like pr people, who are trained to talk people round.

If they are police they must know of countless cases of police corruption. Tell us about the high tech weapons the police use against people, and we may listen. Or tell us about how police organise very serious crimes.

Respect police? You have to be kidding. Fear their stupidity? You bet.

The best advice is to keep your mouth shut. Sure, say yes or no, but don't believe anything a cop says. The "just confess and I'll let you go" line has landed just about anyone who believed it in jail.

If you are one of the families that have been terrorized by local police, it's very difficult to respect any police officer under any circumstances. There are numerous cases where police SWAT teams have broken into family homes and held the occupants captive for hours over a few grams of pot. I live in a small town and this has happened several times...I receive newsletters that document similar invasions across the US.

In most cases, these terrorist raids are the result of paid informants. Once they get a warrant, they search every drawer until they find "something." Hard-working, tax-paying citizens are often targeted--I know of instances where families in their 50s who had no criminal record were targeted.

My response to police terrorism is to identify where the cops have the highest concentration and stay away form those places. In my case, that's the downtown area. I personally boycott all stores in the area and take my business to the Internet.

Maybe some cops in America are not terrorists, but I am hard-working 55 years old w/ no criminal record and have never been helped in any way by any police officer. ON the other hand, I have seen them harass many innocent people.

reply to post by Mr Knowledge


yep in my earlier post i forgot to thank the op for ( i would presume knowingly ) putting himself in the line of fire thnx op

Driving on American roads is a Constitutional Right, not a State-Granted "Privilege"

They want you to THINK it is a Privilege because it is the unconstitutional "Drivers License" that takes that Right and turns it into a "Privilege."

States and Federal Courts have been trying to clearly define the 2 for many years and debates continue to be fought on all levels.

But when it comes down to it, the roads belong to the taxpayers and driving is NOT a Privilege. It is one of your Rights. You know, remember those? Those things that Big Brother is slowly but surely taking away from us all and turning them into Privileges, which means they can regulate and therefore, suspend and even revoke from us all.

Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. It's not that there are more criminals in the USA now-a-days, like they say, it's because more laws are passed and therefore new laws are creating more criminals. Soon, we all will be a smooth, and not so smooth, criminal. It's inevitable.

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by Namaste1001

 

I agree. Traveling is a right. To have a driver's license is an earned priveledge. That is why you have to pass training, pass a test, have insurance, and a registered vehicle. Again, I agree, travelling is a right.
Seeashink

I believe driving is a basic right unless one is proven unsafe to drive. We've tried a system where drivers licenses are considered privileges, and the states have absued that system to hell and back, where when a drivers license is taken away its NOT DUE TO LACK OF SAFE DRIVING IN MOST CASES. Based on the people I know who had their license taken away, it had nothing to do with unsafe driving. Drivers licenses have most certainly become primarily a system of extortion for states. Its very disturbing to me that people so regularly accept drivers licenses being taken away as a punishment for the driver being poor and not being able to afford a speeding ticket or for car registration after they've *already* registered their car. The only purpose of car registration renewal is money extortion. There is no practical reason you'd have that fee because once you own a car you'll still be the owner until you sell it. Its a racket.

I'm basing all this on a simple principle: unless someone has caused what is universally regarded as harm, then you should not have the right to harm that person. And certainly the drivers license system we have now harms people quite severely without the driver himself having done any harm whatsoever. In the USA you need a car to get to work in most places. Without a car I would lose my job. So I consider the drivers licensing system in my state a system of severe abuse that should stop immediately. I hardly consider driving to my job a privilege, but a basic need so that I can continue living. By taking away my driving, you take away my basic needs. So no I won't accept that driving to work being taken away, without me actually being someone who hurts people as a result of driving.

If someone actually hurts people with their driving or will *very* certainly do so given the way they drive, then go ahead and stop them from driving. But under the current system your drivers license may be taken away if you bad-mouth a cop, don't have a lot of money, or you attempt to assert your rights one too many times.

reply to post by seeashrink


I have a quick question for you. If a person breaks the law, i.e. runs a red light or speeds, the officer can make the decision whether or not he wants to give that person a ticket, right? So if a person breaks the law, i.e. is smoking cannabis in their car or is in possession of cannabis, the officer can still make the decision to not give the person a citation or send them to jail, right?

Weed should be legal, no arguement.

Have you ever sent a person to jail for possession of cannabis in your career? Just curious

Originally posted by OneNationUnder
Driving on American roads is a Constitutional Right, not a State-Granted "Privilege"

They want you to THINK it is a Privilege because it is the unconstitutional "Drivers License" that takes that Right and turns it into a "Privilege."

States and Federal Courts have been trying to clearly define the 2 for many years and debates continue to be fought on all levels.

But when it comes down to it, the roads belong to the taxpayers and driving is NOT a Privilege. It is one of your Rights. You know, remember those? Those things that Big Brother is slowly but surely taking away from us all and turning them into Privileges, which means they can regulate and therefore, suspend and even revoke from us all.

Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. It's not that there are more criminals in the USA now-a-days, like they say, it's because more laws are passed and therefore new laws are creating more criminals. Soon, we all will be a smooth, and not so smooth, criminal. It's inevitable.

Driving IS an occupation, TRAVELING is a NATURAL RIGHT and does not owe it's existence to ANY document.

Read my previous post, all the evidence is there. If you search the net you will find Jack McLamb, retired, highly decorated officer who exposes the lies and deciet. Sheriff Richard I. Mack as well. Remember, ALL polocy enforcement officers powers are subordinate TO the public, they do not have jurisdcition OVER the actual people. Never give a name and NEVER consent.

The truth shall set us free.

knowing that cops will lie through their teeth to get you convicted, "which they in fact will" . knowing this, you must play by the same rules of engagement. if you know that you're on the #tty end of the stick and there is a potential of being incarcerated over their word. make up a story that involves them threatening to kill you and file a lawsuit in federal court about the officer involved. if you do not have any money you can file under the definition:In forma pauperis

In forma pauperis (IFP or i.f.p.) is a Latin legal term meaning "in the character or manner of a pauper".[1] In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense.[1] The status is usually granted by a judge without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel. While court imposed costs such as filing fees are waived, the litigant is still responsible for other costs incurred in bringing the action such as deposition and witness fees.

Approximately two-thirds of writ of certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court are filed in forma pauperis.[2][3] Most of those petitioners are prisoners.[2] Petitions that appear on the Supreme Court's in forma pauperis docket are substantially less likely to be granted review than those on the paid docket.[4]

IFP status is usually granted in connection to pro se petitioners, but the two concepts are separate and distinct.

this will allow you the first strike on the officer and remove him from any further harassment..."plus" place scrutiny on any testimony he might attempt to use against you.... once hes been served if he contacts you or gets within 50 ft of you, you can call the highway patrol and he will be arrested.

once a conflict of interest has been established you then have the power......and you might win some money if you can prove/lie believably enough to get the judgment...........FACT

most all cities don't appreciate their officers losing them thousands, even millions of dollars while on their payrolls and city insurances.....they usually fire them

reply to post by seeashrink


Thank you, I tend to inform all law enforcement that I am carrying and they seem to be appreciate of that. I also have a registered suppressor so I feel it better to mention it.

P.S. Thanks again and may God protect you and your family and bless them, amen. You are a "real" officer of the Law, keep it up!

reply to post by daddio


Are you honestly trying to convince people that we do not need licenses to drive? Or am I reading that wrong? If that is what you are trying to get across, just think about it for one minute. People with almost no understanding of the laws of the road: no turn signals, no checking their blind-spots, etc. There would be so much mass confusion that motor vehicle accidents would skyrocket, as if they are not high enough already.

If I read your post wrong, sorry, I'll go work on my reading comprehension.

Good post!

However, from my friends personal experiences with law enforcement has been rather negative then beneficial . I've only had one run in with the law and almost the whole ordeal was a violation of human constitutional and privacy rights. I had drank a few beers and gotten pulled over by highway patrol on a city road for barely crossing the dotted white line when I was changing the song on my iPod. I had told the officer that I had been drinking and that I was underage. When I got out they searched my person and found nothing. I did a field sobriety test and even recited the alphabet backwards for the first time in my lfe. After obviously passing the field sobriety test and the realization that I was only buzzed and not intoxicated I got the brethlyzer and got arrested for I am 20.

My question is, if I had already told the officer that I had been drinking then why do a field sobriety test if I was going to arrested no matter what for being under 21.

I was respectful the whole time and the two arresting officers were completly rude. They even searched my phone. And for what? They have absolutley no right to do so. No suspicison for iillegal evidence or contraband. Too many officers take it upon themselves to violate peoples privacy and when these illegal police procedures are brought up to a judge they are immediatley dismissed for no reason. Cops have turned into nothing morethen the money getters for their pimps. They are trained assume every citizen is breaking the law and the evidence of this is overwhelming all across the country.

Fear is not authority and authority through fear is oppression.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by daddio

 

Are you honestly trying to convince people that we do not need licenses to drive? Or am I reading that wrong? If that is what you are trying to get across, just think about it for one minute. People with almost no understanding of the laws of the road: no turn signals, no checking their blind-spots, etc. There would be so much mass confusion that motor vehicle accidents would skyrocket, as if they are not high enough already.

If I read your post wrong, sorry, I'll go work on my reading comprehension.

There are people that are currently in possession of a drivers license and do not follow those rules, having a license doesn't make a better driver, it forces you to acknowledge through I.D, that you are now in agreement to the laws and statutes that accompany having a license of your state. When cars were first invented there was no drivers license'.

You can have a homemade license that you can have signed by your state saying that you will be held liable in case of an "unintentional collision", most states will sign this, if applied for properly. This can also be attained for insurance.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by TupacShakur


This depends on many factors and states so I will use mine as an example. The difference between a traffic offense and marijuana is marijuana falling into the misdemeanor bracket but can be released on a summons. Misdemeanors meaning jail time. I have written summons before and released them but it depends on their history. If I stop two seperate people both for marijuana one has no history, is cooperative and shows respect (meaning he is polite) and the other a lengthy one record, is verbally abusive and belligerent and one the verge of causing an officer safety issue. which one will I arrest and which one will I release on a summons. Obviously the guy number 1. You see if I stop someone for marijuana and they have a joint, there is more somewhere and so people understand. Once I stop this vehicle and I find marijuana the vehicle has now been seized.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


First off you were drinking and under 21 and you crossed the center or dotted line, they have probable cause. Some states have laws where anyone under 21 cannot have any measurable amount of alcohol on them. I dont know about yours. You experience was negative because you were arrested for a legal cause.

The field sobriety tests are done because they have to. Let me run a scenario by you. Because I know someone this happened to.

Using your same scenario except you werent arrested, law enforcement just let you go. Two miles down the road you cross the center line strike a minivan and kill a family of 5. Guess who is liable civiliy and possibly criminaly? In addition to you, the officers as well. If they had arrested you then that family would not have died in this crash. Regardless of how much you had to drink because you are minor your family is going to accuse police of not arresting you and the relative of the deceased family are accusing police of not arresting you. At least they went through the motions and did everything they could to prevent an accident. How about people try and not violate the law and take responsibility for their actions. I will post a reply in general going into greater detail of my views

Hope your still here, look what took place yesterday, There has to be something we can do about situation like this. Do you have any suggestion ? reason.com...

A village resident said that police conducting drug raids early this morning targeted the wrong house where they roused his family out bed, pointed a machine gun at his 13-year-old daughter and threatened to shoot their poodle...

David McKay said he, his wife, 13-year-old daughter and his brother-in-law were sleeping at 5:30 a.m. when they heard banging on the door of their townhouse at 36 Sharon Drive. When they went to open the door, at least 10 police officers forced their way into the home, he said.

"Their guns were drawn, they were screaming 'Where's Michael, Where's Michael,' " McKay recounted hours later in a telephone interview from Nyack Hospital, where he took his terrified daughter for treatment after she had an asthma attack and fainted following the ordeal.

McKay said he was still groggy from sleep but tried to explain that there was no one named Michael in the house.

"They pulled me outside in the freezing cold in my underwear, manhandle my wife, point a gun at my daughter and they won't even tell me what they are doing in my house," said McKay. "It was terrifying and humiliating beyond belief."

It was part of a broad joint federal/local drug sweep for pot involving more than 200 cops from at least 13 different government agencies. More:

McKay said the officers forced his wife, Jamie, and daughter out of their beds. The family's dogs were barking and police threatened to shoot them, McKay said.

McKay said he was uncertain how long the police were in his home at 36 Sharon Drive, but at one point he heard them discussing a nearby residence. When he took the dogs out for a walk a short time later, he saw police in front of that home, located on the same side of the street.

When the police were preparing to leave, McKay and his bewildered family asked them again what they were doing and why they entered the house.

"They wouldn't say," he recalled. "All they would say was 'You'll read about it in the paper tomorrow.' "

First let me say to the OP thank you for this insightful post. Its not always the easiest thing to admit in this forum to being law enforcement because there is a decent potion of the ATS membership that "Quite frankly" has no love for LEO's. I applaud your effort.

Think of an officer as a manager and try to interpret his management technique, which incidently may change due to the day he is having or he could flip 180 right before your eyes due to how you treat him.

It seems 9 out of 10 times you will encounter the Authoritarian Manager. I despise this management technique and the fact that it is so prevalent. Truth is an Authoritarian manager is a copout. This individual is scared as the poster said. He has to feign a macho bravado in order to maintain control. Just suck it up and let him do his thing, This only gets worse if you antagonize him, He's not going to relent it will just keep escalating until you get your butt whipped.

So why bend to the will of this person, because quite frankly I just want this guy to go away and go on about my business. Be a diplomat go home enjoy life, and then brag to your friends how you almost kicked his butt.

In my opinion the best at their job out there are the Democratic Managers. Word of warning on this one, He is unquestionably the more pleasant but he is also the one most adept at getting you to incriminate yourself (are you aware of how fast you were driving?) The thing about this guy though, he is so smooth that you can be talking about last weeks game with him and all the while he is steadily writing that ticket out and you can bet you are getting that ticket before its over. Also warning, do not push this one or try to gain the upper hand because he seems kind, most of these guys keep Authoritarian in reserve if it becomes necessary, Just keep it friendly

As far as searches go this is where I personally draw the line and will go the whole nine yards to protect my rights. I have never even been requested to be searched because I am mindful of who I am dealing with and I act accordingly to try to expediently get on my way. If asked to step out of my vehicle I lock my door behind me. The Authoritarian doesn't like this because he escalates to you have something to hide. Fine bring the K9 out then. If they go that route legally that is usually where this whole thing ends, Prepare for him to attempt to intimidate you. Its all he knows.

Bottom line, He's not your enemy. He is a construct of society that has to be dealt with from time to time, You play a big part in deciding how this interaction goes.

In "MOST" cases he will not attempt to violate your rights. If he does YOU must determine the appropriate action, most importantly - know your rights.