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.

 

Constitutional Rights for Citizens: Police Contact

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

What you say is true, but without supernatural powers, how is one to know a good cop from a bad cop.
What Johnmike suggests is the only good approach as far as I can see.

If a good citizen runs into a bad cop, that citizen must take whatever Constitutional precaustion offered to protect himself.
I've run into a bad cop myself.


But the same principle would apply to anyone that you meet would it not? Do you go into a new friendship with a negative, assuming you will get screwed over? I mean I am sure people do. I trust everyone, it is the devil inside I do not trust? But personally, even though I am as paranoid about things as the next guy(yeah okay) can't go around assuming that if I have a run in with the law that it will be said bad cop.

[edit on 7/4/2007 by bobafett1972]




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
There's a difference, though. Knowing your rights doesn't mean that you're going to assume that your next encounter with the police is going to be negative it all. All it means is that you know what can and can't legally be done. You'll know how to handle yourself.

That's like saying that policemen shouldn't be armed because it would be assuming that their next encounter would be violent.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
bob, let's just say I am wary of strangers, in uniform or not.
Back to the wall and all that tinfoil stuff.

I'm not gonna think I have the poster child for bad cop at my front door, but I sure as heck will NOT open the door and take a chance.
Better safe in my home than in handcuffs for something I didn't do.

(And, the next round of police state/Patriot Act could be right around the corner.)



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Tread,


I guess all of the words I have been using are just that: words.
My main point got lost somewhere or I disn't express it properly. First, it was the original posters RANT like attitude towards ALL law enforcement. And second, was only to say that if one goes around being as difficult and beligerant (sp) towards the law it only would, in my opinion make the situation worse and for what? Because you are going in assuming that rights are automatically going to be trampled.

And as for strangers, yes, I concure. Burn me twice scenario . . .

But I also like to believe not every cop has Wyatt Earp syndrome.
I know, total contradiction but that is what it means to be human...

Peace,

B

[edit on 7/4/2007 by bobafett1972]

[edit on 7/4/2007 by bobafett1972]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Listen, all I was trying to say is NEVER ever provoke a cop. I understand that many people don't have a lot of experience dealing with police and when they are confronted by one they get nervous. I was simply trying to give some advice based on my experience and what I learned from my father, who is a lawyer.

However, the OP is trying to teach people a combative and confrontational approach to dealing with law enforcement that could easily prove detrimental to the people involved. It's really irresponsible to advocate treating law enforcement the way you propose because it could lead to someone being hurt.

If they have nothing on you, if they messed up procedure, didn't read you your rights, if they did ANYTHING wrong, the best plan is to shut up, cooperate and wait until your lawyer gets there. Tell your lawyer everything, EVERYTHING, even if you just murdered someone, and he will advise you on the best course of action.

I urge everyone reading this not to take this poster's advice. I understand the reasons behind this thread and I agree with them. Our rights as citizens are the most sacred part of this country and they are quickly being trampled upon like pearls before swine. I would fight to the death to preserve this great land. I just don't want that fight to the death to be with a cop who stopped me for speeding.

If you're confronted by the police then just stay calm, cooperate and be as courteous and professional as possible but don't say anything you don't need to. If you're arrested then stay quiet and wait for a lawyer.

Never answer any questions without a lawyer. Any questions at all.

The only info you should give them is your name, age, address, ID, social, and car information if needed.

Do you remember when I said I was busted for drinking a beer in the park and had to pay a 50 dollar fine? Well, if I hadn't have cooperated and acted cool and collected, answered what I needed to and treated the cops like I'd treat a normal person, then they would've found all the things I didn't want them to find. wink wink

IMO the OP is giving bad advice based off little experience although his heart is probably in the right place.


EDIT: ps, the names Shadowflux

[edit on 4-7-2007 by Shadowflux]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Never aggrivate or irritate the policeman. Be firm in exercising your rights but do not fight him. Take any tickets and fight them in the Court, you can not win a fight or arguement with a cop on the streets so why try. Be respectful but firm.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

And semper, no good can come from assuming one is a cop hater.


I don't see it as much of an assumption at all, given this...



exposes their constant lying

they have been exposed as liars and they hate that.

cop was bullying, threatening, lying and demanding.

they twist and squirm and you can read their minds as they try and figure a way to lie without making it seem TOO outrageous, and salvage the case for the home team!!

overbearing and pushy cops who lie routinely

pulling their typical bully and lie routine

While I agree with you that cops are unstabe for the most part and likley to lose their tempers and violate Rights

cuff hard until the hands are damaged, strike with fists and sticks, Tazered, maced. throw around in a cage car( cops love to get a person handcuffed in the back of a cage car and then stop fast, accelerate fast, and laugh as the citizen bangs his head and body around on the matal cage..they LOVE hearing the screams!).


And that is just page one....

No, this guy has an axe to grind and found an outlet for his rage is all...

Semper



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Last response to Bobafet:

You did NOT respond to my central issue with your first mistaken reply: The police can NOT impound a vehicle for refusing to grant consent to search. You said that they could, yet give no proof whatsoever to support this lie; I claim with full confidence that you are wrong. But did you mention that? No, just the typical ' shoot the messenger ' nonsense that the supporters of an all powerful police state always fall back on when you have them nailed to the wall with FACTS. Cannot prove me wrong? Then just try and change the subject to me, right? So intellectually dishonest; but the people can see thru that easily.

Unless anyone can show me an authoritative legal opinion or cite a court case that proves me wrong, I can assume that I am correct. I have said nothing that any defense attorney will not tell you. Sure, I mix personal opinion in with it, but who doesn't? It does not matter to an intelligent person who cares about the SUBJECT at hand whether or not I have personal experience or not; either what I am saying is true and valid, or it is not, SIMPLE.

Changing the discussion to try and put me down is the hallmark of a person who has lost the battle, cannot reply with substance and yet does not have the grace or character to either stay silent or provide evidence that proves I am wrong.

To those who ignore the many valid points I have made and only seek to detract from the FACTS, I say this : You remind me of the line in the movie " Amadeus ", when the King is speaking to Mozart, who is trying to convince the King that he can be taken seriously; the King replies " You amuse...but you do not convince ". So say I to all who deny the truth and embrace dishonest and usless personal attacks and assumptions rather than comment intelligently and succinctly to the SUBJECT, prove or relent.

All of you who are finding something helpful in my posts have my thanks for reading, and maturely comprehending, the facts. Those who will not prove me wrong with FACTS and EVIDENCE should retire from the issue as they make themselves look extremely void of substantial abilities to contribute in any menaingful way. In other words, either put up or shut up as you are looking like fools when you cannot refute what I say and have to resort to personal attacks and supposition.

More coming soon on specific cases. If you have any questions, I will be happy to try and answer them in a cohesive and complete fashion.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
DENY Ignorance: Yet again you dishonestly put words in my writing that are not there. I NEVER said to be confrontational; where you and others have this all wrong is that it is NOT confrontational to do ANYTHING that I suggested.

If a cop will beat you or go crazy and assault you because you strictly follow sound legal principles, then you have just proven my point totally!! They cannot be trusted to protect our rights, and we must do it. The citizens should not have to act in a certain way in order to keep the cops from losing their cool. Cops are supposed to be PROFESSIONALS , and yet you assume that they will see a person standing up for his rights as someone to be assaulted or wrongly treated. If you are right, then it is even MORE important that you follow my advice. If you have so little faith in the cops, then join the club!! You prefer living in fear of them! Amazing.

Please, if an attorney reads this, comment on whether or not I am technically right or not. I am taking all of my statements directly from court decisions, attorneys I have spoken to, and real life experience.

Just because your Daddy is a lawyer does not mean that anything I said is wrong. Please, just one of you critics show us, with evidence, that my advice is wrong; according to you, you should give up your rights, do anything the cops says, paste a big smile on your face and shuffe and say " Yassuh, Mr. Po-lice, yassuh, whatever you say sir." How does that help?

The only people that have commented negatively have shown NO PROOF whatsoever that I am arong about any point I have made. They cannot because the evidence and law are on my side. My attitude has NOTHING to do with the facts. Either prove that what I said is mistaken, or relent.

I can back up what I say with hundreds of examples of citizens who went thru hell because they did not follow the advice; I can state with certainty that no defense attorney in the world would advise his clients to:

Make any statements to cops; Give up ANY rights to a cop; Allow any searches without a warrant , or any of the other vaid points I make. Your replies are specious and without merit since they do not contradict with evidence anything I said. Prove me wrong or admit that I am right; otherwise you show yourselves as deficient in character and honesty as well as the ability to do legal research.

Stick to the point: What is best for a citizen? Closely following the advice I have given. If it pisses a cop off then that proves my point: Cops in general are not equipped to handle their emotions and to respect the rights of the people if they cannot handle a strict following of the law. They demand that WE follow the law to the letter; they should be held to the same standard, right? If not then they are above the law.

If a cop beats you for standing up for your rights, then file a suit, demand charges be filed, and get that Nazi bastard fired and jailed for violating the law. BUT MOST COPS will not do that; they will have some respect for the person for having the courage to take a stand and they will not abuse you. If we have to fear the cops for following our rights, it is time for another revolution as we will be in a total police state should that become the norm. I know, some of you WANT a police state , but most of us do not. Trusting the cops is the easiest way to lose your rights; that has been proven time and again.

Reply with proof I am wrong from a legal source or get out of the way of intelligent discourse; you contribute nothing but bad advice unsupportted by evidence; who could believe YOU?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86

You did NOT respond to my central issue with your first mistaken reply: The police can NOT impound a vehicle for refusing to grant consent to search.


You are correct they can NOT impound a vehicle for refusal to allow a search.Any cop that did this would face dismissal if the vehicles owner knew the law, oncea federal lawsuit was filed the cop would go bye bye instantly.

They do not have the right to impound your vhicle if your arrested either, as my little card that I offered earlier says.You have the Right to secure your own property and once you inform a police officer you know your rights, possibly by using that card I gave, they will be a lot less likely to violate your rights. They will suspect that you know what yourdoing or have an attorney advising you and they will not put their Job on the line.

As far as policeman being pieces of NWO Facsists who trample the rights of people. YES YES YES they are, they do, they like to. The older cops are usuallya lot more decent and recall the days of cops serving the public. The young cops today are trained in military camps and trained to hurt, harm, and intimidate not SERVE. If one doesn't stand firm in their rights and lets a policeman intimidate them into allowing searches and other other things that the citizen doesnt want, is in danger of being wrngfully arrested and charged.

The cops are there to serve you not you them, and Semper seems like a good candidate for a facsist cop recruit.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
EXACTLY!! You have summarized it perfectly. It does not suprise me that there are so many people who see standing up to authority and preserving ones' rights as being " antagonistic ' or ' difficult '. That is due to the brainwashing that we all get exposed to all our lives that tell us that cops are somehow ' special citizens ' that we must be afraid of and ' show respect ' to and bow down to..it is nonsense.

And you are SO RIGHT that the majority of cops will see a person standing up for their rights as people likely to have an attorney handy; cops hate that as attorneys mean trouble to a bad cop; they can actually hold them accountable, which the cops absolutely hate . Cops HATE being watched and observed and critiqued as they do so many illegal and anti-social things every day.

The weak and ignorant are the ones cops love to hassle; they are easy pickings. People like us who tolerate no nonsense from cops present the worst target that a cop can have, someone who can fight back in court and show that the cop's actions are illegal and deserveing of further scrutiny, like dismissal or a lawsuit. Lawsuits are the ONLY effective way of stemming police misconduct.

Google " Police Misconduct ' and read for a few hours, if you have the stomach for it , and see how many horror stories are out there attesting to the brutality and disregard for the law that cops are guilty of; and only a small percent of the bad cops ever have to face justice. 99% of all cops are felony perjurers and law breakers. They do not even try and dispute this; they simply say " Well, we are special and above the law; trust us and you will be fine ". In a pigs eye, if you will pardon the pun; I trust no one but me and my attorney, never a cop.

I am glad that you know the truth about the law and have shown that those who have posted that nonsense are without validity and should be ignored.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
eyewitness86,

First off, my name is not DENY Ignorance, it's Shadowflux. Secondly I think you're just trolling which is not appreciated by anyone. The advice you're giving people could get them hurt. I understand if you have an issue with law enforcement, I've gotten mad at them plenty of times but please find somewhere else to vent.

You don't know as much about police procedure as you'd like to think. If you want proof that I'm correct then go outside and find out for yourself. I guarantee that if you act that way with law enforcement they will give you more trouble than you wanted.

If you give them probably cause they can do whatever they want. If you start acting suspicious like telling them things like "Can I leave now officer?" it gives them probable cause.

I seriously hope you don't have an encounter with law enforcement anytime soon. I also hope no one takes this poster's advice

I'd also like you to stop trolling on my boards



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Last response to Bobafet:

You did NOT respond to my central issue with your first mistaken reply:

Changing the discussion to try and put me down is the hallmark of a person who has lost the battle, cannot reply with substance and yet does not have the grace or character to either stay silent or provide evidence that proves I am wrong.

All of you who are finding something helpful in my posts have my thanks for reading, and maturely comprehending, the facts. Those who will not prove me wrong with FACTS and EVIDENCE should retire from the issue as they make themselves look extremely void of substantial abilities to contribute in any menaingful way. In other words, either put up or shut up as you are looking like fools when you cannot refute what I say and have to resort to personal attacks and supposition.




This trully isn't worth a reply.

You just keep on with your assumptions.

I never made any sort of PERSONAL attack. If I did, where is my warning? Wouldn't a mod have told me about it? You are the one with a chip, not me. Please do not throw around false accusations about my character. I said nothing of the sort about you. You say you want intelligent conversation but are not open to any fact or opinions except your own?

Later.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Shadowflux: Your statement is nonsense and anyone with any intelligence can see that you guys have run out of steam. Please tell me which professional authority or attorney has given you advice that contradicts mine?

What harm can my advice do? Please be explicit and preferably with examples from real life. Oh, you cannot? I thought not. What you are doing is showing your deep embarrasment at being shown to be totally without a basis for your assertions. You CANNOT and WILL NOT refute one single thing I have said; you still have no court decisions showing me wrong, no evidence that my advice is not standard advice from attorneys.

No, you are retreating to the corner and hoping that baseless statements like " your advice could cause harm " without demonstrating exactly how and why that might be true. If what YOU are saying is true, then you MUST believe that most cops are emotionally unbalanced and unable to distinguish between a citizen who insists on his rights being respected and someone who deserves an illegal assault and arrest for daring to stand up for the Constitution. Is that what you believe? That most people who calmly and firmly stand their ground and do not give up rights voluntarily will be beaten and abused by out of control cops?

You must, as why else be afraid like you say to be? Why else should a person hesitate to express their rights? Fear of an attack and false arrest is the ONLY reason to fear an expression of adherence to rights, correct? You think the cops are so brutal and so insane that the mere insistence on having ones rights respected is enough to set them off, right? Well, guess what? You are wrong and have no proof at all to suppose this; most cops know that if a person is smart enough to know their rights and stand up for them, they likely will have the cop in hot water if any rights are violated. Does that make sense to you? Is'nt that more likely? I seem to have more faith in them than you do; I assume that they will observe the rights as they should and if they do not then at least a person has done all they can for the attorney to take over.

You have no substance, no proof, no evidence, just more blah,blah,blah and you are now officially boring. No more replies to anyone that does not have at least an intelligent contribution to make; once again, prove me wrong from authoritative sources or go away and save whatever credibility you might have with someone here before you make any more off topic comments and fail to convince of anything. Evidence or silence.Any other way will only add more embarrassment to your already empty and unproven nonsense.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
eyewitness

You are making a mistake by offering "sound legal advice". Unless you are a lawyer, you can't claim to offer that.

While the meaning behind your post is commendable, that is, knowing one's rights, your confrontational attitude and dismissal of anyone disagreeing with you as unintelligent completely detracts from your point.

Those that have disagreed with your tactics have made sound arguments, but you choose to ignore them.

Simply by observing how you react to the slightest bit of static on a message board can only lead a reader to wonder what your reaction to being challenged in a real life situation would be, and that's why your posts read the way they do.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I NEVER stated that I was gicing ' legal advice " and you cannot show me where I did. That means that you are mistaken and should apologize.

Also, not one person that replied negatively dared try and provide proof that I am wrong on ANY point I made. They cannot because it is the strict and technically accurate information you will find on any site that dispenses such advice from a professional standpoint.

All I am doing is stating facts. The fact that some people see standing firm for their rights as scary or unnerving is normal considering the way we have been brainwashed into believing; that is one reason I am doing this, to wash the lies away and replace them with truth.

I NEVER said or recommended that anyone adopt a negative attitude with a cop, or talk mean or somehow project an unnecessarily obtuse attitude; you cannot show me where I did. The fact of the matter, if you stop and really think about it, is this: some people see the mere attempt to present a formal notification of the expectation of their Rights being observed to be a belligerant action in and of itself!!! There can be no other answer, can there?

No one has said that I am factually wrong and backed it up with court citatations or case law, no one has proven that the assertion of Rights is in fact anything but what the Founding Fathers meant it to be: USED and not neglected due to fear of ' angering ' the cops. If you are so afraid of angering a cop that you cannot stand up and demand that your Rights are respected and observed ( even doing it in a civil way ) , then you have abandoned the Constitution and are of no use to society when the chips are down, should it come to that. You will be afraid to speak up then just like you are now.

Get some backbone about you, take a stand for your Constitution and politely, if you wish , notify government agents of ANY type that you respect the Constitution and you expect them to do the same as good Americans. Anything else is inexcusable from a patriotic standpoint, and from a personal standpoint of liberty and civil rights, a necessity in this day and age.

Until and unless someone makes a valid argument backed by proof I stand correct in this matter. If you love cops, then tell them that just before you tell them you want your Rights observed, but do it or be a victim; some people like being victims, I guess. How sad.

Notice: I am not and never have offered legal advice nor have I ever made any statement implying such. I am offering opinions gleaned from vast research into Federal and State court decisions, mostly at the Appelate and Supreme levels. ALWAYS consult an ATTORNEY for legal advice in your state for a specific case. . ONLY AN ATTORNEY is able to give definitive opinons for compensation or represent you in any legal matter and they are the only ones qualified to do so.

Until proven wrong, I believe that my statements and opinions are correct and true.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
WAIT A MINUTE, Shadowflux, I just read where you said I am TROLLING on your posts? THAT is a total lie, absolute. I have never trolled anything.I make comments on a few threads, I have really never noticed your name before this one; I rarely look at who is posting , that is why I called you deny ignorance a few times, I just glance at the poster, if that. HOW DARE you say that? That fcat that I am not a snitch is why I will not make a fuss about it, you are too unimportant to me to bother with.

But falesly accuse me again and I will have to ask for help in teaching you to be accurate in your statements. If youy dislike this thread so much, don't let the door...you know.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I have a few question for the OP or anyone who knows....

Will police dogs 'react' to gunpowder?

Can you deny taking your shoes off?

Is the computer in the car a a National Database or a state? So If I gave a fake name and birthday, and tell them I'm from another state (as long as they don't fingerprint me) will they be able to prove the false information?

(Applies in America, reference to the U.S. constitution)
Wasn't the whole point of the constitution to give you rights? Use them when applicable. Don't worry about the cops reaction, he will most likely leave you alone.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
To answer your questions, I will start with the dogs. Police dogs are trained for SPECIFIC substances or odors. For example, one dog may be a ' drug dog' while another will be trained to detect flammables, such as in arson cases. Other dogs detect gunpowder or dynamite or other explosives. NO DOG can do all of these things.

Most cops use ' drug dogs ' as that is where the money is in the criminal justice system. Many dogs are trained only to detect certain drugs; a dog has to be CERTIFIED for certain substances, like meth or cannabis or coc aine. One of the ways to challenge a police dog and handler in court is to examine the certifications and see if the dog was indeed trained and certified to detect the substance allegedly found. If not then the charges can be dismissed for lack of probable cause. How could the dog reliably detect heroin if he never was trained in it?

The fact is that dogs are falsely alerted all the time to get ' probable cause ' and whatever the cops find in the illegal search that follows is then said to have been detected by the dog. But now these lies are becoming harder for the cops to tell due to MATHESON v. Florida. The cops must PROVE the training, record keeping and certifications are all up to date and accurate or have a case thrown out. But no dog can do all things.
Police dogs can be wrong up to 40% of the time and still be ' qualified'. But US Customs dogs must have a 100% success rate and if they fail twice they are OUT. Cops like a ' car dog ' meaning one that will alert to anything so the cops always get their probable cause; but now that will change due to recent decisions like Matheson. I hope.

The cops can make you take off your shoes IF you are under arrest, not before. If they can make you take your shoes off, why not your pants and jockeys? Why not just strip search all citizens on the side of the street to prove we are not carrying anything illegal? The cops CANNOT make you take your shoes off any more than they can make you empty your pockets legally. Just say NO. Now if you are under arrest, they can search you thoroughly and that means shoes also. But prior to arrest, they cannot. Disrobing citizens without probable cause is still forbidden, much to the chagrin of the cops, who hate ANY boundaries on their power over us.

As far as radio communications, most states have their radio and computer networks supply info on a state basis , BUT if they ask for an " NCIC ' check, the agency will search the national database ( NCIC ) for info. If you give a false name, etc. they might not be able to prove your identity and you could walk away. However, it is illegal to provide false info to the cops so I would never advise that. But the proof of your guilt lies with THEM not you, to prove who you are, or are not. If a person is wanted, they might as well try and give a false name as that is a misdemeanor and you might just walk away from the stop. Nothing to lose at that point if you are wanted for anything more serious than providing false info, see?

You do NOT have to give a cop your social security number, although the cops lie and sometimes tell you that you must if you have no paper ID, but that is a lie. You can verbally tell the cops a name and address and if they cannot prove that you are lying, they must accept it and let you go, barring any real charges exist. Cops bend and break the laws every day, all day and so they are not in a position to try and hold the high ground morally or legally. Stand your ground and if your rights are violated, raise hell with an attorney and hound the cops that did it into Federal Court for a nice lawsuit; that is the only thing that the cops respect: someone who knows their rights and demands that they be followed, OR ELSE. I hope this helped.

Like I always say, always ask an attorney for specific help in any real case, they are invaluable. But do all you can to give the lawyer a good chance to help you.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Now let us look at a few cases that show how to deal with cops who abuse our Rights. Here is a case that shows that justice CAN be had despite police misconduct:


Two NJ Libertarians win false arrest case

On April 15th, 1996, Libertarian Party activists John Paff and Timothy Konek were arrested for the "crime" of passing out anti-tax literature on Post Office property in East Brunswick, New Jersey, during a Tax Day rally.

But on November 10th, they got their revenge: A federal judge ordered the town to pay the Libertarians $29,882 in legal fees for their federal civil rights lawsuit against township officials.

"I'm glad the judge ruled in our favor, but I'm sorry that the taxpayers have to pay,' said Paff, the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Somerset & Middlesex Counties. "I wish there was a way to hold public officials personally responsible for the harm they cause."


In this case the court held that the cops had ' qualified immunity ' and did not have to pay personally, which is a shame ; the court held that since the cops supposedly did not know the Federal law and were acting on the advice of a superior officer they were immune. BUT, not all cases end that way; many times the cops are shown to have certain knowledge of the law and still acted against it; they can and are held liable and must pay out of their own pockets. That is the ONLY way the cops will ever learn a lesson, if it bites them in the ass.

This shows that even many years later, a person CAN get justice and expose LYING BRUTAL COPS for what they are:


Court Finds State Liable In 17-Year-Old False Arrest, Assault

Seventeen years after Arnold G. Chapman was beaten by a New York State Trooper and then charged with resisting arrest and obstruction of governmental administration, the Court of Claims has ruled that the state is fully liable for the damages he incurred as a result of the assault and battery and his false arrest which resulted in him being in custody for over six hours.

Judge Richard E. Sise has scheduled a conference Wednesday between Chapman's attorney, Robert H. Ballan of Norwood, and assistant attorney general Dennis Acton to plan for a damages trial.

The case centers on an incident on Oct. 23, 1988, when Chapman was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by a State Police unit after a pursuit. The driver of the car had passed by a State Police car at nearly twice the speed limit and when police attempted to stop the car, the driver took off and tried to outrun the police before finally stopping and fleeing on foot. Chapman stayed in the car.



[edit: clipped quote and provided link to external source content]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join