American Police Are Out in Full Force! Do You Feel Protected or Invaded???

Originally posted by Rit
What is the big deal if you get pulled over? Do you have something to hide?

Would you refuse a search?

Your serving the terrorists means.

I can handle the police pulling me over now and again and searching. AS long as they are polite and respectful.

I have nothing to hide and I would rather be somewhat safer then hit with a carbomb next time I drive in a tunnel or over a bridge.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Rit]

There, that's a good little servant. Rather than protecting the citizenry from the enemy, the government "searches" for the enemy by stopping the citizen and searching their vehicles.
"Do you have any drugs or weapons in the vehicle?"
And, if I do, does that mean I am a terrorist?

Do I have anything to hide, you ask? That isn't the point at all. The point is, is the the united states of America, or have we taken the form of a government that existed a few decades ago, that took over almost all of Europe?


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

Nowhere in there does it say, "Unless the law enforcement agent has reason to think that someone might possibly be a terrorist in the jurisdiction from whence he derives his authority. If this be the case, the law enforcement agent may stop people at random, ask questions irrelevant to terrorism, that might cause the citizen to offer evidence against himself."

I could stomach such activity alittle easier if the government was doing all it can to protect the nation from terrorists. Since they are unwilling to stem the flow of illegal immigrants (Approximately 10,000/day is the estimate, and who knows who they are) and are unwilling to remove those who are here by violating the law, and since they pursue a politically correct policy of feeling up little old women while letting those who meet the terrorist profile stride right aboard the aircraft without as muchas a how-do-you-do, they can take their crap and shove it.

It is more American to tell the cop to go fetch a donut than it is to let him toss your car and its contents.

Your right thats what I am saying.

But when it comes down to it, the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper unless we stand up and fight for what it stands for.

And so far, we havent.

And it is common practice for police to search people without warrants. At least in person. Maybe not home, but im sure that happens alot too.

I will have to agree with Thomas Crowne. The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that the police seem to be focusing on the little things, while bigger things are happening before thier eyes.

To elaborate further on this illegal immigration issue, I live in an area where I am quite certain at least 75% are from Mexico, and speak no English. Some of these guys are pretty scary, and some look a hell of alot like an Arab. And guess what the best part is?

I can sit at my window and watch all day when the sherriff department pulls over countless cars for tiny stuff. They do go as far as harrass the guy pushing an ice cream cart. They used to take the cart and stop them from conducting business without a license. But they never arrest anyone. They are afraid of these Mexican American Legal Defense Group (MALDEF)s and the ACLU. Strangely, the US Constitiution is working for them, but average citizens who actually pay taxes get bothered for carrying on with life.

I highly respect police and can appriciate the trash they have to go through. I know they want to arrest some of these guys and actually do thier job. I dont mind getting pulled over, especcially in my neighborhood where I am freindly and familiar with most of the deputies and CHP officers.

They can search my car till the cows come home, and they will come out empty handed every time. And why is that? Because I respect the law and dont make a habit out of commiting crimes.

Now if they ever had a reason to search my home, that would be different. I would insist on legal representation and oversight to make sure nothing is planted or misrepresented. Search warrants afford the searchee the right to representation.

I dont feel invaded, but I think police protections need help by pressuring our local government officials to allow them to act.

The Constitution this and the Constitution that, its all swell and sweet in the end, right?
You guys might want to become re-familiarized with this:
Probable Cause





seekerof

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
The Constitution this and the Constitution that, its all swell and sweet in the end, right?
You guys might want to become re-familiarized with this:
Probable Cause





seekerof

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Definitions of probable cause on the Web:

A constitutionally prescribed standard of proof; a reasonable ground for belief in the existence of certain facts. The burden of proof necessary for an indictment or trial information.
www.judicial.state.ia.us/about/procedur/glossary.asp

the amount of proof needed to determine that a crime occurred and the defendant committed the crime in order to proceed with the prosecution in felony offenses.
www.maricopacountyattorney.org/CCProcess/adultgloss.asp

A reasonable belief that a crime has or is being committed; the basis for all lawful searches, seizures, and arrests.
www.yenra.com/glossary/p.html

A reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of (eg, probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person accused may have committed it).
www.courts.state.va.us/glossary_of_court_terms.html

An objective standard of expectation of results that must be met to justify any search and seizure. The expectation must be grounded in facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to that expectation. Search warrants are only issued upon finding of probable cause, and warrantless searches (such as during a traffic stop) must meet the standard of probable cause to be admissible in court.
www.wwind.com/legal_dictionary/p.htm

A judicial finding that there exists reasonable grounds for belief that a person should be arrested or searched.
www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm

the reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime.
www.nationaltcc.org/tcc/

Degree of proof needed to arrest.
mova.missouri.org/cjterms.htm

a reasonable belief that a crime was committed, and the person accused of the crime was responsible. A probable cause hearing is held in felony matters.
www.siloamsprings.com/departments/court/legal_terms

A reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person to believe that an accused person is guilty of the offense which he/she is charged.
www.state.tn.us/correction/criminaljustice/glossary.htm

Reasonable cause; having more evidence for than against.
co4.shelbycountytn.gov/court_clerks/criminal_court/glossary.html

A judicial determination that there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial.
www.co.dodge.wi.us/da/glossary.html

Having more evidence for, than against, an apparent state of facts which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that the accused person has committed the crime charged in a criminal case.
www.courts.state.mn.us/districts/fourth/General/LegalTerms6.htm

the legal standard for issuance of a charging document or a search warrant. Probable cause means a reasonable ground for belief of facts, or more evidence for than against. It is a lesser standard than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a conviction.
mlis.state.md.us/other/Legislative_Handbooks/Volume%20IX/Glossary.htm

(law) evidence sufficient to warrant an arrest or search and seizure; "a magistrate determined that there was probable cause to search the house"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Probable cause is a legal term used in most common law American criminal law jurisdictions that denotes the standard by which a police officer may conduct a personal or property search, or an arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause




Yeah, but they don't have probable cause... if they pull you over so that they can interrogate you without any reason. They make up a reason, and because they are the authority. Its their word against yours.

The problem is... when you can no longer trust the authorities, who do you turn to for help?

This is such a stupid comment "police are pulling people over and handing out more tickets then ever".
You can NOT get a ticket from a cop unless you actually did something that deserved the ticket.
So what are you even talking about?
The cops are simply doing their jobs in the new world situation we now live in. Cops are not ordered to just pull people over for the hell of it, if they were doing that there would be a shortage of cops for the situations that actually need cops.
There may be certain areas that are targeted by the police because of valid reasons, but cops are not out to get people just for the hell of it.
As far a you being pulled over and asked if you had drugs. It has also happened to me and various people i know simply because we had valid business in an area of the city (phila. and NYC) that there is known drug buying. I and my friends are also white and there are usually not many white people in the areas we were pulled over. Also we were pulled over in the night when there is most definately not a lot of white people in the areas were we were pulled over.
The cops are there to protect you and the rest of the public. They are not "handing out tickets" unless they have valid reasons. Again they can not just "hand out tickets" unless you did something that deserved getting the ticket in question...
It's not like we are under "Martial law" or something, so relax already...

Alos if they are indeed pulling people over in selected areas, then that means they have certain intelligence that warrants that action. If they ended up pulling over a person that actually had bombs and then found out they were headed to the area you work or live in, then you whiners would be the first people to say good job to the cops.
Also the general public is never going to be given the same info. that the cops are given if there is a suspition of something that "might" happen in a certain area...


[edit on 12-7-2005 by GREGNOW]

This is such a stupid comment "police are pulling people over and handing out more tickets then ever".

ever traveled through Louisiana with out of state license plates? There have been a couple of investigative (national) reports on how the police will pull you over, issue you a ticket, even confiscate your car.

Kenshiro, you are taking the origianl post out of "context". Of course there are certain areas were this happens, it happened to me in OK because my plates were from TX. But that was like 20 yrs. ago and had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of our times and that is what the poster of this thread is talking about.
Also, even if you do get pulled over like you mention because of out of state tags that still does not mean you will get a ticket unless you did something that deserved the ticket or you pissed the cop off and that cop happens to be a dickhead. If there is a large amount of tickets being given out and there then is a large amount of people complining about it, then it is investigated as you mention.
However your comment has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks...

Originally posted by GREGNOW
The cops are there to protect you and the rest of the public. They are not "handing out tickets" unless they have valid reasons. Again they can not just "hand out tickets" unless you did something that deserved getting the ticket in question...
It's not like we are under "Martial law" or something, so relax already...

Actually, they are handing out SEAT BELT tickets to everyone!!! I personally think that the Seat Belt Law goes tooo far. I understand that it is for my own safety... but when Govt. passes a law that forces me to do something that i do not want to do, for my own protection. I feel that the Government thinks that they own me. They don't OWN me! I am Free! I should be able to decide for MYSELF if I want to or do not want to wear a Seat Belt. I am not Their SLAVE.

They even gave my 75 year old Grandmother a Seat Belt Ticket... This Seat Belt law is all about REVENUE! It makes me SICK

Also cops can NOT just confiscate your car just because "they feel like it". They have to have a valid reason or it amounts to "stealing" your car weather they are cops or not.

Wheretohide, I am an EMT and I know for a fact that people who are in car accidents who wear seat belts have a lot less major life threating trauma resulting in death or being paralized then those that do not. There are stats to back this up.
That law is simply on the books to save more lives every year. It is hardly a law that really threatens your freedom...
and again, my point still stands that cops can not just hand out tickets to people unless they have a valid reason. That law is a law that everyone who drives is aware of. I myself do not always wear my belt, but if i got a ticket for it then i deserve the ticket, it's the law if you want to drive. It does not affect my freedom/way of life though...
It may in fact bring in more revenue, but it also has a valid and important reason for being a law on the books.
also usually when you get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, it is in a rural area or on the highway since both of the types of cops that patrol those types of areas have less things to attend to. It is very rare that a cop in a major city will pull you over just because your seatbelt is not on as they have a lot more going on in the city to worry about.



[edit on 12-7-2005 by GREGNOW]

I know that Seat belts protect me ... but if i am just going around the corner to get milk and not traveling over 25MPH. If I don't have a seatbelt on, that gallon of Milk is going to cost me $100.00.

I understand that I am taking MY OWN life in my hands when i don't wear a seat belt.

BUT! The Government is FORCING me to do something that I don't want to do, when the only person i am hurting is myself.

Does that sound like FREEDOM?

Am I NOT capable of making that choice for myself? Do they OWN me? Do they Own YOU?

Wheretohide, again you are making a mountain out of an anthill. Being forced to wear a seatbelt is hardly something that is really interfering with your freedom/way of life. You make it sound like we are now in martial law or something. Also it has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. The laws were on the books way before the attacks and when they first came out they were heavily inforced...
Also, maybe the fine went up (i don't know), but it used to be 25.00 for not wearing a belt, not 100.00...

Also you say you may only be going around the corner at 25mph, but there may be a guy or a drunk guy going 50mph that hits your car and you going flying out the windshield, you know?

[edit on 12-7-2005 by GREGNOW]

How interesting this all is.

If, after the London bombings the Police Departments in the United States did not react with an increased presence you would all scream about how we'll get hit next, and how the idiots in power are turning a blind eye to threats and are risking our lives. Remember the collective "we were asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened" complaints?

The way I see it you'll complain with more police presence and you'll complain just as loudly without it.

And buddy let me tell you... if your real gripe here is people getting ticketed because they REFUSE to abide by a democratically passed state law requiring the use of safety belts. Move out of that state.

Is it possible that some places are operating on a quota system or using a heightened police presence to give more tickets? Sure it is. But you have no right to complain about seat belt tickets and the like. If it is the law in your state, you have to wear one. Period.

You broke the law. Is it fair for a burglar to say "yeah i robbed that bank but the only reason you caught me is because of these new cameras you guys put up, so you have to let me off."

I'm amazed that someone using constitutional law in his argument has no problem disregarding state laws.

I agree that using terror alerts as an opportunity to pull in more cash isn't the most ethical thing to do but come on folks... this argument is getting a bit silly.

Originally posted by Seekerof
You guys might want to become re-familiarized with this:
Probable Cause

seekerof

Did someone say Probable Cause? Heh. That is why there are so many laws and one of the many reasons they are so complicated. The average citizen is probably breaking some law, often without realizing it, almost every day. Depending on how badly law enforcement wants to ruin your day, they almost always will be able to find some sort of probable cause.

Ambientsound, you make a really ridiculous comment saying "the average citizen is probably breaking laws everyday".
Like what? Not wearing a seatbelt or smoking in a public space?
What laws are the average citizens breaking everyday?
What kind of statement is that? Please tell us what laws we are breaking every day.
No, you are wrong, law enforcement can not "just find" laws that we are breaking to "ruin our day". Get real and make a valid comment...
again, my point stands that the cops are there to protect us and they can not just hand you a ticket unless you did something to deserve the ticket...


[edit on 12-7-2005 by GREGNOW]

I a doing a search for the report.
A few years ago one of the national news shows like 60 minutes did a report on Monroe county in Louisiana.
They rigged a rental car with TX license plates, with 5 cameras two in front (to watch the road lines, 2 in back again to watch the lines, and one on the odometer to show the speed.
The reason for the investigation was there were a number of reports where people had been pulled over and even had their vehicles confiscated by the police.
The reporters did this three times. Twice they were stopped for crossing the centerline and once for speeding. The cameras clearly showed that this was not the case (which is how the reporters won their case.
It seems that the Monroe couty had been using a loophole in the laws regarding the War on Drugs. The law allowed the officers to confiscate a vehicle if they suspected there were drugs. Unfortunately, in order for a citizen to be able to contest this, they must first put up a bond worth 50% of the value of the confiscated items before they caould get into a court room.
The report also went on to show just how (effective) the Monroe department was when they stopped a vehicle that had perscription medications and $50,000 cash in it. the man driving was allowed to go. What is the problem with this..... The man was on the FBI's most wanted list for drug trafficing.
Once I find the report I will supply the link

Kenshiro, you are missing my point. You are using "isolated" cases from the same area and they also have nothing to do with terrorism. Even so, the police force there was caught as they were corrupt. However, it's not like this happening everywhere, because it is not.
There is corruption in a lot of police forces, but it is usually not affecting the average citizen and if it is , then it is not widespread.
You are going out of context with what was origianlly posted here by the posters origianl statement of this thread.
I am sure if i looked on the net i also could find cases like the one you are talking about but they are not widespread when it comes to affecting the freedom of the average citizen, you know? They also have nothing to do with terrorism as that type of thing has been going on here and there in the U.S. way before any attacks.

Nere in S.W. Virginia I guess they are out in force due to the lack of doughnuts. Today I saw a MountedPolice person pull over a car. No joke! It was not long ago some of the ladies from the Local Knitting Club #2 were complaining that they saw the Mounties ignore and left on the street what came out of the South end of the Horse. I was almost in tears from laughter!

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
Nere in S.W. Virginia I guess they are out in force due to the lack of doughnuts. Today I saw a MountedPolice person pull over a car. No joke! It was not long ago some of the ladies from the Local Knitting Club #2 were complaining that they saw the Mounties ignore and left on the street what came out of the South end of the Horse. I was almost in tears from laughter!

I had no idea that we still used Mounted Police in America. I saw them in Central Park NYC ... but i thought that was just part of the attraction. I didn't think they used anywhere else, except in Canada.

I don't think i would pull over if a cop on a horse was trying to flag me down. I would just keep going and if they eventually got me i would say i didn't see any flashing lights or i thought it was a joke!