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.

 

Police caught on tape threatening to destroy and invent evidence

page: 13
44
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I put the law up there for my state in plain English. It depends on how you, the cop, the judge, and everyone else interprets that law. You must be extra careful when you are driving, because you have signed to give up certain rights when you are behind the wheel of a car as well.


What right's do you GIVE UP when driving a car in the State of Florida.
Search & Seizure? Self-Incrimination?

So, you are stating that some of your Constitutional rights are revoked every time you get behind the wheel in the state of Florida.




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Look, this case boils down to the fact that both parties went about it the wrong way. The kid immediately asking the cop "what he was doing wrong" was the trigger. It's obvious that the officer snapped at that point, and he was wrong in doing so. The fact that the kid had a camera rolling screams of a bait job IMO. Was it his right to do what he did, yes, but when does common sense come into play? If he just would've said he was waiting for his friend and showed the officer his ID, then both parties would have gone on their way.

Believe me people, you're playing right into "their" hands. "They" want a younger generation that despises authority. When the time comes you'll riot at the drop of a hat and the tanks will come rolling in. Most battles are better fought with your brain and not your heart. "They" will feed off the division between the citizens and the law.

Get to know your officers better, be more personal. When the time comes and they've been instructed to participate in Martial Law, maybe so many of them won't look at the public as combatants and more of them will question themselves about what they've been ordered to do.

Fight your battles wisely.

Peace


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
O.K. fine. Let's apply that to this situation. The officer asked for and was shown a valid Missouri driver's license. So, we've got the identity part nailed down. Now for this subtle "circumstance" clause which allows the officer to question the individual.


Whoa here, I never said that the officer was correct, quite the opposite in my first post. I just said that I don’t know if I agree with the way the driver acted either.

He was obviously sitting in an area which was being monitored for suspicious activity, most likely intentionally, and he was asked what he was doing there. If he had just told the cop he was waiting for someone the cop would have probably left him be. The truth of the matter is that he was there for quite some time, and I never saw this other person show up, so I believe he made this up to try and trap the cop. So he gave a very sarcastic answer to the officer, when the officer was still within his rights to ask a basic question. “What are you doing here?” is a valid question for a suspicious vehicle, and I guarantee the court would have backed the officer at that point.

Now when the officer started to loose his temper and say he was going to make up charges, got hostile, harassing, and so on, then the officer has violated the rights of the person he has pulled over. The officer basically committed an aggravated assault on the driver, and if I had been that driver I would have asked for a supervisor to be dispatched.


[edit on 9/11/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Look, this case boils down to the fact that both parties went about it the wrong way. The kid immediately asking the cop "what he was doing wrong" was the trigger. It's obvious that the officer snapped at that point, and he was wrong in doing so. The fact that the kid had a camera rolling screams of a bait job IMO. Was it his right to do what he did, yes, but when does common sense come into play? If he just would've said he was waiting for his friend and showed the officer his ID, then both parties would have gone on their way.

Believe me people, you're playing right into "their" hands. "They" want a younger generation that despises authority. When the time comes you'll riot at the drop of a hat and the tanks will come rolling in. Most battles are better fought with your brain and not your heart. "They" will feed off the division between the citizens and the law.

Get to know your officers better, be more personal. When the time comes and they've been instructed to participate in Martial Law, maybe so many of them won't look at the public as combatants and more of them will question themselves about what they've been ordered to do.

Fight your battles wisely.

Peace


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Dr Love]


The problem I have with your statement is equating a citizen who knows his/her rights and is within his/her rights to not answer certain questions as someone who would be viewed as a combatant if martial law is intituted. My friend, that is a very dangerous line to cross and I pray that you truly don't believe this.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Squatch
The police officer has reasons that he doesn't have to tell you.

Uh, you're wrong. The police officer can't do anything without explaining why.



Originally posted by Squatch
I am disappointed with the way the cop was acting but even though the parking lot you were in was 24/7 that parking lot can be exploited with criminal acts.

So can the sidewalk in front of your house. Does that mean a cop should stop anyone walking on it?



Originally posted by Squatch
My question is... Why did you squeeze so tight into that turn where the cop was idle at the entrance of the parking lot?

There was a cop car blocking the rest of the road.



Originally posted by Squatch
Why did you even go into the parking lot?

Looked to me like he wanted to park, and parking lots are usually good places to do that.



Originally posted by Squatch
Plus, it being 2AM in the morning doesn't make your case any better because like he said. You are a suspicious vehicle.

What about the time of day makes the vehicle suspicious?



Originally posted by Squatch
I am not taking any side yours or the cops. Just common sense really why would you ask to be pulled over?

I'm inclined to believe that in order to "ask to be pulled over", you'd have to do something wrong. The kid never did anything wrong.

This is truly a case of trouble looking for him, not him looking for trouble. It just so happens that the kid was prepared for trouble. Something experience has taught him. Now, he's being chastised for being prepared, something this community is supposed to endorse.

Let's examine a bit of a tangent for a moment. Lets say this kid was out looking for a police encounter. Lets say he had installed the cameras and mics with the sole intent of catching a LEO overstepping his bounds. Is there really anything wrong with that? After all, this incident (and all similar instances) makes it clear that the police need to be policed. Maybe the kids just tired of nobody else doing it. After all, it's turning out that the cop is the one made an example of. So by "asking to be pulled over", at least in this case, the kid took a bad cop off the street. Yeah, shame on Brett
.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Defcon 5 you are TOTALLY WRONG!! TOTALLY!! Now listen closely : When some cop charges you with ' burglary tools' and it gets to court, it is NOT as simple as some cop saying " Gee, I think that maybe this guy could have been on his way to do a burglary because he had a scrwdriver in his car". That would be laughed out of court. Probable cause, do you know what that is? It is a lot more than some cop imagining something. There is NO law that says that the cop gets to decide what probable cause is.

In a case like that the DA would throw the charge out before it ever got to a judge. Why? Because without ' definable and articulable ' reasons to believe that a person was about to commit an offense, there is NO offense!! Just because some cop says that he ' imagines ' that you MIGHT do something, does NOT constitute probable cause. No way!! You are dead wrong. I do not care HOW many cops cars someone sat in and what was called in, that means nothing!! INTENT means that the cop MUST show ' reasonable grounds to believe ' that the INTENT to burglarize was there.

Do you really believe that a defense attorney would just let some cop get away with ' imagining '? Give us a break. You can have a million tools in your car and unless the cop could PROVE that you had INTENT to use them for burglary he has no case. How could he prove intent? By showing that you were on the roof of a building with the tools. By showing that you were in an alley next to a window in a business that had been burgled before, with the tools, something like that. INTENT is in your mind and heart, and NO COP can see inside you, can he? No. So HOW could some cop know that your intent was to burgle if you were just driving down the street? He could NOT, that what.

YOU are giving bad advice, not me. ALL I have said has been vetted thru the Federal statutes and decisions. State laws CANNOT overide a Federal decision. NO STATE can enforce a law that goes against the Federal court decisions. That is a fact. No matter what state you are in, your Constitutional rights remain the same everywhere in the USA. Without exception. That is a fact. INTENT is hard to prove. So cops just charge falsely and hope for the best; but a lawyer can get those thrown out fast and then you can sue!!

Cops may ATTEMPT to question anyone they like, but there is NO LAW that says that we MUST ANSWER them, no law at all. We have the RIGHT to remain silent..thats a right not a maybe.The laws are basically the same everywhere: The cops can do a Terry pat down IF they have reason to believe that you have or are committing a crime. Fine. But nowhere does it say in ANY law book that we must answer those attempts to question us.The cops have NO RIGHTS not contained in the law and NO LAW gives them more rights than the Constitution gives us. Thats a fact.

Many people read the laws wrong and think that the cops have legal rights to hassle us; they do NOT!! All one has to do is state that you wish to speak to a lawyer before answering ANY questions, and thats that. ANY questions. Got that? ANY. Thwe law says ANY. No exceptions. No cop can overcome the rights we have. Just say NO to the cops and shut up; that is the BEST advice anyone could get. Ask any lawyer.

And remember, NO law says that you can be convicted for asserting your rights, depsite the massive numbers of false arrests we still have rights and the charges can and will be thrown out if a citizen follows the rules. Then sue em!! Always sue them if they get too far out on a power trip and violate your rights. Cops ONLY respect force and lawsuits so use them and see how well they work!! And never believe that cops have all these rights you keep hearing about, they don't exist.

YOu have rights, use them . Cops have bluff and lies and false charges to back them up, and that says it all. They are the bad guys and we are the good guys, and until the cops start obeying and following the laws, we will always hear from those who are afraid and think that the cops are something special, they are not. INTENT cannot be assumed from some cops guessing about what yuou MIGHT do later!! That is ridiculous!!

You cannot be convicted for ' tools ' or anything else based on what you MIGHT do with them , only what you actually ARE doing with them, get it? Understand now? It is not what you COULD do, but what you HAVE done that counts, and in court all those phony charges just melt away and the cops slink out of the courtroom with their heads hanging in shame as they have once again been shown to be on the wrong side of the law and the rules. ASK AN ATTORNEY if I am right or wrong, go ahead, I already have!! Never ever speak to the cops other than to idnetify yourself, it canot hurt you and can only help. Fact. Done.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
What right's do you GIVE UP when driving a car in the State of Florida.
Search & Seizure? Self-Incrimination?

So, you are stating that some of your Constitutional rights are revoked every time you get behind the wheel in the state of Florida.


The biggest one is that you agree to being given a field sobriety test at the will of the police. If you refuse to take it at the scene they arrest you anyway, and do the test downtown. You can then be charged additionally for breaking the terms agreed to on your drivers license.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
So anyone who has a SECURITY camera in their car just has to be guilty of something?

Why does having a camera in his car cry out bait-job? I know that with him having past experience with cops like this you would think that, but I don't think that's what he was doing. The cop clearly had an attitude right from the start because he was out to get someone that night.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Here, I found a nice case where a lawyer showed up to argue at the scene of a traffic stop and got himself arrested as well.
This is actually pretty funny

I agree. The lawyer had no business getting involved at that point.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by HectorRmz
"making stuff up." You have to break the law to actually get convicted(most of the time.)


Again they had him on two things, "Failure to follow commands" and "tools of Burglary"


Possession of Burglary Tools
810.06 Possession of burglary tools.--Whoever has in his or her possession any tool, machine, or implement with intent to use the same, or allow the same to be used, to commit any burglary or trespass shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


Well, in this case it would actually be Section 569.180 of the Missouri Revised Statutes



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The only part that is not clear to me where he failed to follow a command. I mean he got out of the vehicle and the cop ended up with the ID. Maybe it's the part of "give me some lip boy." He failed that miserably by saying" I don't want any trouble officer" repeatedly.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Why does having a camera in his car cry out bait-job? I know that with him having past experience with cops like this you would think that, but I don't think that's what he was doing. The cop clearly had an attitude right from the start because he was out to get someone that night.


Well, it's a combination of things. One, he had a camera rolling. Two, he pulled into a parking lot in the middle of the night to wait for his friend, and yes it just so happened there was a cop there already. Three, he almost immediately asks the officer what he was doing wrong. And fourth, he had a prior run in with an off-duty police officer, of which he was cleared and was paid off. People in this thread have speculated that he was lying about his remote video feed, so I can speculate about him lying about his previous run-in with the law.

1+1+1+1=bait job IMO.

Peace


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Dr Love]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
His police scanner may be hooked up electronically to the video recorder. When it reaches a certain point the camera comes on. That is a fairly easy thing to do with electronics. If hes got the thing hooked up to record in a remote location, I wouldn't say this idea is out of his reach.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Squatch
 


Your apathy and complacent attitude is what enables these situations to occur in the first place. If LEO didn't think they could walk all over the common man, making up his own rules as he goes along, he'd stop trying.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Defcon 5 you are TOTALLY WRONG!! TOTALLY!! Now listen closely : When some cop charges you with ' burglary tools' and it gets to court, it is NOT as simple as some cop saying " Gee, I think that maybe this guy could have been on his way to do a burglary because he had a scrwdriver in his car". That would be laughed out of court. Probable cause, do you know what that is? It is a lot more than some cop imagining something. There is NO law that says that the cop gets to decide what probable cause is.


Well no matter what you say its been done, and it was almost done in that video as well. If what I am saying is so invalid, why did that come up in the video at all?

Adding lots of bolds and exclamation points is not going to change that either.

This is not the first thread I have talked about the “Tools of burglary” law in, if you search back on me you can find other posts where I have mentioned “fishing laws” before. Another law they like to use on homeless people is that its illegal to be in the possession of a marked container. Something like a grocery cart, milk crate, etc.


Originally posted by eyewitness86
they do NOT!! All one has to do is state that you wish to speak to a lawyer before answering ANY questions, and thats that. ANY questions. Got that?


Here is an explanation of the Miranda Law, not your version of it, the real one:


Miranda Law
CUSTODY is the Miranda equivalent of arrest. It does not include traffic stops or brief field interviews based on reasonable suspicion. Nor does it apply to telephone calls, since the suspect is always free to hang up. There is no litmus test (checklist), but an objective test is used to determine if custody occurs. The officer's subjective intent to arrest does not matter. What matters is if, objectively, a reasonable person would believe that an officer conveyed, by words or actions, that a suspect is not free to leave. It also does not matter why the suspect is in custody. Warnings must be given if the suspect is arrested or in jail for one crime and being questioned for another crime.
The general rule is that custody occurs whenever a suspect is placed in "unfamiliar and hostile surroundings". A look at some examples will demonstrate how restrictive this rule really is:

• Questioning at the police station. This is not automatically a custodial situation. It depends on whether the suspect was brought in handcuffed or accompanied officers voluntarily. It also depends upon whether questioning takes place in a closed room across a desk or not. Some parts of police stations, like interrogation rooms, are examples of hostile surroundings, while other parts are not hostile at all.

• Questioning in a police vehicle. This is not automatically a custodial situation. If a suspect is locked in the back seat of a cruiser equipped with a screen, this is obviously a hostile surrounding. But with other types of vehicles and the rare front seat interview, the custodial aspect is questionable.

• Questioning at the crime scene. Generally, Miranda does not apply to on-the-street and on-scene questioning. Officers routinely ask "What happened" at traffic accidents without Miranda warnings. However, if the circumstances are such that it can be reasonably inferred that police are probably going to arrest somebody, Miranda must be read. An example would be if somebody appeared intoxicated after a traffic accident where the reasonable belief that police wouldn't let this person drive home triggers Miranda.

• Questioning at the suspect's home. Again, the words and actions of the officer questioning a suspect at home must signify a hostile or intimidating atmosphere to trigger Miranda. An example of intimidating action would be waking the suspect up at 4:00 a.m. to talk to them. An example of non-intimidating action would be dropping by the suspect's house at a more regular time of day, say 8:00 a.m.

INTERROGATION is questioning that goes beyond the simple "What happened" and "What did you do, see, or hear?" to questions that imply a suspect's involvement in crime. Questions about motive, alibi, ability, or opportunity to do the crime are all examples of interrogation, such as "Where were you on the night of October 13th?" Usually, this insinuating or judgmental tone is prefaced by rapport-building, or treating the suspect like family. For example:
"How are you? Are you comfortable? Do you want something to drink?" is NOT an INTERROGATION.
"How are you? Are you comfortable? Do you want something to drink? Are you tired? When was the last time you slept. Oh, and by the way, where were you on the night of October 13th?" is an INTERROGATION.
Interrogation inherently involves PERSUASION or PRESSURE. The ultimate goal of interrogation is to obtain a confession, or at least an admission (soft confession)..., anything that would implicate the suspect in criminal behavior. It can safely be assumed nobody would voluntarily implicate themselves to police, but interrogation necessarily involves persuading or convincing a person that it would be in their best interests to do so. Interrogation is changing a person's mind so that they want to tell the police everything they did wrong, and getting them to help convict themselves.

Now is a judge going to believe that asking someone in a terry stop “what are you doing here?” is a formal interrogation?


Originally posted by eyewitness86
You cannot be convicted for ' tools ' or anything else based on what you MIGHT do with them , only what you actually ARE doing with them, get it? Understand now?

Then you can explain why the officer threatened to arrest him for it, if I am so incorrect?
Again the tools give them probable cause that a crime was about to be committed, and they can arrest him for that.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
What right's do you GIVE UP when driving a car in the State of Florida.
Search & Seizure? Self-Incrimination?

So, you are stating that some of your Constitutional rights are revoked every time you get behind the wheel in the state of Florida.


The biggest one is that you agree to being given a field sobriety test at the will of the police. If you refuse to take it at the scene they arrest you anyway, and do the test downtown. You can then be charged additionally for breaking the terms agreed to on your drivers license.


Yes, but wouldn't that officer have to have probable cause (open container, alcohol on breath, weaving, glassy-eyed, slurred speach) in order to give you that test? (i.e. were committing a crime, in this case DUI or DWI) That would certainly fall within the coditions you listed earlier. However, it did not take away an individual's right to NOT take the test. The consequence of this action is that you can be charged not that you will be charged. I assume that if taken downtown, you will be given a test and if found under the limit would not be charged.

I think we're getting caught up in semantics. While it can be argued on the whether or not the motives of this individual are ethical (i.e. he's going around with a camera looking for trouble or to trap officers), the crux of this thread is HOW the officer reacted when the individual was excercising his rights.

What I am concerned with is whether or not our RIGHTS as citizens are being violated in cases like this. As long as no crime was committed or was going to be committed, how this individual go to be in this predicament is not the issue. What transpired as an abuse of power and potential violation of the LAW is the more substatial issue.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Why does having a camera in his car cry out bait-job? I know that with him having past experience with cops like this you would think that, but I don't think that's what he was doing. The cop clearly had an attitude right from the start because he was out to get someone that night.


Well, it's a combination of things. One, he had a camera rolling. Two, he pulled into a parking lot in the middle of the night to wait for his friend, and yes it just so happened there was a cop there already. Three, he almost immediate asks the officer what he was doing wrong. And fourth, he had a prior run in with an off-duty police officer, of which he was cleared and was paid off. People in this thread have speculated that he was lying about his remote video feed, so I can speculate about him lying about his previous run-in with the law.

1+1+1+1=bait job IMO.

Peace


Everything involving him not answering the cop was his right. He admitted the previous encounter and explained that he was paid not to sue. Which tells me there's an obvious problem with cops in his area and they don't want it to get publicity. People drive around in the middle of the night all the time. How's that a problem? How do you know there's not a type of business beside that lot that's not visible in the video? His friend could have been coming from that building.

Let's say it is a bait-job though. He baited a cop that was sitting there trying to bait others so he could arrest them for reasons that didn't exist. I honestly wouldn't see that as a bad thing. I see that as a citizen tired of power tripping cops arresting people for no reason and wasting time and tax payers money. Something along the lines of what happened in my city a few years back.

You sound more like you're just trying to keep an argument going because you're getting a kick out of annoying others with your replies IMHO. I've seen it in other threads as well.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I think it's pretty clear who was haveing the bad night by the video and recording of this traffic stop.

I hope this cop get a serious supsension or even fired for his actions. Threatening to make up charges, yelling in the kids face for no reason.

It's really a shame because the majority of cops are good cops, who put their LIVES on the line on a daily basis for people they don't even know.

But the officer in this video's action are just terrible. To me it sounded like he may have had a few drinks as well. By the sounds of his voice, and the words he chose...; he went on to say I'll make up 9 charges on you, then goes on to say he'll get him for erradict driving (swerving ect), and turning into the lot, without useing his blinker), both which were false. Then he says you wan't eleven more


I think these cameras would be a good idea to have installed in most vehicles, not just for this reason, but for car jackings, kidnappings, people posing as police pulling lone woman over on desolate stretches of road ect.

But there is no excuse for this cops behavior, and he should be tested for impairment imo, though it's too late now. But hopefully with the kids taped evidence, this bad cop will lose his job, because like I was saying these bad seeds really ruin it for the honest hardworking Cops who risk their lives everyday. That goes the same for Firemen, and all other occupations that involve taking risks to rescue others.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I think that the fact this officer still has a job is just a drop to what is really wrong with this country. First and foremost any officer who uses his civil power like this should be fired period! Second the reason this officer is going to have a job is because of "police unions"..The unions are the ones we need to get rid of. With out the power of protection from these unions these officers will be less willing to abuse thier power. Police unions come to the aid of officers like this way to often, the unions use cases that police officers have been wronged to make clear cases for their relevance for all. IMO the unions need to be dis-banded. Police officers need to have job security in thier mind when they pull crap like this.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan
I think that the fact this officer still has a job is just a drop to what is really wrong with this country. First and foremost any officer who uses his civil power like this should be fired period! Second the reason this officer is going to have a job is because of "police unions"..The unions are the ones we need to get rid of. With out the power of protection from these unions these officers will be less willing to abuse thier power. Police unions come to the aid of officers like this way to often, the unions use cases that police officers have been wronged to make clear cases for their relevance for all. IMO the unions need to be dis-banded. Police officers need to have job security in thier mind when they pull crap like this.


While I agree that there should be consequences for this officer's actions, I believe that most departments have some sort of internal investigation for these types of things. Unpaid leave or suspension is typical while the investigation is underway. Once the investigation is complete then, based on those results, several things might happen. If laws were broken, this officer could very well be charged. They could also be reprimanded, demoted, and/or fired.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join