It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is that a Drill Sergeant or a Police Officer? Belligerent Cop Loses it On Man for Knowing His Rights

page: 12
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: L.A.B

of course you do. Anyone does. Our constitution applies to man kind not just US citizens. Only recently has enemy combatant not fallen under the protections of the constitution.

Jaden




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher>>> If you really wanted to piss the cop off and make him go monkey mad, you'd laugh at him and let him get the impression you think he's a joke. That would probably be a bad idea since the guy could drag you out of your car and trump up charges that you had the smell of pot in your car and then resisted as he beats you. Just pass the video on to the local news station and see if they run it.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I watch stuff like this and I wonder why you guys feign outrage over it.

Its a set-up video.

The guy knew what was coming. Either that or he's the biggest narcissist in the world and loves to record himself driving because the camera was set on him from the start.

So he pulls in, starts his contrived and practiced constitutional speil and pisses off a cop (who is probably simply having a bad day) because he's being a smart arse. All he had to do was have a quick chat and be on his way.

Does he have a right to be a smart arse? Absolutely. Does it mean he needs to be one? Nope.

Live by the troll, die by the troll.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

As has already been pointed out in this thread. Whether stop and identify is legal or not doesn't matter, it is STILL unconstitutional. Also, the supreme court ruled it to be unconstitutional even though they still allow it which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The driver did NOT claim that they couldn't ask for his ID, and he DID furnish it when they did, he only stated that it was unconstitutional for them to do so, which is TRUE. Legality never entered into it.

There are many things right now that are legal or illegal but it is unconstitutional that they are such...

Jaden



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: carl6405

no sorry, lack of people like the driver and people like you are the reason we will lose more of our rights.

JAden



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Nice job of blowing that one off.
Like you don't get it.

Your post said that people are born with feet so they have a right to walk. They are not born with cars so they have no right to travel in a car.

If you don't get the point of my post.... I can't be of further assistance, as I am not a teacher.
I suspect that you did understand what I meant.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=18443344]nighthawk1954[/post

This bony assed old fart of a cop is only doing that because he knows that hes got other cops backing him up. He wouldn't do that if he were alone. He's really a coward, that's why he took the opportunity to do that. Real men, know they are bad and don't have to try to intimidate.....their very presence intimidates. This cop is nothing but a coward with a click. A Chihuahua with a badge.


edit on 22-9-2014 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The only thing I didn't understand was the government quartering soldiers in a house part.




Your post said that people are born with feet so they have a right to walk. They are not born with cars so they have no right to travel in a car.


Articulating is important here. I never said you don't have a right to 'travel' in a car. I said it isn't your right to outright operate a motor vehicle without the government's permission. The only things people truly have a right about is the right to live, travel freely in your country, self-expression and religion. That's it really. Right to education too and maybe a few others. Not the right to drive a car. Google it man. Don't argue about it, just google it if what I say is so unbelievable.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: butcherguy

The only thing I didn't understand was the government quartering soldiers in a house part.




Your post said that people are born with feet so they have a right to walk. They are not born with cars so they have no right to travel in a car.


Articulating is important here. I never said you don't have a right to 'travel' in a car. I said it isn't your right to outright operate a motor vehicle without the government's permission. The only things people truly have a right about is the right to live, travel freely in your country, self-expression and religion. That's it really. Right to education too and maybe a few others. Not the right to drive a car. Google it man. Don't argue about it, just google it if what I say is so unbelievable.




No authority figure has the "right" to yank someone's door open, yell in their face as if they are inferior, and try to intimidate. This is not the job of the police, and by all moral and ethical standards that the cops are held to (which are supposed to be beyond our level) they are actually supposed to try to calmly explain to someone first the law...within the balance of the law and the constitution. To server and protect...not to intimidate and come off as a dictator.


The way I see it. The law did not give this cop his badge to behave this way, and as far as our "God given" rights. We really don't even have to talk to these cowards in badges. If they are blocking roads off unconstitutionally, then we have every right to just run that barrier without saying a word really. Besides, Google is full of lies and they do everything possible to assist the police and the elites. Bad information for thev average joe, unless it's BY the average joe.
edit on 22-9-2014 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: milkyway12I do not do this for authority. I actually end up hurting way more people than i help.


You recognize this and yet you still persist. How very unpleasant.


originally posted by: milkyway12
We have what's called Terry vs Ohio that gives us a ton of room to do a field stop and fill out field contact cards on the street. It's very easy to articulate suspicion .......

\\\

Yes, we can do a PAT DOWN for officer safety, that's our reason, and you can articulate that in several different ways. The department has been sued several times already and not one has succeeded on pat downs.


I think you may be confusing the words "articulate" and "fabricate". Also, ending statements with "..." generally only serves to highlight the point that whatever you just said has an alternate meaning or intention.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
That man shows no respect just in speaking to another human being. What a moron.


If irony were made from cod and potatoes, we'd all be eating fish n' chips right now. I'm assuming you'll continue to provide enough vinegar for all.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician




then we have every right to just run that barrier without saying a word really


I think this line right here is the reason why cops lose their cool and freak out.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


The only thing I didn't understand was the government quartering soldiers in a house part.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were Canadian.
It is a reference to the 3rd Amendment to the US Constitution.
It says that US citizens may not be forced to quarter soldiers in their homes.
Unless you are a snail or a turtle, you are not born with a home on you back, which would negate the 3rd Amendment, because you have no right to a home to begin with.


People aren't born with cars. They're born with two feet. It is your god given right to walk. That's all you get regarding transportation.

Pretty clear what you articulated there. You can walk.. that is it, that's all you get. No swimming. No riding bikes. No riding horses.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement




He was asking a question. He was asking if he was being detained, they wouldn't answer his question with a straight answer (ask yourself why).



He answered, "you are not free to go right now". I think it's pretty straight forward. Not going to sit on the side of the road and argue semantics about 'detained' and "not free to go" It's a road check. You are not allowed to leave a road check until they say you can.




Why, are cops so incapable of controlling themselves when questioned that we have something to fear?


Not all cops. Just the ones who are fed up with the bs from people who purposely try to F with their day like some arm chair lawyer.



You would take extra steps to assess the demeanour of the cop before questioning or exercising your rights (because the reality is your life, safety and well-being mean nothing to a cop). Being submissive isn't going to change that.


Being aggressive won't change anything either except maybe finding your nose pressed against the pavement. And YES I would look in the cops eye and know exactly how this is going down and adapt my personality accordingly. The reality is, I don't want some cop thinking I've got something to hide.




So that makes it okay in your eyes?

Relatively speaking, yes. Cop 2 didn't get in there until he said "I'm not obligated to provide my license if I'm not being detained" Right there, that's when cop 2 had enough because it's absolutely FALSE. He didn't even pull him out of the car by his hair like some bad cops do, just got a verbal smack down. It comes down to, if you think it's ok for a cop to raise his voice or not and "advise" a citizen about the law. Which he did.




Since you were breaking the law when stopped, I fail to see the relevance?


The relevance is I DID break the law, didn't give the cop any smack talk and he STILL let me 1/2 off. More like 3/4 off because speeding would have went against my points. Point is, be cool and not a dink.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This guy is a halfwit who doesn't understand the law, nor his rights...
The officer is 100% in the right here, and he's 100% in the wrong.
A fine example of getting your law degree from the University of Internet Lawyers...

1) The “am I being detained” crap only flies if you are a pedestrian, not when you are operating a motor vehicle.

2) The 5th amendment applies to self incrimination, and in the case of Miranda rights applies ONLY to official police interrogation, not a “terry stop” or traffic stop. If you're not sure if you are being interrogated, a reliable indicator is if you find yourself in a little room at the police station sitting across a table from a detective....THENNN, you just might be being interrogated, and only THENNN does Miranda apply to you.

3) When you're driving a car you are legally obligated to pull over any time a police officer demands, and you are required to give proof of insurance, registration, drivers license, and answer basic questions.

4) You contractually waive certain rights when you apply for a drivers license. When you have one, and are operating a vehicle, you have already contractually consented to being stopped, having your vehicle inspected, presenting your “papers”, and submitting to a DUI check.

5) Shooting your mouth off is “verbal resistance” and IS legally a form of resisting. The same way that that not responding to (ignoring) an officer is “passive resistance”.

6) Roadblocks are legal because they are advertised in the newspaper up to a week in advance, along with exact instructions as to 1 in how many cars will be pulled over (1 in 3 or 1 in 5). The police have to follow it to the letter or you can legally challenge it in court and get a dismissal. Anyway, if you want to avoid a roadblock, just find out where they are advertised at and avoid them. If you really wanted to avoid the roadblock you should have read when and where it was, if you didn't then you consented via ignorance.

7) When you pull up with your window half open the police already know they are dealing with another fine graduate of the U of IL....



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




Pretty clear what you articulated there. You can walk.. that is it, that's all you get. No swimming. No riding bikes. No riding horses.


Can we be rational? Clearly, I'm not suggesting all of those are privileges. It's quality of life. Oh but driving is a quality of life...I can hear you now lol.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: defcon5




7) When you pull up with your window half open the police already know they are dealing with another fine graduate of the U of IL....





posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: butcherguy




Pretty clear what you articulated there. You can walk.. that is it, that's all you get. No swimming. No riding bikes. No riding horses.


Can we be rational? Clearly, I'm not suggesting all of those are privileges. It's quality of life. Oh but driving is a quality of life...I can hear you now lol.

Respond to what you wrote, Mr. Rational. You said that the reason a person has no right to any other means of transportation is because they are 'born with feet'.
Are you denying what you posted, or are you saying that you reasoning is faulty?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nighthawk1954

I think both parties were a little out of line. The driver should have cooperated with the safety checks, usually meant to net drunken drivers. Those officers did not take control until the passive aggressive doytch bag driver started acting like he was above any roadside check. I feel like he got what he deserved. After watching I am 100% certain they would have treated him respectfully if he would have produced the required forms for driving in that state and acted respectfully instead of defiantly. Of course, like everyone else, I am only offering my opinion.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nighthawk1954

I don't understand how the cop was being abusive. Out there on the road, it is dangerous for them. In any such situation, it is imperative the cop maintain control of the situation. This driver purposely was fighting for control of the situation that as far as the cop knew, could lead to a dangerous situation. He didn't allow that to escalate. IF I would have been that cop knowing it was being recorded, I would have told the guy that we are just doing road safety, and why are you trying to turn a safety check into a constitutional crisis? And personally, I would love to know what the constitution has to do with cops performing a road safety check? Would it be a better America if cops didn't do road safety checks, including checking that people driving actually are driving legally with driver's licences?



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join