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: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
In his concurrence, Justice White wrote in order to clarify the scope
and purpose of the holding.28 Justice White acknowledged that nothing
precludes a police officer from posing questions to anyone on the street, and
that given the proper circumstances, as in Terry, an individual may be
detained while such questions are asked.29 "Of course, the person stopped
is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to
answer furnishes no basis for an arrest. 3°

There's your answer to Terry. Under Terry, you can ask all you like, I can't be compelled to answer. Under Hiibel, it was established that an individual state COULD establish a legislative requirement to identify, as long as that that law was clear, constitutional and properly bounded (several have been affirmed, others have been set aside by the courts). Federal law has NO such requirement.

Neither does the state of Mississippi.


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




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: buster2010

Catch up with my convo w/jhn7537 to hear my pov.

Regardless what your POV is in America if you have broken no laws then the police have no right in stopping you. Americans have the right to go about freely without undue harassment.


Well, unfortunately, that's not true. They DO have the authority (right isn't exactly the correct term) to perform traffic stops. If they do it correctly, it's not only lawful, it's not a major hassle.

You get someplace that's trying to be 'creative', that's when it gets to be a big pain in the ass. Like last year's experiment with having local LEO's force people into "voluntary" DNA and blood sampling in road stops.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

I agree with this statement 100%, once I turned about 30 I started chatting up the officers whenever I got pulled over and haven't gotten a ticket since. One cop got me for speeding in a school zone, he asked where I was headed I told him I was late getting to my nephews football game he ran me through the computer and said "You haven't got a ticket in almost 20 years, I'm not gonna break your streak" and sent me on my way.

Also I wonder about what happens in the HQ. They're told to stop people at a check point for whatever reason...maybe there have been a lot of drunk driving deaths...and every ATS-type lawyer gives them a 20 minute constitutional rights lesson while traffic is backing up. What is he to do? Wave everyone through and tell his superior officer that "yeah, I could've prevented that drunk driving accident down the road but I had no right to stop the guy." No way that would fly.

At the same time as a cop you should expect not everyone to comply with your requests and know how to act like a non-psychotic. The answer IMO is more training for cops...ongoing training. Cop training, not military training. This particular cop needs some sort of disciplinarian action against him for sure. And be evaluated for anger issues.

My wife is a teacher and has to take classes all the time to keep being a teacher. Does anyone know if police have to keep their skills and knowledge of the law fresh?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: FlySolo

This.

Last night I got pulled over for the first time ever. I'm in my mid 20s I think that's pretty good. I was speeding, now I immediately pulled over as soon as those lights went on. "Yes sir" "No sir" "I understand completely sir" made it a routine traffic stop. One ticket for speeding, done in 10 minutes. The cop was rude but why feed him excuses to execute his powers? Being polite and answering his simple questions made all the difference.

If I flipped out about rules, laws, unconstitutionality, I would've been in a lot of trouble. There's a time and place for everything. Aside from the uniform, they're people too and we shouldn't sell a ticket to anyone.

I cannot speak for everybody though. Situations differ, cops can be very nasty, those being pulled over can cause it to escalate as quickly as a cop. Be safe and take solace in the fact that when TSHTF, the police will eventually realize how little they're needed...along with the rest of us.
Ok, the dif here is you were actually breaking the law. That makes a big dif.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I just checked, a DUI checkpoint is legal in Il. It is considered a traffic stop and by law you are required to comply with officers.

The guy in the car was wrong even though the officer overreacted.

a reply to: nighthawk1954



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
This is not a true statement and shows a complete ignorance of state law. Most states have deemed DUI checkpoints as legal and the supreme court agreed. You cannot appeal to the constitution when the very court that upholds the constitution disagrees with you.

a reply to: buster2010



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
That sad thing is that the Supreme Court ruled that these stops were unconstitutional but allowed them anyway because they reasoned that the "greater good" outweighed the fact that they were unconstitutional





In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

However, as several dissenting judges pointed out, the Constitution doesn’t make room for exceptions and, whether beneficial or not, DUI checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, forcing drivers to participate in “suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.


www.duicheckpoints.net...



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo
Your argument doesnt make sense otherwise you're saying life is not a right but a privilege, because the state can take it away.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
You really hit on one of the bigger issues we're facing with law enforcement.

Sure there's bad apples, there's bad apples in every profession and every walk of life. However, the so called "good apples" or good cops, just stand by and let this criminal behavior continue, much of it behavior that if you or I were seen doing something similar would see us locked up behind bars.

Good cops want to protect. Well, here's an idea, how about starting with protecting law abiding citizens from the criminals you call brothers in arms.


And this is exactly why people like myself say, "There are NO good cops".

A good cop would do something. Anything. But they do not. They sit back and support their fellow Officer no matter how wrong he is. That is not what a "good cop" would do.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: nighthawk1954

That dude needs to stop acting like such a b*tch when a cop is yelling at you... There are people all around, cars, cops, etc. its not like he's going to shoot you.... oh wait... he might... lol


I live in Illinois..... Relatively close to Dekalb county, as in 35 minute drive away... I WISH I would have known about this irritable cop working that night, I would have had some FUN with him for sure... hahaha...

Such Egomaniacs in uniform. It's so absurd, you can only laugh at these delusional cops who think they're all that..

"It's a privilege not a right to drive"....... Ummmm okay...


I've always disliked the "privilege" argument--it's bull#. A privilege is something your mom and dad give you because they are paying for your housing, your food, your clothing. It's nonsense to call use of something that we pay for, the roads, a "privilege" because without us, the taxpayer, there would be no roads and no cops to patrol them.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
I just checked, a DUI checkpoint is legal in Il. It is considered a traffic stop and by law you are required to comply with officers.

The guy in the car was wrong even though the officer overreacted.

a reply to: nighthawk1954



How was the guy wrong? He stopped and he gave his driver's license--he just did it with commentary that irritated the jerk who was probably tired and sick of being on such a stupid duty.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: buster2010

Catch up with my convo w/jhn7537 to hear my pov.

Regardless what your POV is in America if you have broken no laws then the police have no right in stopping you. Americans have the right to go about freely without undue harassment.


This. In a free society you should, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause that you have committed a crime, be able to go about your business without being stopped by agents of the state to have your papers checked.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
First, if you are going to exercise your rights. You should probably know what they are.

1.) In the State of Illinois it has been established as "Constitutional" to conduct DUI checkpoints. While I find this rediculous, the reality is that it is legal in that state.

2.) If you are operating a motor vehicle, you absolutely must provide a drivers license and insurance information if requested by a cop. You don't have to be suspected to have committed a crime. If you are behind the wheel, you must follow the reasonable commands of a peace officer and this includes identifying when asked.

The cop was able to become irate with this guy and scare him because the guy was ill equipped to handle the encounter because he didn't even know what his own rights were accurately nor his obligation under the law. Thats why the cop manhandled him.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Wow Man!! That cop was a Total POS!! He is wrong BTW!! Driving is actually a Right! We have the right to own property and use it in ways as we see fit, as long as it does not interfere with any one else's rights! Vehicles are property! The Public roads are there for us to use for said vehicles. Use with the conveyance of the day, whether it be horse and buggy, or motor vehicle! I was into all that years ago and found a website that explains it all in very fine detail. A license is needed if you use those roads to make money. Then you have to have a license and plates on the vehicle...... LIke if you own a cab, or do trucking for income, etc...... There actual court cases stated at that site where it was handed down from Supreme court rulings in our favor that we do not need licenses, or plates unless we make money on the public roads!! Mandatory insurance is also unconstitutional!!...... Later, Syx.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Helious
First, if you are going to exercise your rights. You should probably know what they are.

1.) In the State of Illinois it has been established as "Constitutional" to conduct DUI checkpoints. While I find this rediculous, the reality is that it is legal in that state.

2.) If you are operating a motor vehicle, you absolutely must provide a drivers license and insurance information if requested by a cop. You don't have to be suspected to have committed a crime. If you are behind the wheel, you must follow the reasonable commands of a peace officer and this includes identifying when asked.

The cop was able to become irate with this guy and scare him because the guy was ill equipped to handle the encounter because he didn't even know what his own rights were accurately nor his obligation under the law. Thats why the cop manhandled him.


Words used to describe an 'outfit' are inaccurate these days.
The gentleman you refer to as a 'peace officer' is actually not a peace-officer, he is a policy-enforcer enforcing a new policy of brute force?

The 1st was informed of video taking place; a courtesy extended to a peace-officer. The 2nd officer didn't receive the memo, nor the courtesy. He's probably pissed about having to enforce this new policy and doesn't know how to properly deal with it?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Why does this guy have a camera on himself while driving? Doesn't anyone consider this to be fake?' No we have to hate authority so it's all true!

reply to: nighthawk1954


edit on AM000000300000000993921302014-09-22T10:21:17-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Why does tis guy have a camera on himself while driving? Doesn't anyone consider this go be fake?' No we have to hate authority so it's all true!a reply to: nighthawk1954



With the cheap nature of cameras like that these days, a lot of people are running dashcams while driving. I know a few people who got out of tickets in court and/or had a car accident civil suit go their way because they were recording and the recording backed up their version of events. More and more people are doing this and I think it a good thing, for your own safety and security.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Why does tis guy have a camera on himself while driving? Doesn't anyone consider this go be fake?' No we have to hate authority so it's all true!a reply to: nighthawk1954



My guess is that the driver, like many people these days, has a dash cam that is usually pointed out on the road. A lot of people do this to help sort out any potential issues in case they are in an accident, are witness to an accident or some other incident. It looks like he could swivel the thing around, so my guess is that as soon as he saw the checkpoint he just turned it on himself. I don't think it was fake, although perhaps a bit opportunistic and he knew he was taking a provocative demeanor.

I don't think that the driver handled the situation correctly and he was mistaken about the finer points of the "law" regarding this. I also think these checkpoints are pushing the line on constitutional rights. To my view, the officer's response was completely disproportionate and he was in the wrong as well.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
That driver is an a hole. He started right off the the bat looking for trouble. No wonder he found it. Security check points are not unconstitutional. But let's not consider the lives saved by getting drunk drivers off the road or even a car who's break lights don't work. Not even considering this might even be staged. That man shows no respect just in speaking to another human being. What a moron.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Then the camera should be pointing the other way. Like you know at the street in the direction he's driving. Really you know a few people who've gotten out of tickets? ' Do you have lots of friends who often get stopped by police? I don't. Getting stopped by police is a big deal. Not something that happens to people I know on a regular basis. Do you have a dash cam? I don't. I don't consider it something I need. Nor do my acquaintances. Just noting that if you are a good driver you don't get stopped.
I was stopped at a safety checkpoint once. I thanked the officer for making sure the drunks were off the road and not killing people. 'ta reply to: NavyDoc



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join