ZOMG!!! got stopped by a cop just now, anomalous behavior on officers part

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Here's the way that would have turned out..............
1.Officer stops you and asks questions, you in turn ask him why or refuse to answer.
2.Officer asks for identification, as OP stated you have none, now you are not being cooperative and are possibly concealing your identity.
3. Officer radios for back up, you become annoyed and want to leave, officer has no intention of letting you control this situation.
Now, at the very least, you will be charged with disorderly conduct. If you protest or resist in any way charges will be added.
Don't believe me? Look up the number of times a civilian has won a case against a police officer in the last ten years.

An alternate to your scenario:
1)Cop stops to question me. I answer his questions.
2)He asks if he can search me. I refuse.
3)He asks me for ID. I oblige, as I ALWAYS carry it (it is against the law not to, afterall)
4)He either decides to detain me, or realizes I am just doing my thing. We proceed accordingly.

See, I think I am being taken out of context. I am not saying just because a cop asks me something that I am going to refuse. I am saying I am not going to let him search me without a good reason. If he can provide that, great. If he can't, I will refuse.

I have my rights. If he can't tell me anything other than "you have long hair", then, sorry sir, I'm on my way. I provided my ID. I answered his questions. I do NOT have to let him invade my personal space.

More people win cases against cops than you realize, it's just that most civilian victories are settled out of court. and either way, the negative attention is something that NO police department wants.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Good luck with that farce of a lawsuit.

It's not as though the goal is to have to sue. But if that's what it takes to defend my rights, i will gladly go there. Whats sad is that the idea of what a cop is supposed to be has become so skewed that we defend their invasion of our basic rights....

Congratulations. I'm glad you're taking the way of complacency, while people are being wasted in their homes for suspected marijuana possession.

Wow, you certainly had a pleasant experience huh!? Nevermind the fact that a cop almost pulled his gun on you for having barely the slightest suspicion of you, based on an extremely limited suspect description. What a lovely experience.

You were put against a wall, and your god-damn pockets turned out, for nothing.

FFS

We are REALLY not going back to pre-2001 days. It's pretty self-evident at this point.

Originally posted by Jubes
Attitude like this is what gets people shot! Seriously if the OP matched the description of an armed robber the police certainly DO have the right to stop you and search you it.is.their.JOB. While you have the right to politely decline I have to right to live in a safe place and if that means the police stop people that match the description of a criminal to rule them out then so be it, if you have nothing to hide why create a problem?

So... much.... anger....

Must... leave... ATS.. for several.. days.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Actually a cop does have the right to search you, just because you fit a description. Jesus...some of you are truly clueless....ever heard of a Terry stop? Try google out sometime. Are there crooked police officers out there? Sure. Are there assholes? Sure...however, most police officers are doing their jobs and nothing more. Don't you think if the norm was "all cops" are stealing away our rights there would be more stories about the cops who were decent instead of the infestation of stories on a daily basis in various news publications across the country when cops do the exact opposite of their "job"? For real man, read a book or something. Google Terry stop. Wanna learn how a police officer is supposed to "do his or her job", take a college course on Criminal Justice, do something, other than bitch about how cops have "no right" to search someone who "fits a description". P.S., if you decline a search, you have now crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion to probable cause.

reply to post by mademyself1984


Actually, just fitting the description gives them reasonable suspicion to ask you these questions. It still does not give them the right to forcibly search you, which is why this cop ASKED the person to oblige.

Wait, who is clueless?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by mademyself1984

 

Actually, just fitting the description gives them reasonable suspicion to ask you these questions. It still does not give them the right to forcibly search you, which is why this cop ASKED the person to oblige.

Wait, who is clueless?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said, clueless guy. Reasonable suspicion is fitting the description. Refusing the search, is probable cause. Seriously, buy a text book or utilize the resources that are free to you (Google, try Terry Stop). For real, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by mademyself1984

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by mademyself1984

 

Actually, just fitting the description gives them reasonable suspicion to ask you these questions. It still does not give them the right to forcibly search you, which is why this cop ASKED the person to oblige.

Wait, who is clueless?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said, clueless guy. Reasonable suspicion is fitting the description. Refusing the search, is probable cause. Seriously, buy a text book or utilize the resources that are free to you (Google, try Terry Stop). For real, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Not really. But it's cool.

I am familiar with the terry stop case. It changes nothing on my position. Your fear controls you when it comes to cops-they dont have a right to search you until they have established probable cause-reasonable suspicion only covers the right to stop you, not to illegal search and seizure.

I understand why people are so scared of police and why its easier to forfeit your right than it is to defend them. That doesnt change the fact that our forefathers charged us with defending a free nation.

I gladly cooperate with police, until it becomes an issue of violating my rights. Then it is a different story. Its sad that so many give them up so freely.

'Course, it's also sad when the IQ of a person is so diminished that they're first reaction is to insult someone that they disagree with, but that's a different story.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Good luck with that farce of a lawsuit.

It's not as though the goal is to have to sue. But if that's what it takes to defend my rights, i will gladly go there. Whats sad is that the idea of what a cop is supposed to be has become so skewed that we defend their invasion of our basic rights....

Actually whats sad is how people stereotype every single officer into a category of evil overlord hell bent on denying you your rights. We have a job to do, and the last thing we want to do is annoy, bother or piss of a citizen. If we are making contact iwth a person in the manner described (meeting the description of a person who just committed an armed robbery) we are obligated, as part of the investigation, to check on you.

Failure to do so could very well end in someone being killed, or another person being robbed at gun point. Its an easy enough encounter... We will be cautious and verify your not part of whats going on and send you on your way.

While you may feel this is unjustified, I disagree.
While you may feel its a violation of your rights, the Surpeme Court disagrees, as they have ruled an investigative detention is permissable and is not an infringement on a persons rights (4th, 5th, or 6th amendment).

You have a right to remain silent when being interrogated / being asked guilt seeking questions. During an investigative detention its also against the law to refuse to identify yourself to law enforcement (the purpose of an investigation is to rule people out as suspcts as much as it is to find a suspct).

While you may feel th need to thumb your nose at officers who are doing their job, it does not help anyone, including yourself.

Our goal is to find the person who broke the law, not harass citizens. Feel free to behave how you want, but it wont serve any good purpose.

As far as your lawsuit threat goes, you may want to check into how that works, since law enforcement, while during the course of our duties and provided we are withint state and federal law in addition to departmental policy, have civil immunity form lawsuits (specifically because of what you threatended to do).

If your "rights" are violated, its not a civil law suit, but a 42 USc 1983 lawsuit.

Please learn the difference between civil and criminal and how to have standing in either.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Good luck with that farce of a lawsuit.

It's not as though the goal is to have to sue. But if that's what it takes to defend my rights, i will gladly go there. Whats sad is that the idea of what a cop is supposed to be has become so skewed that we defend their invasion of our basic rights....

Actually whats sad is how people stereotype every single officer into a category of evil overlord hell bent on denying you your rights. We have a job to do, and the last thing we want to do is annoy, bother or piss of a citizen. If we are making contact iwth a person in the manner described (meeting the description of a person who just committed an armed robbery) we are obligated, as part of the investigation, to check on you.

Failure to do so could very well end in someone being killed, or another person being robbed at gun point. Its an easy enough encounter... We will be cautious and verify your not part of whats going on and send you on your way.

While you may feel this is unjustified, I disagree.
While you may feel its a violation of your rights, the Surpeme Court disagrees, as they have ruled an investigative detention is permissable and is not an infringement on a persons rights (4th, 5th, or 6th amendment).

You have a right to remain silent when being interrogated / being asked guilt seeking questions. During an investigative detention its also against the law to refuse to identify yourself to law enforcement (the purpose of an investigation is to rule people out as suspcts as much as it is to find a suspct).

While you may feel th need to thumb your nose at officers who are doing their job, it does not help anyone, including yourself.

Our goal is to find the person who broke the law, not harass citizens. Feel free to behave how you want, but it wont serve any good purpose.

As far as your lawsuit threat goes, you may want to check into how that works, since law enforcement, while during the course of our duties and provided we are withint state and federal law in addition to departmental policy, have civil immunity form lawsuits (specifically because of what you threatended to do).

If your "rights" are violated, its not a civil law suit, but a 42 USc 1983 lawsuit.

Please learn the difference between civil and criminal and how to have standing in either.

That's such garbage. I never said every officer is bad, and I certainly never said this officer was. It sounds like he was quite polite. It has nothing to do with the individual cop and everything with my rights as a free citizen. Don't try and push ideas or thoughts about me that I havent said.

You are obliged to check on me. To search me, absolutely not.

As I have already said, there is precedence on both sides of these types of cases. I may take it to court and lose. I may not. Either way does not matter to me. Drawing attention to violations of rights does.

Police used to have a motto, "to serve and protect". That has long since gone by the wayside. It is now a matter of "everyone is a suspect". No matter how justified you feel in that, I will never live that way. I dont care what kind of hastle it brings into my life. A badge does not give you the right to invade on my rights, and I will defend those rights all the way to the death. A cop is no one but someone who decided to go into that line of work. They have no special rights, and certainly have no right to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am truly disgusted by hw vehemently people will defend cops in their violation of rights these days. It is the type of thing that causes revolutions. I is the reason there is such a rise in the murder of officers. The line has been blurred, and suddenly officers think it is within their rights to do whatever it takes to catch a criminal or stop a crime.

I call BS.

I dont feel the need to thumb my nose at cops, but just the fact that you take my advocacy of living by your rights as such shows just how jaded things have become. "If you dont comply, you are thumbing your nose and creating a hassle". BS. That is such a NAZI mentality that i cannot even fathom what it takes to get there.

And for the record, if my rights are violated, I have the right to both criminal retribution, and, if i want, to seek civil liberties. Nice attempt to demean me, but you only make yourself look more foolish. I know my rights.

And finally, try rereading what I said. I said I would gladly identify myself. So your little snipe there is moot.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Your position in your posts is where it comes across that all cops are evil, whether you meant it that way or not, its how it comes across.

Do we have a right to check on you? No.

Do we have a right to check on you if you are matching a description of an armed person who comitted robbery? Absolutely.

Do we have a right to search you as a person matching the description. No - However we are permitted to terry frisk / patdown to ensure you are not armed, and trhe suprme court has ruled on and supported this position.

I respect your position in protecting your rights, however the problem comes up that people do not understand how those rights work (specifically the 4th amendment as well as your Miranda warnings). In a society where the individual is allowed to carry a weapon (I am a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment and agree with SCOTUS on it being an individual right) it forces law enforcement to interact a bit differently with people we come into contact with.

Is every person we come across evil or ill intentioned? Not at all, however assuming every person we come in contact with is an angel is just as dangerous. For those who have a negative perception of law enforcement I ask this.

Set aside your doubts / hesitations / preconceived notions, head to your local police or sheriffs department, and ask about doing a ride along. People have this perception of law enforcemen that is based on a thought process that, in my opinion, is off base. Seeing what we deal with, as well as how situations can pop up, migh open some eyes as to th angers involved in our job, and why we act in certain situations.

Its like a traffic stop at 2am.

As the person being pulled over, your though process is along the lines of, what did I do now, was I speeding, why cant the cop find real criminals etc etc etc.

Our thought process is I am stopping this vehicle for exceeding the posted speed limit by 15 miles an hour. Then it moves to is the person armed? do they have warrants? are they drunk / under the influence? Did they just kill a person? Is the car stolen? Is the person kidnapping anyone? Is the person mentally stable?

99% of the time, people know its a cop walking up on them at a traffic stop.

99% of the time, we have no idea who or what we are walking up on during a traffic stop.

As you stated there are laws to support both arguments. I love my job, including all of the difficulties involved. I do my best to respect every person I come in contact with an treat them as I would want to be treated. However, when a crime has occured, and the suspect is armed and has demonstrated the ability to pull that weapon and point it at another person and threaten to kill them unless they turn over belongings, our patience becomes short.

If you arent the suspect, we have no desire to diddle dally for 30 minutes while a person plays point counter point over their perceived rights in that type of scenario. If I sound like an arrogant ass stating it in this manner, its not completely intended, but I say it because I dont think some people understand.

People make the argument that the police annoy them when they are targeted because of an incident that they match a description. What would that thought process be if you were the one with the gun pointed at your head and told to turn over your wallet or you would be killed?

Respectfully, while I understand the "need" by some people to "protect" their perceived rights, take a second and place yourself in the position of the victem who just got robbed, and how you would feel and how you would want the police to find the SOB who just did that to you. Put yourself in our shoes now, and think about trying to find a person who is armed and has no regard for human life by making the threat in the manner they did.

You might understand our urgency and caution when dealing with people.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mademyself1984

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by mademyself1984

 

Actually, just fitting the description gives them reasonable suspicion to ask you these questions. It still does not give them the right to forcibly search you, which is why this cop ASKED the person to oblige.

Wait, who is clueless?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said, clueless guy. Reasonable suspicion is fitting the description. Refusing the search, is probable cause. Seriously, buy a text book or utilize the resources that are free to you (Google, try Terry Stop). For real, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Not really. But it's cool.

I am familiar with the terry stop case. It changes nothing on my position. Your fear controls you when it comes to cops-they dont have a right to search you until they have established probable cause-reasonable suspicion only covers the right to stop you, not to illegal search and seizure.

I understand why people are so scared of police and why its easier to forfeit your right than it is to defend them. That doesnt change the fact that our forefathers charged us with defending a free nation.

I gladly cooperate with police, until it becomes an issue of violating my rights. Then it is a different story. Its sad that so many give them up so freely.

'Course, it's also sad when the IQ of a person is so diminished that they're first reaction is to insult someone that they disagree with, but that's a different story.

edit on 28-5-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Seriously? You keep proving my point. It has nothing to do with my "fear" of the police. It has everything to do with my Bachelors in Criminal Justice. You clearly are not "familiar" with the Terry Stop case. Nor are you familiar with what "rights" of yours are being violated. No rights are violated if an officer believes it is necessary to question you, the simplest conclusion to your being questioned would be to acknowledge for whatever reason the officer is doing his job. Now, you can claim your rights are being violated, however, they aren't. It's pretty simple, if you aren't doing anything wrong, 99.9 percent of officers will acknowledge that, thank you for your time and patience, and be on their way. The second you act like an arrogant prick, you are susceptible to a "warrantless search" and potentially more inconvenience than that depending on your behavior from that point forward. I've been stopped numerous times for would have been minor traffic violations at strange hours of the night. Did I need to be pulled over? Most likely not. The time of night/morning gave the officer reasonable suspicion (which they could technically have of anyone on the road once bars have closed), the moment I did something "not within traffic codes/laws" I gave said officers probable cause to stop me, issued whatever tests, perform whatever searches, and take whatever action, whether it was a warning, a ticket, or making an arrest, they felt necessary. Because I was in fact doing nothing wrong other than a minor slip up, and I was cordial, patient, and cooperative with the officer who was in fact doing his job, and nowhere near violating any of my "rights", I was treated politely in return, and free to go. I've had an instance where I probably could have been arrested, because I was borderline over the limit to be driving, and my attitude and behavior with the officer earned me the chance to make a phone call and have someone meet me at my car to drive me and my vehicle home. It's called discretion. There's another term to look up whenever you get around to it. Honestly I don't know how any of this is that complicated. If an officer stops you for literally no reason, treats you disrespectfully, makes an unlawful arrest, or beats you or tases you or draws his weapon, perhaps even shoots, for no reason. Fine, that officer clearly violated your rights as a human being. However, it doesn't happen as much as you sensationalist "I hate pigs" crowd would like to believe.

Originally posted by mademyself1984
Seriously? You keep proving my point. It has nothing to do with my "fear" of the police. It has everything to do with my Bachelors in Criminal Justice. You clearly are not "familiar" with the Terry Stop case. Nor are you familiar with what "rights" of yours are being violated. No rights are violated if an officer believes it is necessary to question you, the simplest conclusion to your being questioned would be to acknowledge for whatever reason the officer is doing his job. Now, you can claim your rights are being violated, however, they aren't. It's pretty simple, if you aren't doing anything wrong, 99.9 percent of officers will acknowledge that, thank you for your time and patience, and be on their way. The second you act like an arrogant prick, you are susceptible to a "warrantless search" and potentially more inconvenience than that depending on your behavior from that point forward. I've been stopped numerous times for would have been minor traffic violations at strange hours of the night. Did I need to be pulled over? Most likely not. The time of night/morning gave the officer reasonable suspicion (which they could technically have of anyone on the road once bars have closed), the moment I did something "not within traffic codes/laws" I gave said officers probable cause to stop me, issued whatever tests, perform whatever searches, and take whatever action, whether it was a warning, a ticket, or making an arrest, they felt necessary. Because I was in fact doing nothing wrong other than a minor slip up, and I was cordial, patient, and cooperative with the officer who was in fact doing his job, and nowhere near violating any of my "rights", I was treated politely in return, and free to go. I've had an instance where I probably could have been arrested, because I was borderline over the limit to be driving, and my attitude and behavior with the officer earned me the chance to make a phone call and have someone meet me at my car to drive me and my vehicle home. It's called discretion. There's another term to look up whenever you get around to it. Honestly I don't know how any of this is that complicated. If an officer stops you for literally no reason, treats you disrespectfully, makes an unlawful arrest, or beats you or tases you or draws his weapon, perhaps even shoots, for no reason. Fine, that officer clearly violated your rights as a human being. However, it doesn't happen as much as you sensationalist "I hate pigs" crowd would like to believe.

Confirming that it's never about serving proper justice or the security of the people. It's all about civil obedience. Nothing more. I'm sick of being lectured by you types. You go on, and on, and on and on and on trying to explain what my rights are, and what they're not. All the while, fitting in an "arrogant prick" here, a baseless accusation there, and the oh so ever present claim that I belong to the "I hate pigs" crowd.

Yea, because, if I'm outspoken for my rights, or get riled up about rights violations, then I certainly must hate pigs.

This utterly disgusts me.

"The second you dare defy my authority and disobey me.."



There are just no words..

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


"sure , no problem, though i have to advise you that i don't have any ID on me at the moment. "

Reading your post it seems like you want us to believe this event is something you witnessed or heard. But the way it is written it also seems like this event happened to you. Confusing.

Either way I don't believe someone stopped by a LEO that cannot produce a valid Drivers License, Registration and Proof of Insurance (if required by law in your state) would be dismissed in this fashion. This does not happen in the real world unless whomever is himself a LEO or a well known close relative of a LEO.

No way, not going to happen. Not in real life.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Seriously?....So a cop gets a call for a White Male With a HUGE AFRO, wearing a shirt with Unicorns and women's high heel shoes who just killed an entire family and stole a 30'000 dollar Rolex, and may be armed......The cop doesn't have the right to search a guy who fits that description exactly?

The fact is...yes a cop DOES have that right. If this hypothetical (yet admittedly ridiculously dressed individual) had just killed YOUR family, are you telling me that you wouldn't sue the police if the cop decided not to search the guy?!?!?

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by mademyself1984
Seriously? You keep proving my point. It has nothing to do with my "fear" of the police. It has everything to do with my Bachelors in Criminal Justice. You clearly are not "familiar" with the Terry Stop case. Nor are you familiar with what "rights" of yours are being violated. No rights are violated if an officer believes it is necessary to question you, the simplest conclusion to your being questioned would be to acknowledge for whatever reason the officer is doing his job. Now, you can claim your rights are being violated, however, they aren't. It's pretty simple, if you aren't doing anything wrong, 99.9 percent of officers will acknowledge that, thank you for your time and patience, and be on their way. The second you act like an arrogant prick, you are susceptible to a "warrantless search" and potentially more inconvenience than that depending on your behavior from that point forward. I've been stopped numerous times for would have been minor traffic violations at strange hours of the night. Did I need to be pulled over? Most likely not. The time of night/morning gave the officer reasonable suspicion (which they could technically have of anyone on the road once bars have closed), the moment I did something "not within traffic codes/laws" I gave said officers probable cause to stop me, issued whatever tests, perform whatever searches, and take whatever action, whether it was a warning, a ticket, or making an arrest, they felt necessary. Because I was in fact doing nothing wrong other than a minor slip up, and I was cordial, patient, and cooperative with the officer who was in fact doing his job, and nowhere near violating any of my "rights", I was treated politely in return, and free to go. I've had an instance where I probably could have been arrested, because I was borderline over the limit to be driving, and my attitude and behavior with the officer earned me the chance to make a phone call and have someone meet me at my car to drive me and my vehicle home. It's called discretion. There's another term to look up whenever you get around to it. Honestly I don't know how any of this is that complicated. If an officer stops you for literally no reason, treats you disrespectfully, makes an unlawful arrest, or beats you or tases you or draws his weapon, perhaps even shoots, for no reason. Fine, that officer clearly violated your rights as a human being. However, it doesn't happen as much as you sensationalist "I hate pigs" crowd would like to believe.

Confirming that it's never about serving proper justice or the security of the people. It's all about civil obedience. Nothing more. I'm sick of being lectured by you types. You go on, and on, and on and on and on trying to explain what my rights are, and what they're not. All the while, fitting in an "arrogant prick" here, a baseless accusation there, and the oh so ever present claim that I belong to the "I hate pigs" crowd.

Yea, because, if I'm outspoken for my rights, or get riled up about rights violations, then I certainly must hate pigs.

This utterly disgusts me.

"The second you dare defy my authority and disobey me.."

There are just no words..

edit on 28-5-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

You don't have a reason to be outspoken for your rights. Your rights are not being violated. It isn't "civil obedience", it is common sense. If you give a police officer a "hard time" because you are uneducated about "your rights", you have opened the door for him to up his level of authority over the situation. Like it or not, Police Officer's are there to maintain a reasonable amount of control and authority. It has nothing to do with "your rights", it has everything to do with maintaining order. Nobody is telling you what to do, merely making suggestions to improve your next encounter with an officer of the peace. Like everyone has stated, 99.9 percent of police officers don't want to fiddle f**k around with a civil, respectful, polite individual who doesn't interfere with an officer's ability to do his job (even if that means taking 5 minutes to ask you why you were going 4 mph over the speed limit) or waste his time. The "arrogant prick" that gets tossed in here or there, is exactly what you are being when you start screaming "my rights, my rights". Things people have actually said...."I don't have to show him my ID"...yes, you do. "They can't search me for looking like a suspect"...yes...they can. The more cooperative you are, the more quickly you will be ruled out, or free to go about your business, so they can go about theirs. And you aren't being lumped into the "I hate pigs crowd", your post pretty much kinda did that for you. The key is understanding the difference between harassment by an officer, or abuse of power of an officer, and an officer merely doing his job. When you feel you've been wronged, again, utilize the resources available to you (such as finding the departments policy on reporting unruly officers) and file a damn report. Every time a police officer asks to search your car, requests you stop for a Terry Search, requests you take a breathalyzer, wishes to ask you questions, etc. Said officer is nearly always doing his job. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, well, then tough #, quit crying because nobody outside of the "I hate pigs" crowd cares. If you want an example of an officer or group of officers to bitch about, look up the story of the marine who was killed in a botched drug raid, which was performed under the discretion of bad information. Those officers, did their jobs poorly. However, I will say he (the marine) was brandishing an AR-15, and although I believe those officers should be held accountable for their piss poor tactics, judgment, and planning, I can see how the situation ended the way that it did. Officer's have a job to do too, make it easy on them and it will be much less painless for you.

To the OP:
I really appreciated your story.
Had a run in... or rather an almost RUN OVER just recently by a couple of Cops.
I walk a lot... mainly to save money for food and tangible things, than to waste it on gas.
There's this one intersection close to the freeway near where I live and I've almost been run down quite a few times, in broad daylight, legally crossing in a crosswalk... when it supposed to be safe to walk. However, the people making the left hand turn into me are either dazed out from the freeway, on their cells, racing to get to wherever, or in this case talking to his partner and not paying attention to where he was going.
I've gotten quite good at anticipating the oncoming masses of death at this intersection so I had felt it coming a bit before I had even attempted to cross... but hey... I got the right of way so...
At the last second I had to literally jump out of the way and it was at about that same time when he had noticed me and slammed on his brakes...
My first reaction was, "What the #%@%!!"... Like I said this happens at this intersection a lot so I get really angry at the obvious disregard.
I walked back towards the cruiser. He rolled down his window and I could see he was a little shocked and relieved at the same time.
I walked right up to his window and yelled " You should know better! Your a Police Officer!"
He looked at me for a second with an expression of "How dare I" while his partner sat there totally silent looking at me. He shook off the Ego and simply said, "You know what... your absolutely right." And we parted ways...
He could have been a jerk about it and maybe He and His partner chuckled as they drove away fantasizing about beating the crap out of me someplace away from a bunch of witnesses... but I like to think He was a decent Cop that at least had to balls to admit He was in the wrong.
To me, He was a Good Cop.
Cops are just people however... and people are like boxes of chocolates...
Ya never know which kind your gonna get.
Just gotta hope ya get a Good one if you do happen have an encounter with one.
S&F for your story.

Originally posted by mademyself1984


Seriously? You keep proving my point. It has nothing to do with my "fear" of the police. It has everything to do with my Bachelors in Criminal Justice. You clearly are not "familiar" with the Terry Stop case. Nor are you familiar with what "rights" of yours are being violated. No rights are violated if an officer believes it is necessary to question you, the simplest conclusion to your being questioned would be to acknowledge for whatever reason the officer is doing his job. Now, you can claim your rights are being violated, however, they aren't. It's pretty simple, if you aren't doing anything wrong, 99.9 percent of officers will acknowledge that, thank you for your time and patience, and be on their way. The second you act like an arrogant prick, you are susceptible to a "warrantless search" and potentially more inconvenience than that depending on your behavior from that point forward. I've been stopped numerous times for would have been minor traffic violations at strange hours of the night. Did I need to be pulled over? Most likely not. The time of night/morning gave the officer reasonable suspicion (which they could technically have of anyone on the road once bars have closed), the moment I did something "not within traffic codes/laws" I gave said officers probable cause to stop me, issued whatever tests, perform whatever searches, and take whatever action, whether it was a warning, a ticket, or making an arrest, they felt necessary. Because I was in fact doing nothing wrong other than a minor slip up, and I was cordial, patient, and cooperative with the officer who was in fact doing his job, and nowhere near violating any of my "rights", I was treated politely in return, and free to go. I've had an instance where I probably could have been arrested, because I was borderline over the limit to be driving, and my attitude and behavior with the officer earned me the chance to make a phone call and have someone meet me at my car to drive me and my vehicle home. It's called discretion. There's another term to look up whenever you get around to it. Honestly I don't know how any of this is that complicated. If an officer stops you for literally no reason, treats you disrespectfully, makes an unlawful arrest, or beats you or tases you or draws his weapon, perhaps even shoots, for no reason. Fine, that officer clearly violated your rights as a human being. However, it doesn't happen as much as you sensationalist "I hate pigs" crowd would like to believe.

Did you really just act high and mighty because you have a bachelors? REALLY????


I have to say, this is the second time you have resorted to immediately jumping to name calling and insults, and it's the last time I'll stand for it. You, with your impressive bachelors, aught to know that resorting to name calling and insults is a sign of someone without an argument.

As I have said all along, there is a reason that this officer ASKED the person, and didn't TELL them what to do. It is because they did not have a specific enough description to fully identify him as a suspect. If they had, they would have detained him immediately.

You and our google warrior Terry Stop cases are irrelevant. They simply did not have enough to reasonable search him, which is why it was all request, and not demand. To be a Terry Stop, the officer must have, and this is the SPECIFIC language, “specific and articulable facts”. This means, as I have said ALL ALONG, that I have EVERY RIGHT to ask for the facts of WHY I am being approached.

And again, AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG, if he cannot provide them, I have no further obligation.

Furthermore, if the officer did not ask him if he had weapons on him, which, by the OP's description, he did not, he does not have a right to search for them, in a suspicion case.

And again, I never said I hate pigs. That is sensationalist tripe.

Take your bachelors and get a real education.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Nice post! The fact is people now days want everything to boil down to an 'us against them' mentality....Whether it be Cops against Citizens, Republicans against Democrats, or even a hypothetical Shadowy 'Illuminati/World Bankers/Reptoids from Draco, etc., etc.....No one seems able to accept that the world doesn't work quite that way. While any of these groups (well the ones that exist anyway) can, and do at times do horrible things...These things are done by people within these categories....not the entire group. Ignorance is a way of making it easier to identify your enemies...giving you someone to hate. It's what the Nazi's did in WWII.....and frighteningly...it seems to be what people of today are DESPERATELY trying to do, yet again...both on small, and large scales. Instead of trying to accept that we are all humans...guilty of greed, envy, and selfishness...as well as love, kindness and hope...people want to see pure evil in any organisation no matter who it is. We need to understand one another...not be so quick to judge entire groups. ...............

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Seriously?....So a cop gets a call for a White Male With a HUGE AFRO, wearing a shirt with Unicorns and women's high heel shoes who just killed an entire family and stole a 30'000 dollar Rolex, and may be armed......The cop doesn't have the right to search a guy who fits that description exactly?

The fact is...yes a cop DOES have that right. If this hypothetical (yet admittedly ridiculously dressed individual) had just killed YOUR family, are you telling me that you wouldn't sue the police if the cop decided not to search the guy?!?!?

edit on 28-5-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because:

It's a mystery

Thats a reasonable description f a suspect. The one in the OP was not. The two are not comparable.

You can try and make this an emotional argument, bring my family into it, all you want. It doesnt change the facts.