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: 17
59
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
No, wrong, so wrong.

SCOTUS determined it was NOT a violation of anything...

Have fun trying to fight a DUI you got at a checkpoint in Cali.

a reply to: imitator




posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I suppose if I were a homeless citizen with the right to travel, and a right to drive myself there, that would be so cool.

My state issued license would also be my license to steal the car I'll need, since it's my right to drive...myself.

Yeah, the guy did himself start on the wrong foot with acting brave while on video-I'll give ya's that.

Imagine if dudes reflexes afforded the screamer's face to receive a terrible elbow to the bridge of his nose? Who's fault would it be?

Not everybody cowers under invasion of personal space, some react badly/rightly necessary?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
I suppose if I were a homeless citizen with the right to travel, and a right to drive myself there, that would be so cool.

My state issued license would also be my license to steal the car I'll need, since it's my right to drive...myself.

Yeah, the guy did himself start on the wrong foot with acting brave while on video-I'll give ya's that.

Imagine if dudes reflexes afforded the screamer's face to receive a terrible elbow to the bridge of his nose? Who's fault would it be?

Not everybody cowers under invasion of personal space, some react badly/rightly necessary?


Thats the truth, I had a manager once who was a bit of a lad. He was ex army. He also liked to mess around, one day he went to faux headbutt me, without thinking my automatic reaction was to lean back and put my elbow up, he got a really bad black eye. It was an automatic defense mechanism.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I'm very right.... if you are arrested at a DUI check point an defense attorney can challenge the constitutionality of that arrest. That is why SCOTUS leaves it up to each state to decide on DUI checkpoints.

The reason you don't see DUI checkpoints in all states, it clearly violates your 4th amendment and you have a right to challenge your accuser. The Constitution doesn’t make room for exceptions.... SCOTUS did not change or interpret the 4th amendment.


edit on 24-9-2014 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Again, you are completely wrong. You will not win a DUI case in Cali based on the 4th amendment because Cali has ruled it as a law and they believe it does not violate the constitution. That law was upheld by SCOTUS, which means the highest court in the US also does not believe it violate the constituation. You are extremely confused on how the law works.

Now if you happen to live in a state where they are illegal (only 2 I think) or has no law one way or the other (20 I think), then sure, maybe you can challenge the constitutionality of the law...but in states where it is already passed, there isn't crap you can do.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I'm 100% sure you can obtain legal representation and challenge the constitutionality of a DUI checkpoint in any state.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Dumbass forgot to lock his door.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

And get nowhere...that's the whole reason it went to SCOTUS. Again, learn how the law works.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
If we believe like you do, we wouldn't get anywhere.... in fact your just throwing away another right... the sixth amendment.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Dumbass forgot to lock his door.


Oddly enough, there seems to be an issue there. The cop opening your door, unless you are being arrested or the cop sees a weapon, is unlawful both as a break/enter and a warrantless search. Of all the crap Sergeant Carter did, yanking the door open might actually be actionable.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I don't know why you think that. An officer is absolutely allowed to open your door if you are not complying.

a reply to: Bedlam



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Ha, this I just saw on the news here in Vancouver. A NYC guy is claiming discrimination because he got pulled over and asked to do a breathalyzer. He refused and got an automatic 90 suspension and had his car impounded. While being interviewed and he said the cop got real mad because he told the cop they didn't have any right to pull him over. haha man. No joke. I'm trying to find the story online. So an American, in Canada, is arguing with the cops exactly the same as the idiot in the OP. I think this is becoming an epidemic of the U of I.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
I don't know why you think that. An officer is absolutely allowed to open your door if you are not complying.

a reply to: Bedlam



If he doesn't arrest you, it's a violation of the 4th.

Arizona v Hicks, Commonwealth v Podgurski, McHam v State of South Carolina.

If you just snatch the door open and start shrieking in someone's face, it's hard to use the court accepted defenses against a civil rights violation charge - the officer clearly didn't check the guy for a weapon, clearly wasn't in fear for his safety, wasn't effecting an arrest and so on. Even sticking your head in someone's car window has been considered sufficient grounds for a fourth amendment violation by the courts.



Here, however, the officer did not discover the illegal activity until after his warrantless intrusion into the interior of the van. We are aware that a motor vehicle is generally afforded a lesser degree of Fourth Amendment protection than is other property. See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 (1977); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 389*389 U.S. 543, 561 (1976); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). We agree with the motion judge, however, that "[t]he word `automobile' is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461-462 (1971). There can be a legitimate expectation of privacy in the interior of a motor vehicle, however diminished. Such an expectation clearly exists in those areas which would be otherwise free from observation except by physical intrusion of some sort. See Commonwealth v. Ortiz, supra at 353. In the typical passenger vehicle, these places must include at least the trunk, the glove compartment, closed containers in the interior, and in most cases, the area under the seats. An intrusion into these places is a search. See Commonwealth v. Almeida, 373 Mass. 266, 269-270, 272 (1977). Cf. Rakas v. Illinois, supra at 148-149.[6] With the vehicle in question, a windowless van, we think the protected area includes, in the circumstances of this case, its rear interior portion as well. One reason frequently posited for the lesser expectation of privacy recognized in automobiles is the high visibility of their interiors. See Rakas v. Illinois, supra at 154 n. 2 (Powell, J., concurring). The van in the case at bar was apparently designed to minimize this visibility.[7] Moreover, we have ruled that a search occurred when police officers entered a regular automobile and seized drugs from within it. Commonwealth v. Ortiz, supra at 353.[8] Thus, we conclude that Officer Brown's entry into the van, and subsequent seizure of the contraband, constituted a search and seizure within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.


There are other cases, you generally are not allowed to just snatch the door open and stick your head in unless you have some officer safety reason or are effecting an arrest, since none of these things occurred, it's going to be hard for the LEO to pretend that's why he broke into the guy's car.
edit on 25-9-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Wonder why this guy didnt lock his door, seems like a rookie mistake if your gonna go the route he did.
I bet my big toe this guy was former service, just the way he got up in the dudes face the way he did brings me back to the recruit depot, shoot even the drill instructor style cover. Been 'pecked' by those a number of times.

And wth is a roadside safety check??


The second biggest cash cow in a college town at low tide,
Sremmos. For the campaign cover IL's got 'em since the '03
Springfield was the hot new little mule. meh.. still a bunch
of white mice in khaki some of them.

I worked with two guys from Lodge #2 after they rotated from 20.
Per the average in Northern Illinois, super decent individuals that
knew how to interact AND shoot. Those were good times.
And thirty years later the academy is turning out mostly rotters.
The guy might be lucky to have a camera; if it was bare butt on
Boonieville Rd. he might have been pistol whipped for awhile...

EDIT: Conditioning is everything. My Scoutmaster/HS PT
honcho/ Sr Wrestling coach was a mustang Captain from a
very bad place for a long time in Korea. By the time I was
old enough to have Mom co-sign it felt like two hitches
already. "WTF was THAT all about" as he gets up from 20
minutes of deep knee bends against the rolled-in bleachers.
ROFL belay that-- ROLF. Tuesdays were damn slippery out there.

edit on 25-9-2014 by derfreebie because: SEMPER FRIED



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

So you are just COMPLETELY confused. What you linked was an illegal search. Opening a door is not an illegal search, especially if the occupant of the car is not complying with an officer's request. (ESPECIALLY if your door is unlocked).

And what does being arrested have to do with anything? An officer can order your onto the ground outside your vehicle and you have to comply...you'd be able to get him in trouble after the fact but you have to obey an officer under the law of most states. An officer can open your car door, drag you out of the car, handcuff you and then decide not to arrest you. It is perfectly legal, though unethical at times. An Officer could get punishment after the fact, but legally you can't disobey a reasonable request of an officer.

I think a lot of people in this thread who keep calling on the 4th amendment don't realize this has ALREADY gone to the courts who uphold the constitution, and they don't agree with you/us. I've got a don't tread on me flag hanging in my home office, but I at least know the laws of the land...

If you don't like these laws then vote for congressman/senators who stand for what you believe in. Chances are 90% of the people calling on the 4th amendment in this thread have never once voted for local/state reps and have only ever voted in presidential elections. Poor voter turnout for local and state jobs are why people stay in the congress and senate for so long even though they do such a bad job.
edit on 25-9-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Bedlam

So you are just COMPLETELY confused. What you linked was an illegal search. Opening a door is not an illegal search, especially if the occupant of the car is not complying with an officer's request. (ESPECIALLY if your door is unlocked).

And what does being arrested have to do with anything? An officer can order your onto the ground outside your vehicle and you have to comply...you'd be able to get him in trouble after the fact but you have to obey an officer under the law of most states. An officer can open your car door, drag you out of the car, handcuff you and then decide not to arrest you. It is perfectly legal, though unethical at times. An Officer could get punishment after the fact, but legally you can't disobey a reasonable request of an officer.

I think a lot of people in this thread who keep calling on the 4th amendment don't realize this has ALREADY gone to the courts who uphold the constitution, and they don't agree with you/us. I've got a don't tread on me flag hanging in my home office, but I at least know the laws of the land...

If you don't like these laws then vote for congressman/senators who stand for what you believe in. Chances are 90% of the people calling on the 4th amendment in this thread have never once voted for local/state reps and have only ever voted in presidential elections. Poor voter turnout for local and state jobs are why people stay in the congress and senate for so long even though they do such a bad job.


I dont get it, you have been shown precedent after precedent but you still argue.
Without backing up your argument with any except you keep going on about the supreme court decisions.

As for your last paragraph. The reason people dont vote is because NONE OF THEM represent us. They represent their own self interest by way of money put into their back pockets by corporations.
But then not that that even matters, the presidents and prime ministers are chosen for us, voting is a scam, more so since electronic voting. Thats exactly why no matter who you vote for, things never change, except for the worse.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

No precedent has been shown, are you kidding me? The only thing anyone even linked was an actual ILLEGAL SEARCH, which is not what happened in the OP. In the OP the driver of the car was not familiar with his state laws AT ALL, and was not complying with officers requests. He was told very politely by the original officer that this was a legal stop as deemed by the state of IL, and the driver kept asking the stupid question over and over again. In the end, the officers completed their safety check and let him continue. He accomplished nothing other than looking like an ass.

I don't have to prove anything to you, because the law is the law. SCOTUS deemed these stops to be legal...get over it or go to the courts and fight it. Crying about 4th amendment abuses where none are on an internet forums is pointless.

And if you think voting is pointless then you are the problem, and that pretty much says enough about you as a person. You do realize what the Supreme Court of the US is right? If they deem something as constitutional then they are right and you are wrong, bottom line. You'd have to take it back to them and have them overturn their decision to change it.

Do I think the OP is a violation of the 4th amendment? Yes, I absolutely do. However, I also know that most states have legalized these types of stops and SCOTUS upheld them as constitutional. So I refused to be a dick to officers who are doing their job, when it was the Supreme Court of the US who gave politicians the power to approve these types of stops.

You are arguing from an ethics perspective, I am arguing from a legal perspective. Unfortunately the legal perspective is the right one when it comes to how to conduct yourself at LEGAL checkpoints.

For example, in CALI you HAVE to comply at DUI checkpoints. For the checkpoint to be legal it has to be announced X amount of hours in advance. There is no getting around anything once you are in the checkpoint.

However, in Cali, they have Border and Agricultural checkpoints MORE than 50 miles from the border. There is no law one way or the other in Cali making these legal, and the officer there are Border agents, not local law enforcement. You are not required by law, as a US citizen, to obey their commands or provide any information other than "I am a US citizen". Anything that happens there that could result in criminal charges is almost always overturned.
edit on 25-9-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OneManArmy

No precedent has been shown, are you kidding me? The only thing anyone even linked was an actual ILLEGAL SEARCH, which is not what happened in the OP. In the OP the driver of the car was not familiar with his state laws AT ALL, and was not complying with officers requests. He was told very politely by the original officer that this was a legal stop as deemed by the state of IL, and the driver kept asking the stupid question over and over again. In the end, the officers completed their safety check and let him continue. He accomplished nothing other than looking like an ass.

I don't have to prove anything to you, because the law is the law. SCOTUS deemed these stops to be legal...get over it or go to the courts and fight it. Crying about 4th amendment abuses where none are on an internet forums is pointless.

And if you think voting is pointless then you are the problem, and that pretty much says enough about you as a person.


Haha, because I dont trust any of them that makes ME the problem?
Not the fact that they are all a bunch of lying pieces of excrement.
Funny take on life you have their bud. Im glad Im not you.
The day there comes a politician that tells the damn truth I might just use my worthless vote.

You keep voting for criminals and conmen. If thats what makes you feel like you are "free". PMSL.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
That's the best route to go. But there is a reason for these checkpoints: they take unlicensed, uninsured drivers off the road. Got straight liability insurance? You're SOL if an uninsured driver hits you. And of course the millions of illegal aliens drive with no valid license or insurance. There's really a lot of support for these stops. The county cops liked to do this one: not a stop, but a slowdown while they checked for expired tags. The thing now is, with the new cop computers, they can tell from running your tag if the insurance is good. Scanning the VIN plate works, too. The state will send you a notice if the insurance expires, telling you to pony up. They don't need to do this anymore in my state- ask for the card. You're not even required to carry it (license yes). a reply to: onequestion



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
If there's anyone out there who could videotape a standard police department morning briefing, I'd love to see it.

I think they're getting told day after day that there's a commie muslim jihadist illegal alien terrorist hiding behind every tree, and they better be careful or next thing ya know, they'll be shooting at you right before they blow up your county with a dirty bomb.

Or something like that...

The only other thing that explains this level of paranoia and assaultive disrespect is cops on roids.

Granted the motorist was a bit of an ass, but the whole thing could have easily been de-escalated by the police chuckling, asking to see ID if that is even pertinent, and after realizing the driver wasn't impaired (that's what a safety check is, right?) telling him to go on his way.

The few times I've been stopped in 40+ years of driving, I've been sure to remain coherent sounding and respectful, if a bit flustered... oddly, since I look like someone's gramma, I get let go pretty quickly without incident. Odd, because I'm one of the biggest anarchists out there, all told. Guess the local cops don't have intel from the NSA at their fingertips...




top topics



 
59
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join