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

reply to post by taidean


He was either screwing with you or it was broken...the real reason he let you off.

A reading of .92 means that 92% of the fluid in your veins was alcohol: utterly impossible, you'd have died long before it could reach such a level.

I'd rethink that whole encounter if I were you.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by taidean

 

He was either screwing with you or it was broken...the real reason he let you off.

A reading of .92 means that 92% of the fluid in your veins was alcohol: utterly impossible, you'd have died long before it could reach such a level.

I'd rethink that whole encounter if I were you.

No way. What happend, happend. Nice to know though what the percentage equals to, thanks for the info,never knew that. But better safe than sorry, who knows what can happen with any kind of substance in your body.

Okies, after waking up today, and thinking about what I posted about the BAC, I think 0.11 or 0.19 was the actual number, I do not know where I got 0.92 from. Dang alcohol

Thank you for this post. I will admit though, that I was surprised by your statement that a police officer might apply to a magistrate for a warrant in certain cases. Based on my watching of this (www.youtube.com...) channel on YouTube, I had honestly come to believe that if a police officer stopped someone driving in America these days, he would simply haul you out of the car, drive your head into the pavement 3-4 times, and then proceed to do whatever else he wanted.

reply to post by petrus4


It's not difficult to see why you would have that impression. You will not find a vid showing a cop doing it right or doing something nice. I'm surprised that we are not shot on sight with all the negative videos that exist. Believe it or not, and I know that a lot of people will disagree with me here, there are a lot of us that go by the book.
Seeashrink

reply to post by seeashrink


Yeah.. but you guys should be turning in your brothers that don't do it by the book left and right.
They just make the job more dangerous and make people think less of cops.

In another thread I proposed there should be different classes of cops.
We have vehicle enforcement officers here.
There should be officers that do only that, that way there is never the problem of a cop hyped up on adrenaline from a more intense call, bar fights etc, interacting with the general public.

Then if something more happens at a stop the call in an "arresting officer."

That would help.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I do turn them in vic. Your idea is not a bad one for the larger cities. That seems to be where the majority of the problems are anyway. A small town like mine could not sustain the budget.
Seeashrink

reply to post by seeashrink


I live in a small city. Around twenty thousand in town, forty in the outlying areas.
Just recently an officer driving a "vehicle enforcement" car showed up.
It's just like a cop car except says that on the side. I see him with someone pulled over constantly.
He pulls over a lot of vehicles you don't often see. Lots of big rigs and power company trucks, coal trucks and the like. However he pulls over everyone. There have been a lot of complaints from citizens because he is tough.

I haven't been pulled by him, but I imagine if he doesn't have to deal with the other kind of police work (i have no idea if he does) he probably won't have the attitude that I have gotten from some local cops. I mean he may, but the point you brought to mind about coming from a fight to pulling over a light runner made me think about it.
However I think instead of accepting that type of treatment from a cop these vehicle enforcement officers might be a better idea.

reply to post by seeashrink


If you turn them in kudos to you.
More cops need to realize those guys are actually making your job more dangerous. If they were your brothers in the line of duty they wouldn't be creating enemies and putting the good ones at risk.

Their behavior is directly against their own, the probably just don't think about it.. or are inconsiderate and don't care.

Why the double standard (favoring police) when it comes to "wrongful deaths" committed by the police against presumed innocent people during the course of "official duties?" A license to carry a gun in the name of law enforcement is not a "license to kill" (a la a fictional 007). There have been enough cases of the police breaking down someone's door yelling "police, warrant!" (which is no guarantee that it is the PD as home invaders have tried the same tactic) and then shooting a civilian who was on the phone dialing 9-11 or grabbing the nearest object in self defense (ie golf club) and then being shot from a safe distance by a cop who "felt threatened." Did the civilian not feel threatened? Did he shoot first with his 9 iron or telephone gun? No, of course not. Or shooting the little family dog for barking (not even attacking the police). That is what dogs are supposed to do. Maybe the police protocol should be to only authorize guns with button safeties and require that they enter a home with the safety on so if the first impulse is to shoot then maybe by the time the cop takes the safety off and before he can shoot (in that split second) he will recognize the phone or golf club for what it is. This could put police at a disadvantage against the real bad guys so they need to think before they (instinctively) shoot. What say you, Mr policeman?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Why the double standard (favoring police) when it comes to "wrongful deaths" committed by the police against presumed innocent people during the course of "official duties?" A license to carry a gun in the name of law enforcement is not a "license to kill" (a la a fictional 007). There have been enough cases of the police breaking down someone's door yelling "police, warrant!" (which is no guarantee that it is the PD as home invaders have tried the same tactic) and then shooting a civilian who was on the phone dialing 9-11 or grabbing the nearest object in self defense (ie golf club) and then being shot from a safe distance by a cop who "felt threatened." Did the civilian not feel threatened? Did he shoot first with his 9 iron or telephone gun? No, of course not. Or shooting the little family dog for barking (not even attacking the police). That is what dogs are supposed to do. Maybe the police protocol should be to only authorize guns with button safeties and require that they enter a home with the safety on so if the first impulse is to shoot then maybe by the time the cop takes the safety off and before he can shoot (in that split second) he will recognize the phone or golf club for what it is. This could put police at a disadvantage against the real bad guys so they need to think before they (instinctively) shoot. What say you, Mr policeman?

I say you make some good points. There is no way to completely do away with all mistakes, they are always going to happen in a gun culture. I think that stepping back and taking a hard look at the training cops are getting and especially the S.W.A.T. guys would be a good place to begin. When these guys enter a house expecting to find a violent felon or a drug gang they are hyped up and ready for anything except for a peaceful encounter. This is not a justification, just a fact.

I can tell you a personal experience: My first call of the day early one morning was for a home invasion. When me and one other officer arrived there was a pickup truck backed up to the front door. It turned out that it was a boyfriend that had came to pick up his stuff after being kicked out of the house the night before. He was angry at his girlfriend and everything else. He was huge and all muscle. He was yelling at us and said that if he couldn't get his stuff that he would get his shotgun out of the truck and blow it all to hell. We could not calm this guy down and this was before tazers. He was about to come apart and I started to ease my night stick from it's holster. He saw me and got even angrier. He said " I got something for you" and ran out the door toward his truck. Just then I remember about the shotgun in his truck. I followed him out the door and drew my revolver, pointed at him and ordered him not to enter the truck. He opened the door and dove in, started it and drove off. Now here is the thing; I'm thinking shotgun and I'm fully expecting him to come out with it. It was still dark and it was at the point that if he had come out of that truck with a stick, knife, ping pong paddle, Bible, or tooth brush in his hand I would have shot him. Thats how things had gotten. Don't say you wouldn't have done it, or you would have done is differently, you weren't there.
Thats how things get sometimes. It was a good experience and I learned from it.
I still agree with you, some things have to change.
Seeashrink

Police need to mind their own business unless summoned otherwise. local city cops need to stay off the highways as well, that's the highway patrols job. just because they have annexed city sewer land on the other side of the highway shouldn't give them any jurisdiction on the highways and it creates serious hazards from their Micky Mouse traffic games.

the thing that pisses me off the most about law enforcement, is these guys have been caught red handed pulling felonies, but yet only get fired , then they move on to other department to continue on with their criminal activities. i can name names and departments but there isn't going to be any investigations because they're all in it together...its absolutely pathetic

cops are punks and need to be treated as such.

Every time i even hear the word "cop" it makes me want to puke, I'm so sick of them and their silly bull#

reply to post by anumohi

Don't you ever get tired of spouting your negative crap? Can you not add anything positive or constructive to a conversation? Can you not admit just a little bit that there might be a good cop out there somewhere? I've admitted that there are some bad ones, can you not concede just a little?
With your constant negative rants you are the one that SOUNDS like a punk. Clean up your act a little man. Say something that has some merit instead of this constant same song different verse mess.
Seeashrink

reply to post by seeashrink


ok. when cops retire i get to hear them bitch and complain how cops are punks..,hahahahahaha... that's about as positive as it gets

I swear its true

reply to post by seeashrink


In your situation with the guy huge and irrational and then threatening you verbally with the shotgun then you had to expect that confrontation....one that you didnt initiate by being there to serve a "no knock" entry. I am talking about the seemingly not necessary forced entries which are a defacto home invasion sanctioned by the state. I think that the swat teams are overused and you're right with the military style uniforms and weapons they are mentally geared to "war." Swat teams should be used to contain situations and return fire not initiate conflict IMO, If you surround a house and block the exits and then serve the warrant the guy inside probably will eventually surrender unless he has a death wish. Bursting in on a violent person will produce a violent response which could result in the death of police even if they think that they have the "edge" with their art of war tactics (surprise, concentration, unity of command, etc) not to mention "collateral damage." Bursting into a home with children present and shooting at anything that moves is totally unexceptable. One of these days a community will have had enough and some prosecutor up for election will charge the officer with 2nd degree murder or at least negligent homicide for a death and victims will sue the respective police depts and city for their policy and possible bankrupt some municipality so they can get their macho on. I know it is a balancing act when dealing with potentially dangerous criminals but the rights of ordinary citizens to their "life, (liberty and happiness)" is paramount.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Well said and I completely agree
Seeashrink

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Okay, here is one for you, my nephew, 19 years old, was seeing this girl, we all did not trust her or like her, her father was a convicted felon, did 17 years for attempted murder and drugs. My nephew was seeing this girl off and on for just over a year. He, my nephew, had a problem with telling the truth all the time, not a really big deal as we knew what was going on all the time. He goes over to her house for dinner, then comes home at 9:00, I was at my brothers house talking about different things, we had found out that he, my nephew, may have got this girl pregnant. We wanted to ask him what he was going to do? He was also going to go back into the National Guard, he was discharged with a medical condition, heart problem, but he could still be a mechanic. Anyway, long story short, he felt sick, threw up in the front yard, I got him a glass of water. He drank it then said he wanted to go to bed, 10:30. He died in his sleep, cause of death, Methadone!! Where in the he11 did he get Methadone? From the girls father, the convicted felon!! We believe he was slipped some during dinner.

Here's the real kicker.....the father WORKS FOR the prison!! He is a drug counselor!!! Are you freakin kidding me? We demanded they get a search warrant as three other pills were found in a snuff container in my nephews back pocket when the coroner took him out. WHERE DID THE PILLS COME FROM? Duh!! But the investigators REFUSED do get a search warrant and BELIEVED this freakin idiot father of the girl. WTF is wrong with this country, this guy is obviously a snitch within the prison and they want to keep him there no matter WHO he kills!! This is absolute fact and if you would like the case number and my brothers name and address, U2U me and I will more than gladly give it to you!! We have argued with the city and the police department to no avail. It is criminal neglegence on the part of the city and the Police department. The Sheriff won't even get involved and HE is the ONLY real Law enforcement in the county!!!! Who's kidding who here? My nephews life is worth nothing compared to a convicted felons? My nephew could have done some good things, not attempt to kill someone or to live the life of crime? WTF. I do despise and hate ALL cops, as they ALL ignore the Law of the land, the Common Law and enforce corporate law. I will fight to the death to prove they are nothing but evil. Until these "officers", security guards, realize WHAT they are and enforce the corporate code ONLY on corporations and NOT the innocent people. No Victim, No Crime.

Once again and for the record, Police officers are NOTHING more than corporate security guards. They enforce city policy, ordinance, statutes and regulations THAT DO NOT APPLY to the common people of the community. That is a fact and has been proven over and over again in so many courts. WE the PEOPLE are the power behind government.. for enlightenment please read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law", it is a great book and will explain everything and how it is supposed to work. There are many other books out there as well that SHOW how it should be, but we have been taught differently to keep the lie going.

Sad really.

reply to post by anumohi


Here is some useful info for you..

The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a COMMON RIGHT which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interferring with, not disturbing another's RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added). See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.

12.1. The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, § 3 provides that: All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable RIGHTS, among which may be reckoned the RIGHT . . . of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; . . . .

12.1.1. A vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property, within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the RIGHT to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable RIGHT to acquire.

12.1.2. Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. (Emphasis added). See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.

A few people here seem to think that the use of an automobile is NOT a Constitutional Right nor is it IN the Constitutions, IT IS under the guise of liberty and property. Not everything or every right you have is "listed" within the Constitution BECAUSE the Constitution is a Corporate Agreement and DOES NOT apply TO the people, but is there to PROTECT the PEOPLE!!

THIS is where cops are wrong, we do not SURRENDER OUR police powers because we voted. Frederic BAstiat stated it very well. His book, "The Law" is a great read and should be a requirement for every individual who holds ANY office of trust.

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated;
and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with
the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the
federal and state government." (emphasis mine)-- Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943.

For a further understanding of a property right verses a city or state "statute or code" we look here...

Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted RIGHT of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the RIGHT of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren RIGHT. Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added). See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513.

NO COP has jurisdiction OVER the general public. The officer MAY stop an individual who is ACTING out of line and set him straight, but can NEVER, without damage to anothers property or violation of anothers rights or liberties, cite him or fine him in a "dollar amount" as WE are NOT conducting business in the general usage of OUR private PROPERTY.

WE have been duped by television and so many other propaganda tools, it is just ridiculous.

And for you, seeashrink, explain to me this, WHY is there a different reference made to a "vehicle" under number 3 of the following?

MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE

171.24 VIOLATIONS; DRIVING WITHOUT VALID LICENSE.

Subdivision 1. Driving after suspension; misdemeanor. Except as otherwise provided in
subdivision 5, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
(1) the person's driver's license or driving privilege has been suspended;
(2) the person has been given notice of or reasonably should know of the suspension; and
(3) the person disobeys the order by operating in this state any motor vehicle, the operation
of which requires a driver's license, while the person's license or privilege is suspended.


Subd. 2. Driving after revocation; misdemeanor. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
(1) the person's driver's license or driving privilege has been revoked;
(2) the person has been given notice of or reasonably should know of the revocation; and
(3) the person disobeys the order by operating in this state any motor vehicle, the operation
of which requires a driver's license, while the person's license or privilege is revoked.


Subd. 3. Driving after cancellation; misdemeanor. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
(1) the person's driver's license or driving privilege has been canceled;
(2) the person has been given notice of or reasonably should know of the cancellation; and
(3) the person disobeys the order by operating in this state any motor vehicle, the operation
of which requires a driver's license, while the person's license or privilege is canceled.

The "operation of which REQUIRES a "driver's license"?

Why is it not mandatory, please explain. And do you KNOW what requires MEANS?

Websters states, "to ask or insist upon by VIRTUE OF LAW..."

WHAT? Virtue of law....is that like COLOR OF LAW, not REAL law but supposed law?

And I am NOT a "person"!!!!!!!!!!!!

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal
fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely
necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all
the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the
status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but
the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the
law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally
includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C.
paragraph 1." -- Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417,
425:

So please explain to ME what MY natural born rights are again....
BULLCRAP!!

reply to post by daddio


Being able to drive a motor vehicle is not a right, its a priveladge. I read what you posted and they are off. The Constitution only gurantees freedom of movement within a states borders, and across a states border. It does not define that any further.

If a person does not want to get a drivers license in order to drive, they dont have to. There are many other forms of transportation available, from bus, planet, train, bicycle, a friend or shoe leather express.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by daddio

 

Being able to drive a motor vehicle is not a right, its a priveladge. I read what you posted and they are off. The Constitution only gurantees freedom of movement within a states borders, and across a states border. It does not define that any further.

If a person does not want to get a drivers license in order to drive, they dont have to. There are many other forms of transportation available, from bus, planet, train, bicycle, a friend or shoe leather express.

Once again, YOU are wrong, prove up your claim, I have proven mine with just a few of the thousands of court cases that state that the use of an automobile in the ordinary course of life and personal business IS A RIGHT!

Driving is an occupation and for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, the state has the authority to license which MAKES IT a privilege. See below, Jack McLamb.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the RIGHT to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this RIGHT might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22.

American Jurisprudence is the standard FOR the courts to follow...

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways § 163.

By Jack McLamb, retired Arizoina Police Officer from his website, this article is no longer posted but you can e-mail him with a request for the article....jackmclamb.community.officelive.com...
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a Citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the Citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

The second group of Citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those Citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

And here is one of his best...

TRUE PEACE OFFICERS WORK FOR A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE
I know it may not be fun to think that the great “unwashed masses” out there are our bosses. It’s more cool to think that we lawmen “rule over” all those people. But, dear brother and sister, let us not fool ourselves: In our American system, the people are the rulers, and we are their servants. That’s a fact. We are free in our Republic because we operate under a people-created [not an oligarchy or monarch-created] Constitutional system. And if we will honestly think about it, we “servants of the people” wouldn’t want it any other way. If we were the boss over the people, then this would not be the great land of the free called America, for us and our families, either. If we Americans have been freer than other peoples on earth, it is because the American Republic was founded differently than other systems. America was founded on the following reasoning: God created Man and the Family; after that, government was created ONLY to protect the people and their God-given freedoms. Yes, our Lord God, through great Godly men, set up this most special system. Our Constitution spells out – for all the world to see – that our free government is based upon the right and power of a sovereign people to LIMIT GOVERNMENT through issuance of strictly limited, delegated powers. As counseled by our wise Founders, we the people were to “bind down the government with the chains of the Constitution”. Were this not so, dear brothers and sisters, we would have been no more free than the peoples of other nations, most of whom have always had to bow, scrape and serve dictatorial rulers on high.

So again, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF!!!! Stop perpetrating the LIES!!