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.

 

Cooperation with the police is not loosing liberty!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I want to address the subject of many current topics here on ATS involving persons claiming to have been mistreated, abused, wrongfully searched, detained by police officers, boarder patrol agents,DPS and a host of other protective agency's. Lets start with a general fourth amendment to the constitution explanation:


The Fourth Amendment specifies that any warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest, in order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable. Warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court. The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental actors. It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.[13] The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.[14] The Fourth Amendment applies to criminal law, but not civil law, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1855 in the Murray v. Hoboken Land.[15] The jurisdiction of the federal government in the realm of criminal law was narrow, up until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As criminal jurisdiction of the federal government expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the Supreme Court.[16] The Supreme Court ruled that some searches and seizures may violate the reasonableness requirement under the Fourth Amendment, even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.[17] Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."[18] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different. The reasonableness requirement applies not just to a search in combination with a seizure, but also to a search without a seizure, as well as to a seizure without a search.[19] Hence, the amendment is not limited to protecting elements of privacy or personal autonomy, but rather applies pervasively to virtually all aspects of criminal law. Nevertheless, the amendment does not replace other constitutional provisions, such as replacing the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment with a more sweeping ban on "unreasonable" punishment.



It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens


I will start with the above quoted. Many people are under a strong misconception that by simply being American citizens, that [they] are somehow immune to being searched or questioned by officers of the law. This seems to be impart because of the failure to understand the implications of the fourth amendment the the constitution and the reason it was in acted.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it



Stop and frisk However, in certain circumstances, authorities are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause. In Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court decided that when a policeman "observes unusual conduct" that leads him to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot" and that the suspicious person has a weapon and is presently dangerous to the policeman or others, he may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk"), to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, the policeman must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his actions.[20] A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (i.e., if the policeman stopped you because he had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were driving a stolen car, after confirming that it is not stolen, he cannot force you to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).


Cooperation with any law enforcement official in the course of their investigation weather it be one involving multiple parties or a simple trafic stop is the responsibility of every citizen regardless of social standing. We (the taxpayers) pay these organizations to keep the peace and handle issues of criminal misconduct. In that it must be noted that "criminals" do not wear a bright red cape stating as such, therefore one should consider the actual task presented to said officials: police a population including those who would harm,mame, kill or otherwise threaten the civility and peaceful function of said population.

Question, why would an innocent citizen fear the results of a search by a uniformed officer of the law? Key word there being "innocent" and that as much, one in that position should in context, have nothing to fear. So why would anybody resort to actions wich would otherwise provoke or antagonize an officer to escalate procedure to the point of physical contact? The question eludes rational thought, and does in fact imply some sort of misconduct. A 'law abiding" citizen in witness to a robber running from the scene of the crime would most certainly point the pursuing officers in the direction that the suspect ran right? Knowing that [they] had nothing to do with the robbery. The same could be said for a person going through some sort of check point, all license, registration, insurance valid, no contraband in the vehicle and no active warrants. Nothing to hide right? So why not cooperate fully, knowing that after the officers legal actions have been satisfied, that one would be right back on their way.

immense is the best word to describe the task of the law enforcement community. Criminals or those who would otherwise circumvent the laws meant to protect us from one another take great care to conceal their activities so sometimes the path of a law enforcement officer to said criminal is not marked out by broad signs clearly stating that intent and "clearing" innocent people is necessary to a successful outcome. In conclusion, I argue that cooperation with law enforcement officials is not by any means giving up any amount of liberty what so ever.


Referance thread 1
Reference thread 2
Reference thread 3
Reference thread 4
Source




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well, a lot of police are corrupt and you just can't tell until after you've had to interact with one. If you get a corrupt one then it's too late once he's already searched you and got you handcuffed. You are pretty much at his mercy.

One time I got stopped delivering the morning paper. I'll tell you it took about 10 minutes to convince the guy I was delivering papers, even though I had the bag on with about a dozen papers in it. No joke. I could tell he was itching for a confrontation.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by TheComte]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


Instances such as yours are exactly what I'm talking about I'm assuming that you were not charged with anything and that you were "released" now had you provoked the officer in question by being evasive in some way then the situation would probably have taken a different turn.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I'll have to disagree. If you cooperate with unlawfull orders then you have given up your rights and liberties. Everytime someone does this it enforces the position of those who abuse their powers and now it has gotten to the point that if you stand for your rights you get tazed or worse.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


may I ask, what "unlawful" orders are you referring to? and in what type of scenario? A routine contact with a police officer involves of all things a possible pat frisk to ensure no weapons are present (officer safety)



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I most often hear about police abusing power againts journalist and photographers. Such orders as to show images to officer, deleting them and detaining photographers. This is my territory so I'm most familiar with these cases.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Obviously, you have done a lot of research into this matter and have made some interesting arguements. I refuse to co-operate with police because of past experiences with them. I have been jailed without charges over 15 times in the US because I have aserted my rights as a sovereign citizen. I know my bill of rights by memory and am familiar enough with the law to know that if you use the 5th ammendment, that you will have your day in court. Do not fear the police and have a clear understanding of exactly what your rights and their's are. I will not go quietly into the night but will fight injustice and for my God given rights as an American as long as I have breath and a heartbeat. Go watch the video on this site about the Baptist preacher stopped on an American highway within the good ol USA.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


"Cooperation with the police is not loosing liberty!"

Tell that to seven million dead jews, who "cooperated" with the Nazis during WWII. What an affront to liberty, this type of reasoning entails.

Can you imagine what it will be like, for law enforcement officers, when an overwhelming majority of well armed citizens understand they are being hounded by cops of the New World Order, in those situations involving patriots meerly demanding their rights.

One hundred million guns in the private hands of true US patriots are all that stand in the face of tyranny at this time.





posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


I gave an answer to this same post in the other thread, cops are people too and your labelling the group as a whole is unintelligent as is is false. This is the same pretense to had of the U.S troops killing civillians, and as far as the Jews and the Nazi's goes that was specfic genocide and has no relevance to the topic at hand here.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Routine contact? What about probable cause?

Frisking someone for weapons is routine contact without probable cause?

What country do you think the United States is?



I noticed this thread is an extension to "Abusive border patrol agents "im pretty sure you are a terrorist" [video]" thread.


You seem to keep ignoring the factor of what our 4th amendment rights are and "probable cause". Cooperating with an officer who gives you an unlawful order is unconstitutional. If an officer cannot provide a reason to search you (probable cause), then it is an illegal act to force a search without a warrant.

Cooperating with the cops is a good thing until they choose to violate your rights. If you don't know your rights then I can see your point of view.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unmask The Deception
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Routine contact? What about probable cause?

Frisking someone for weapons is routine contact without probable cause?

What country do you think the United States is?



I noticed this thread is an extension to "Abusive border patrol agents "im pretty sure you are a terrorist" [video]" thread.


You seem to keep ignoring the factor of what our 4th amendment rights are and "probable cause". Cooperating with an officer who gives you an unlawful order is unconstitutional. If an officer cannot provide a reason to search you (probable cause), then it is an illegal act to force a search without a warrant.

Cooperating with the cops is a good thing until they choose to violate your rights. If you don't know your rights then I can see your point of view.


No it's not an "extension" by any means it just relates to that topic. Probable cause can fall under officer saftey and if the officer feels the situation warrants a quick search for weapons ( for their protection) then the search can commence.,

Stop and frisk However, in certain circumstances, authorities are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause. .


[edit on 19-4-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981

No it's not an "extension" by any means it just relates to that topic. Probable cause can fall under officer saftey and if the officer feels the situation warrants a quick search for weapons ( for their protection) then the search can commence.,

Stop and frisk However, in certain circumstances, authorities are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause. .




So if I am just walking down the street, a cop can just say "hey get against the wall, I suspect you are a criminal so I need to frisk you". This is the same exact scenario that happened to the guy in the video only the individual was in a car.


Stop and frisk However, in certain circumstances, authorities are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause. In Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court decided that when a policeman "observes unusual conduct" that leads him to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot" and that the suspicious person has a weapon and is presently dangerous to the policeman or others, he may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk"), to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, the policeman must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his actions.[20] A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (i.e., if the policeman stopped you because he had reasonable suspicion to believe that you were driving a stolen car, after confirming that it is not stolen, he cannot force you to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).


I bolded the most important part of your source in case you missed it. The cops had a hunch(but could not provide why they had a hunch to the individual in the video) That is a violation. Do not ignore your rights. They are the most important thing. They are so important that many have given their lives so that we can live free. I understand we are no longer as free as we used to be or would like to be, but that is no excuse to allow someone to violate your constitutional rights.

I cooperate with police; however, if one tries to deny my rights, I will challenge them and possibly educate them on what they are doing is wrong. It is not wrong to question authority. If we do not question authority we eventually will no longer be able to. Is that what you want?



EDIT: Grammar


[edit on 19-4-2009 by Unmask The Deception]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unmask The Deception
So if I am just walking down the street, a cop can just say "hey get against the wall, I suspect you are a criminal so I need to frisk you". This is the same exact scenario that happened to the guy in the video only the individual was in a car.



Yes they can and in fact they have "hot lists" on suspects, stolen cars, ect ect and all they have to preclude to is that you resemble a "suspect" and the search is always present for officer saftey, not always to inply criminal intent.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


This guy in the video was not on a hot list or any list for that matter, as they could not provide a legitimate answer to why they wanted to search his vehicle. If you ask them a question and the officer cannot give you a straight answer (or no answer as in the individual in the video's case) then rights are being violated.

Look I am not against cops. I am just against the ones who do not follow the law because they believe they are above the law.

Remember that it is all in perspective. Wait until you are minding your own business and a similar situation happens to you, and they want to search you. Then you ask why and they won't tell you. Hell, it could lead to a strip search and maybe even an appearance of a long rubber glove. Would you feel violated then? You should feel violated before that happens.

Do you see why I am defending the 4th amendment along with the guy who got stopped at the border patrol checkpoint on the video now?

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Unmask The Deception]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Unmask The Deception
 


I have been in contact with police before and been searched, as I had nothing to hide I didn't mind and I was told whyI was being searched, being being in Law enforcement myself I know all about officer saftey and the implications of it. Now had I not been cooperative then my behaivior would have warranted a more extensive approach as was the case in the other video.

I will say that you are right to defend your rights andI never said you or anybody else was not. I will continue to present cooperation as a means of reducing the amount of "police brutality" claims as well as "police harrassment" claims.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by Unmask The Deception
 


I have been in contact with police before and been searched, as I had nothing to hide I didn't mind and I was told why I was being searched,


That was your choice and you were told why you were searched. You gave up your 4 amendment right by choice (nothing wrong with your decision as we are free to choose), unless the reason they gave you for searching you warranted probable cause.

The "I don't mind, I have nothing to hide" crowd does not usually understand that what they are doing is forfeiting their 4 amendment right during the search. You are aware though and that is your choice to do so.



being in Law enforcement myself I know all about officer saftey and the implications of it. Now had I not been cooperative then my behaivior would have warranted a more extensive approach as was the case in the other video.


You gave up your 4th amendment right or they had probable cause, so cooperating became your only option for swift release.

Safety procedures for the officers should not violate rights, but they do everyday because the procedures are not followed properly nor to the law.

I don't think the officers were concerned of their safety in the other video of the guy (when he got tazed and beaten). It was also based on false testimony of the Border Patrol/DPS. They said their dogs detected something in his trunk. When he asked to show him the dog's reaction when the trunk was sniffed (as the dog did not react at all the first and only time he sniffed, from what he saw) they would not comply. The DPS showed up and asked the BP to have the dog sniff the trunk again also and the BP declined. Then violence ensued. It was staged only for revenge only because the guy did not cooperate the first time( to prevent loss of liberty because he did not want his rights violated). Legally they had to let him pass the first time and they did, only to get him back later to teach him a lesson. That is not freedom. That my friend is tyranny. Police state. We don't like that guy....he pissed us off last time....let set him up. They did.

This was criminal. The only criminal activity there was that of the authorities. All because the BP officers did not know the law and/or did not want to admit they were wrong in front of their peers. The guy had nothing illegal.


I will say that you are right to defend your rights andI never said you or anybody else was not. I will continue to present cooperation as a means of reducing the amount of "police brutality" claims as well as "police harassment" claims.


Reducing the amount of "police brutality" and "police harassment" can only come from the law enforcement officials understanding of the law, rights of individuals, and proper procedures. They are not "above the law". Your statements of "cooperating" walk a fine line toward submission. The only difference is if the officer's request was legal.

Once everyone forfeits their rights enough and it increasingly becomes the norm, you will eventually hear "papers please!" and say goodbye to our current way of life.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Unmask The Deception
 


What you have in the second video is just his testimony not video proof and if you believe him then ok but notice he has no cuff marks on his wrists and that tells me that he either was not in cuffs for long or not in them at all. Am I saying that he cut up his own head? maybe but he did seem to have something to provein the video so I'm not putting it passed him.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I am not even a bible thumper, but the nation was created under god. If I say that I only answer to my god, then I have the complete right to be free. Everyone who has a problem with me, when I haven't hurt anyone stolen anything or committed fraud, has to prove that they exist in a power structure between me and god. Until they can do that, there is no case.

As a human being, you are born free, its not something you need a constitution for. You should always be free and should answer to no one unless you have damaged someones property, or person, and do not use fraud or mischief in your contracts(business).

If you have not done anything that breaks those rules, your free. What happens though, is that we inadvertently agree to being subject to STATUTES (ALL "ACTS") by being IGNORANT.

Statutes are created by the law society, for the law society. I am not a member, and thus their laws do not apply to me or likely, any of you. Every single thing that a cop does to you on the side of the road, is done in the name of a statute EVERY TIME.

Standing firm on your rights is the only thing you can do to end the abuse. Cause to me, when an officers attacks this person physically or damages their vehicle, hes the one who is breaking the law.

Your rights are your rights, they're always reserved, its up to you to exercise them and if you don't they take it as you know and you failed to exercise.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
That idiot provoked the officers and justly was "detained" longer then possibly needed. If he had cooperated with them he would have gone about his business in a jiffy but instead he decided to be a D,B and scream fourth amendment, like they were beating him or something c'mon and what "atacks" are you referring to I'd be willing to bet only about 0.1% of "police brutality" was unjust.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by romanmel
 


...cops are people too and your labelling the group as a whole is unintelligent as is is false. This is the same pretense to had of the U.S troops killing civillians, and as far as the Jews and the Nazi's goes that was specfic genocide and has no relevance to the topic at hand here.



Sir, I am not responsable for "labelling this group (cops)". The so-called law enforcement officers, have been documented by citizens, time and again, exceeding their authority. Officers have been bringing public disdain upon themselves quite nicely, thank you.

You may not have a full grasp of history. Let me help you here. The gestopo were the German "police officers", who during WWII rounded up seven million Jews and sent them to extermination camps, with full knowledge of what that entailed. The Nuremburg trials found these "police officers" shared full responsibility for these crimes against humanity. In a post entitled "Cooperation with the police is not loosing liberty!", it would certainly have relevance, unless you don't understand what "loosing liberty" means. Those seven million Jews could enlighten you in that regard, I'm sure.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join