i got arrested.. for a belt buckle.

reply to post by inkyminds


Just reread the OP to be sure ,nowhere does it say that he consented to the search.So you're wrong.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by inkyminds

 

Just reread the OP to be sure ,nowhere does it say that he consented to the search.

You're right. He says the cop asked him to step out of the car and he did.

nothing 'unconstitutional' about that at all.


now, had he REFUSED to be searched and still was, you might be approaching 'unconstitutional'. But, based on the info presented, there is zero evidence to support your claim this was an unconstitutional search.

I suspect you have little idea what a 'police state' looks like, like most whiny, privileged americans

reply to post by inkyminds


You couldn't be more wrong .....Again.Getting out of the car when requested does not constitute consent to search that is simply complying with a lawful request of an officer.It is not consent.If I'm privileged then I'd like to know why I'm so poor.Perhaps your great knowlege could tell me that.What's that you don't know then keep it to yourself.Or perhaps you can twitter about it.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by inkyminds

 

You couldn't be more wrong .....Again.Getting out of the car when requested does not constitute consent to search that is simply complying with a lawful request of an officer.It is not consent.

Your understanding of Constitutional law is lacking.

When you engage with an officer, you are giving consent. When an officer ASKS you to step out of the car, and you do so WITHOUT PROTEST, you are continuing to consent.

Now, this is assuming the OP didn't protests, since he gives no mention of it,and it seems a safe assumption, give the amount of detail he provided.

reply to post by inkyminds


You know what happens when you assume,You make an @ss out of u and me.I assume nothing.Are you a lawyer or a judge?

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by inkyminds

 

You know what happens when you assume,You make an @ss out of u and me.I assume nothing.Are you a lawyer or a judge?

edit on 2/23/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

Actually, you DO assume. You're entire argument assumes he didnt give consent, because the OP states no where that he didnt give consent.

This is why ATS sucks. Because people like you call a routine traffic stop a 'police state', and then belittle anyone who points out it isnt.

I'd report you, but it would be useless.

reply to post by lonegurkha

If you are not under arrest, the police generally are not permitted to search you. There are a number of important exceptions to this rule. The police may search you if you consent, but doing so limits the range of your defense in later proceedings. Your consent, for example, will make it difficult to challenge the legality of the search at a pretrial suppression hearing. Many people feel they should consent in order to show the police they have nothing to hide--but what you consider insignificant, such as a piece of paper with a telephone number, may be incriminating if it links you to a crime.

The police also can search you for weapons if a police officer reasonably feels in danger.

emphasis mine

Source - American Bar Association.

So... in a courtroom the officer says he was suspicious and had a reason to feel endangered. That's that.

reply to post by Hefficide

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ok Heff I'll accept the quote .However that also means that the cop can go to court and lie.I know some cops that have told me they have done that to nail somebody they didn't like.Again I say that is like a police state.The police have to offer no proof that there was something wrong or that they were actually threatened.Isn't that why they now have dashboard cameras?So without evidence that a crime was commited the courts just accept the officers word for what happened,and the citizens word means nothing.I know that this is so .I was ticketed for something I didn't do.The cop told the judge a huge lie and when the judge gave me my turn to speak I told the truth with supporting evidence and the judge still slamed me.I later found out that this cop had a reputation for doing what was done to me.He was making a name for himself. He went on to become an elected official in Florida.

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by inkyminds

 

You know what happens when you assume,You make an @ss out of u and me.I assume nothing.Are you a lawyer or a judge?

edit on 2/23/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

Actually, you DO assume. You're entire argument assumes he didnt give consent, because the OP states no where that he didnt give consent.

This is why ATS sucks. Because people like you call a routine traffic stop a 'police state', and then belittle anyone who points out it isnt.


I'd report you, but it would be useless.

edit on 23-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)

I make no assumptions at all. I agree to disagree with you Just because my opinion of this persons situation is different from yours doesn't necessarily make me wrong.Nor does it necessarily make you wrong.It makes us be of different opinions.And that is called freedom of speech.
Also ATS doesn't suck I like the free exchange of Ideas whether I agree or disagree is irrelevent.Everyone here can express their opinion.If you have a problem with freedom of speech then I recommend you grow a thicker skin.

Originally posted by lonegurkha


I make no assumptions at all. I agree to disagree with you Just because my opinion of this persons situation is different from yours doesn't necessarily make me wrong.Nor does it necessarily make you wrong.It makes us be of different opinions.

I see.

So when you said "you're wrong. " and "You couldn't be more wrong " you meant...?

ATS doesn't suck I like the free exchange of Ideas whether I agree or disagree is irrelevent.Everyone here can express their opinion.If you have a problem with freedom of speech then I recommend you grow a thicker skin.

I have no problem with expressing opinion. My contention was that you claimed your opinion was fact, and then repeatedly belittled me when i challenged your opinion.

So, like I said: This is why ATS sucks--because people get on here and claim a routine traffic stop is unconstitutional, and when pushed to explain how, they whip out the personal insults.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by inkyminds

 

You know what happens when you assume,You make an @ss out of u and me.I assume nothing.Are you a lawyer or a judge?

edit on 2/23/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

Actually, you DO assume. You're entire argument assumes he didnt give consent, because the OP states no where that he didnt give consent.

This is why ATS sucks. Because people like you call a routine traffic stop a 'police state', and then belittle anyone who points out it isnt.

I'd report you, but it would be useless.

I'm with you there.

So many people bang on about a police state when police are simply doing what they are supposed to be doing, yet, when crimes are commited against them, police are the best people on the planet when those same people running down officers and police in general need help from police because crimes have been commited against them or family/friends.

All it is as far as i'm concerned, is people aspire to criminality and resent the fact police are there to stop them, even minor misdemeanors etc, which is why police are required in society.

People seem to want to drive around unchallenged with broken headlights, bald tyres, speed, go through red lights, drive on wrong side of the road or while under influence of drugs including Alcohol, carry weapons, etc, etc all of which can and do have fatal consequences and more often cause serious injury as consequence of not being road legal or use weapons in road rage etc, because nearly everybody getting stopped with those faults or bad driving or have weapons in vehicle or on person seems to think they should be able to drive problematically illegal or carry weapons and whine when stopped and detected, get all anti police.

They should consider how long they'd stay alive if such people like police weren't there to prevent anarchy and chaos, how long they'd last in an environ of uncontrolled crime, before they whinge about being arrested for their infractions!

Same here in England and sister states of the UK, as there in the USA, no police state as far as i'm concerned, in fact i'm going to a Crime Summit held by police for our police borough every year, in March because i support police entirely, unequivocally, only exceptions being the odd rogue officer when found and highlighted.
[snip]
Yep, officer just doing his job, indeed, top man.

I cannot stand anti police sentiment, more than anything else apart from anti pagan sentiments, it winds me up completely. [Police forces are huge organisations and i accept, bad apples are in most forces, but seniors do try hard to filter unsuitable officers, most police are good people just doing their job.]

Peace.

[Now this Does slightly diverge from main topic, so remove this if you must. It makes a valid point regards why this thread even exists though, imho.]

reply to post by DeltaPan


I'm not defending police, although you make some good points.

I was merely pointing out that, despite what some have said in typical overdramatic ATS fashion about this being 'Unconstitutional" and indicative of a 'police state', nothing about this routine traffic stop was 'unconstitutional' in the slightest.

A 'police state' is where the cops can shake you down on the street for cash, beat you, and leave you for dead, and you have no course of action for a redress of grievances.

Only a very, very sheltered and privileged person could think that a routine traffic stop is comparable to the conditions in an ACTUAL police state.

I usually don't step forward like this and and lay it down this simply but here it is:

OP has nothing to complain about. He is chattel property of the state, a minor, an incompetent, he has no rights and he has no recourse, just shut up and pay. Next time he might get a slave beating, he should count himself lucky.

OP most likely has one (or more) of the following:

- Birth Certificate
- Social Insurance Number
- Drivers License (We know he has this from the op)
- Registration (Same)
- Insurance Papers (Same)

Whether you want to believe the following is up to you, its fact and it is the current system in use:

Each document listed above is a CONTRACT. All law is CONTRACTS. All law is COMMERCIAL.

Easy example: A drivers license is a contract that which you agree with and sign that states you will follow all those "rules of the road". It establishes an account under what you believe is your name.

A birth certificate is a contract (signed by parents) to establish a TRUST ACCOUNT with the name most people mistakenly believe belongs to them. This trust is called a Cestui Que Vie Trust. Guess who is the TRUSTEE? The flesh and blood True Person? Think again! Birth certificates are issued by the government, the government owns the birth certificate. The government is acting as your trustee, (How is this working for you all?)

‘Court’, from the word, ‘cautio’ means, ‘bond, security, bailment’. Court is not about justice... It is about money, plain and simple.

When the officer noticed that a headlight was burnt out his training told him that an offense against the contract was occurring and a traffic stop ensued. When the officer walked up to the window of the car he was ASSUMING (correctly) this was yet another slave (evidenced by SLAVE IDENTIFICATION aka. license plate) when the demand to see the drivers license was made and followed this provided the proof of CONTRACT he needed to continue his search and investigation.

COMPLIANCE VS. CONSENT - This is what it really boils down to in my opinion. By being compliant it is assumed you consent, its a dastardly trap.

I didn't read anywhere in the OP anything about consent being withdrawn. As a lawyer I can easily see this going bad for the OP. But as a human being I hope this all works out, which is why I have given those HUGE HINTS FOR HIS ESCAPE in this post to the OP, with my blessing.

Learn this lesson being taught to you my brothers.

-Lightrule

reply to post by inkyminds


You're funny! No matter which way you slice this cheese it still stinks!

Your definition of a police state is so wrong, I can't help but jump to a few conclusions (I used my mat!) about you.

1. You are a cop.
2. You work in government.
3. You are one of those 'fake' internet persona things.

The OP did in fact get beat down on the street for nothing! Can you explain to me a few things?

a) What crime did the OP commit?
b) Who was the victim?
c) Did the officer witness a breach of the peace?

This was a shake down, it is extortion and the police are a racket... Don't kid yourself.

-Lightrule

I'm not sure where this situation is at...but I'd recommend involving the media.

1) it's a good story
2) you could get some foundation for claiming the gift is clothing, not a weapon.
3) would cause pressure for the cops to maybe drop the charges

Kind of ridiculous that the state legalizes pot by\ut makes it a crime to have an oddly shaped piece of metal. (don't get me wrong, I think pot should be legal, and taxed, but that's besides the point).

reply to post by Lightrule


well im not a minor and i dont see where slave beatings come into play, but everything else was good. its a different (real) way to look at the situation


reply to post by Gazrok


i really would like to pursue the case but in order to do that i would need a lawyer. lawyer = money and i have none of that. since i got arrested that day, i wasnt able to make it to work and i ended up getting fired for it. i went to court last week but have to come back in 60 days. the police or attorneys or whoever it is hadnt been able to compose a case against me yet. when i go back to court again, ill know if they pursued my case. if they have, ill most likely have to get a lawyer. if that does end up happening ill get media attention for it. it may cost money but thats all going away soon and who knows, it might spark something.

Originally posted by tweakedvisions
reply to post by Lightrule

 

well im not a minor and i dont see where slave beatings come into play, but everything else was good. its a different (real) way to look at the situation


reply to post by Gazrok

 

i really would like to pursue the case but in order to do that i would need a lawyer. lawyer = money and i have none of that. since i got arrested that day, i wasnt able to make it to work and i ended up getting fired for it. i went to court last week but have to come back in 60 days. the police or attorneys or whoever it is hadnt been able to compose a case against me yet. when i go back to court again, ill know if they pursued my case. if they have, ill most likely have to get a lawyer. if that does end up happening ill get media attention for it. it may cost money but thats all going away soon and who knows, it might spark something.

Pursue a worthwhile venture.Be a man,pay your fine and move on with your life.It is a good law,you cant carry a concealed weapon.Why you need one in the first place is what amazes me.

reply to post by brindle


It's brass knuckles...

You don't find it absurd that the OP can legally own a firearm but gets arrested for an oddly shaped piece of metal? I do.