Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Abusive border patrol agents "im pretty sure you are a terrorist" {video}

page: 10
51
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 3DPrisoner
 


Partner, I've got just a few words for you. If you can ever get your hands on a copy of Caliber Press's Tatics for Criminal Patrol, read it. It just might enlighten you as to just how many persons walking the streets of this country are criminal's and just what type of crime is occurring in your own hometown. Ya hear it every day on the news, someone their interviewing say's "He was so quiet." "Didn't seem like the type of person that would do that." "Thought I knew him." Better yet, walk down main street Compton. Tell me how many criminals you come across per square mile.




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienChaser
 


Half asleep? Oh, thats cold! Good one though. I have more of an open mind that probably anyone one the force. You know, just a thought here, I've been here for ten years. I haven't seen anything come throught my department, either through new laws, or operating proceedure, that would lead me to believe that a police state is comming. These days I've seen more cases than ever thrown out of court because of liberal laws. It would seem to me that the restriction of laws is loostening rather than tightening. I would like to ask you, have you ever spent any time in a courtroom watching a trial?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

If you've never stood in a police officers shoes then you can't comment on his experiences on the job. Maybe I should have been a little more clear on some of my statements. I pull a car over and usually I don't observe any signs of nervousness. Now maybe the driver is a little nervous. But when I pull over a driver and he/she exhibit the signs I listed above and I'm telling you that the majority of people that I take to jail during a traffic stop exhibit signs of nervousness that go beyond the norm. Like seeing their heart pound through their shirt. And the deep breathing or the big "sigh", or even the trembling voice when they speak, or even the hard swollowing. If you've never done a ride along with an agency, DO ONE!, watch some of the furtive behaviour of these individuals when in contact with law enforcement. These behaviours CAN BE, and I stress CAN BE, signs that something criminal is afoot. I don't appreciate you telling me that what I'm experiencing out there on the street is incorrect. I've been in enough contacts to know when something is just not quite right during an encounter with a citizen.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981

Not all cops have created a name for themselves just the bad ones.

The good ones lump themselves right in there when they don't uphold their oath by giving up the bad cops. Get it??? Good. It's not a hard game to follow.



By the way,
I was curious about Anthony Abbate, The cop who beat the snot out of that woman bartender, he seems to be dragging his feet.


Posted 11:52 CST on Thursday Feb 26, 2009

Anthony Abbate, the Chicago police officer charged with beating a female bartender two years ago, had a status hearing on Thursday.

Abbate is accused of beating and kicking a female bartender in a tavern in the city's Cragin neighborhood.

He was off duty at the time of the beating, which was recorded on videotape.

Trimmed from NBCchicago

So yes, there are criminals walking freely among us.
And it gets worse...


The complaint describes the brutal beating that Obrycka suffered and also alleges that defendants Ortiz and Chiriboga told Obrycka that if she would not file a complaint against Abbate that Abbate would pay for her medical bills, lost wages and other financial loss as a result of the beating. The complaint alleges that after Obrycka refused that offer, Abbate, Chiriboga and others told Obrycka that "Defendants were aware of the Plaintiffs' vehicle identification tags and descriptions, and that if the Plaintiffs did not turn over to the Defendants (or destroy) the video tape recording of Abbate savagely beating the Plaintiff, Karolina Obrycka, that the Plaintiffs and patrons of Jesse's Shortstop Inn would be falsely arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or possession and/or trafficking of coc aine

CivilRightsDefence

A little off topic, sorry. I just thought that since nobody seemed to know what happened with this I would throw it out there.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by skyeyes

I have more of an open mind that probably anyone one the force.

I'm glad to hear that and it shows, heck just that you're here displays an open mind. It also highlights the unfortunate fact that most others behind the blue wall are much more closed minded.


I've been here for ten years. I haven't seen anything come throught my department, either through new laws, or operating proceedure, that would lead me to believe that a police state is comming.

Glad to hear that too. I wonder how much would change for "officer Everyday" in his duties in a small town America department. The things I look at a broad, national things like the patriot act, etc. The job of the everyday cop would continue to be local enforcment of civilians around town.


I would like to ask you, have you ever spent any time in a courtroom watching a trial?

Depends on what sense you mean. I have been through the system a few times (and I'll bet 10 bucks you already knew that) There is a difference though, between watching a trial, and watching court. My time in front of a judge consisted mostly of "no contest" or the formality of sentencing that is almost always agreed ahead of time. The court system is largely a buerocracy of wasted time and formality. Now I have never done the type of crime to require a full on jury trial of the Law and order type (ironic that my girlfriend is watching law and order SVU right now) I might be missing your point on this part?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by skyeyes
 



It's not the officers who make the mold for suspicious behavior. It's the criminals.

Granted.
But, it is all circumstantial. And from what I gather you guys take in a multitude of information in order to differentiate between a person who is just jittery because they think they may get a ticket and a person who is criminal in their actions at present or may have something to hide. So at every stop it is a combination of your experiences and their mannerisms.

Now you have the issue of people who may have had an altercation with an officer that may have treated them extremely harshly or even abusively in the past. This could have been an ongoing thing, such as a person being shaken down by a seriously crooked cop for payoff money. Years have gone by and through nothing less than an act of GOD they changed their ways, they are on the up and up now. And you happen to pull them over for speeding, they may just exhibit a form of PTSD at the mere sight of an officer at this stage. Just a situation to take into account.




For years I've worked the streets making contact with known criminals, making traffic stops, responding to calls for service. Now the norm for a person who is engaged in the commission of a crime is to be extremely nervous when approached by law enforcement.

I'm sure that your experience and instinct serves you well in these matters and I'd never want to cause you to second guess by anything that I'd say. It's just that I have a friend that I've known since grammar school (that I had to keep at arms length due to his way of life, in the past) that has this issue. Not everything is formulaic and cut and dry. I think that we can agree on this, on either side of the issue.




And yet others will become standoffish(VIDEO), and act beligerant, rude. All attempts at trying to get me to back down or focus my attention somewhere else.

I get what you're saying and like I mentioned before don't take this as an attempt to persuade you of any point of view. People should always take their life's experience into account. But, have you given thought to the notion that "this guy" was agitated because he truly felt that his rights were being violated. To some people this is an unbearable thing to endure by the police.



One of the border patrol agents at the checkpoint tried to explain all of this to this guy. Granted he didn't want to hear it, and some of the agents were getting irritated at the guy, heck I would. This guy had his own agenda which was to confront the agents at the checkpoint because of his own personal beliefs. Which is all O.K., it's a free country. He could've gone at it a smarter way though.

I think that A. he was on a bit of a mission because he had probably been through there time and again and had had enough of it. And B. those officers were well outside of the US/Mexico border area so their authority was overstretched. And they started off with a very bellicose form of persuasion to say the least.





Hope this clarifies any confusion and makes it easier for you to understand just what those agents may have been thinking.


I know, what they were thinking (to the extent that the average person sees) but I also see that they were a bunch of "nationalized" citizens and they most probably come from a country where police can do just about what ever they feel like doing. I don't believe in allowing foreigners to police officers. They still have attachment to the way that things may have been done in their homeland and I don't trust that they fully assimilate to the idea and laws that the US Constitution has within it. Nor do they care. Just my opinion.

I don't particularly care where a person comes from but I think that jobs where peoples rights are on the line should only be held by those of us that are thoroughly aware of US Constitutional rights and don't necessarily have any predispositions.

Not to say that Those of us born here don't make light of such rights it's just that I think it's less likely.

But I can understand the general points that you make. It's just that we are getting too far from individual rights in my opinion and it's time that we start to place a bit more emphasis on that rather than throwing them away because the government tells us that the boggy-man will get us.

Granted, there is an enemy that wants to see us destroyed. But the thing that they hate the most is our freedom and our free minds. So what do we gain by keeping a constant state of fear and readily giving away the rights that haven't been trampled upon yet.

Remember when this was only a thing about drunk driver check points?

Now it's DUI, and then there are seat belt check points, mandatory insurance check points. It is the slippery slope argument at it's best. We allowed the one thing to get by in the name of safety and now we have a monster to deal with. There are police forces and Federal Agencies that feel as though there is no such thing as the fourth amendment.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyeyes
reply to post by jfj123
 

If you've never stood in a police officers shoes then you can't comment on his experiences on the job. Maybe I should have been a little more clear on some of my statements. I pull a car over and usually I don't observe any signs of nervousness.

Maybe you're a friendly guy who goes out of his way to make those traffic stops as comfortable as reasonably possible but from all the people I've known, since I've started driving 25 years ago, everyone has been nervous about ANY traffic stop. Again, I can only tell you about experiences about myself, my friends, family, acquantances but I've NEVER known anybody NOT to be nervous.


Now maybe the driver is a little nervous. But when I pull over a driver and he/she exhibit the signs I listed above and I'm telling you that the majority of people that I take to jail during a traffic stop exhibit signs of nervousness that go beyond the norm. Like seeing their heart pound through their shirt. And the deep breathing or the big "sigh", or even the trembling voice when they speak, or even the hard swollowing. If you've never done a ride along with an agency, DO ONE!, watch some of the furtive behaviour of these individuals when in contact with law enforcement. These behaviours CAN BE, and I stress CAN BE, signs that something criminal is afoot.

You must be talking about EXTREME behavior beyond what I personally would consider nervousness but that's subjective.


I don't appreciate you telling me that what I'm experiencing out there on the street is incorrect.

All I'm saying is that when you said people aren't nervous if they're innocent other then a traffic stop, I'm saying that from the other end of the stop and everyone I've known to share their stories, they have always been VERY nervous so based on that, it seems a little unlikely. You may be looking for stress signs beyond what a normal person considers nervous so you may not even see the standard nervousness a person exhibits at a traffic stop.


I've been in enough contacts to know when something is just not quite right during an encounter with a citizen.


I'm saying that because of everything we've seen in the media, most people fear the police now.
Ask how many people here get nervous simply when a police car is behind them while they are driving. I bet most would say they are nervous in that situation. Now magnify that situation by getting pulled over, they're only going to get more nervous, not less.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by skyeyes
Better yet, walk down main street Compton. Tell me how many criminals you come across per square mile.


So, to stop the crime in Compton the police decide to put up boarder patrol checkpoints 100 miles inland?

Seems to me that placing more police presence in Compton would stop the crime there. Not a boarder patrol checkpoint hundreds of miles away in Arizona.

Just saying that crime in our streets still doesn't give the boarder patrol the right to rape our rights.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by bringthelight
 



I honestly can't believe this mentality.
If you've done nothing wrong, you won't mind the police searching your house, car, computer, bank records, person, and check into your background. I mean it's ok right? You've done nothing wrong, right?
We don't need to protection of the Constitution, right?


With a warrant, they are more then welcome to search what ever the law allows them to. You are right, it's ok because, I've got nothing to hide nor have done anything wrong, so why would I care? You might, I don't...I'm clean.

Protect the constitution from what, your imagination that it shields you? Were you a signer on the document? When was the last time you've heard of a document legally binding to you, that you didn't sign being over the age of 18?

Also, how sad are you going to be when Marshall Law suspends the constitution and then abolishes it? The highest document in the land that can be turned off like a light switch? Wow, powerful document. I need a copy so I can hold it out in front of me when someone attacks so when they see it they disappear, or I could just be nice to people and not incite a beating by being uncooperative and provoking.



So next time you're rude to someone, anyone, and if you're beaten, you deserved it and you should just forget it right?


Won't happen, I'm nice to people, but if it did, I wouldn't be rude again and that's the point right?



Keep in mind that when they beat him, they broke the highest law in the land, our most sacred document-The Constitution.

Also just curious but does being rude mean your Constitutional right should be stripped away?


I thought the declaration of independence was the most sacred document in the land, without it, the constitution wouldn't exist.

I'll have to watch the second vid again, but I was under the impression they had suspicion because of a K-9, but I need to review it again.



He was exercising his Constitutional rights. That's the point.

Nope, he was just being a jerk. No point made other then he's a jerk.



And his Constitutional rights were violated.

Again, I have to review the second vid, but I thought they suspected him with a K-9.



So let's recap.
A "rude" person, attempted to exercise their Constitutional Rights and for that, he was beaten and tasered. Does it still sound OK to you?


I couldn't judge with out hearing both sides of the story or it wouldn't be proper judgment on my part. I don't promote violence and don't think anyone needs to be beaten or tasered, but it's not my life being threatened by an uncooperative suspect.



You're missing the whole point. You are actually complaining that he is exercising his Constitutional rights. Do you get that? And on top of it, you're blaming him for the beating. Did he do ANYTHING violent? NO Did he do ANYTHING against the law? NO.


Why don't you tell me the point to what he was doing was. Do you know?

He specifically said, he brought a camera because they have camera's on him. You are telling me he wasn't trying to provoke the situation, when he admitted it himself? He travels with a copy of the constitution. Is that normal if you don't intend a problem with which you will need to recite it? He was provoking them because he doesn't like the checkpoint that every other citizen goes through with no problem. I said, I understood his frustration, but I don't need to carry a copy of the constitution with me, because I don't need to recite it living peacefully. You would only carry it around because you needed it to recite from anticipating a problem. That's foreknowing trouble is about to happen, and it takes 2 to tango, don't forget that.

You, like him, are letting your emotions get the best of you, so you need it to protect you. Emotional people do rash things. If you are being a good citizen, then you are being the constitution. That is WHAT THE POINT OF IT IS..a "living document". Be it, and you won't need it, it is just that simple.



So do you think it's ok for police officers to search your house "in just a few minutes" too? Is that OK?
Would you be upset if a cop randomly stopped you on the street and patted you down, asked you a bunch of questions, etc... ???


If it was "Sir Psycho Sexy" style I'd really dig it. As far as questioning me, what are you talking about, like trivia and stuff? Or are we talking about how I would make the world better? Or maybe, If nuclear bombs are real or something like that?
I could answer all those with my window rolled down and no camera in the car saying "yes sir" or "no sir" and "thank you officer, have a good day".

Peace out

By the way, why do you support the troops, but not the police, because when Martial Law kicks in...the troops will be the police. Will you support them then? I guess the answer is yes, because you won't have any rights or I should say, the illusion of your rights will be gone.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by bringthelight
 


By the way, why do you support the troops, but not the police, because when Martial Law kicks in...the troops will be the police. Will you support them then? I guess the answer is yes, because you won't have any rights or I should say, the illusion of your rights will be gone.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]


It's called a double-standard. It's these kind of double-standards which are taking place in Washington DC all the time that got us here in the first place.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


letthereaderunderstand

and

Marked One

It's really hard to figure out what you're talking about. Seems you've both had a [ q u o t e ] issue during your response.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I was the one that brought up the "Double-Standards" notion.



It's called a double-standard. It's these kind of double-standards which are taking place in Washington DC all the time that got us here in the first place.


[edit on 4/22/09 by Marked One]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by bringthelight
 


By the way, why do you support the troops, but not the police, because when Martial Law kicks in...the troops will be the police. Will you support them then? I guess the answer is yes, because you won't have any rights or I should say, the illusion of your rights will be gone.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



It's called a double-standard. It's these kind of double-standards which are taking place in Washington DC all the time that got us here in the first place.


I absolutely agree with you 100%. There is a double standard in Washington, but we don't control Washington, we control ourselves and the best we can do is be examples to one another. Governments will change, countries will rise and fall and as long as we need leaders to guide us, we can not lead ourselves, therefore it is a persons constitution that matters. Not a piece of paper, but the constitution of a man himself should be what is held sacred. No man, foreign or domestic, can take that away from you.

I personally don't find that, that is what the man "protecting" his rights was doing, as he had it planned having a copy of the constitution ready to go, a camera and a bad attitude. No one needs to be beaten and I believe I've stated that clearly, but no one needs to come crying "look what they did to me" after that is what he was trying to incite.

It's not like they were telling him to "go to the back of the bus" or "use a separate drinking fountain". They were doing a routine stop. I think that is better then having to take my shoes off to fly on a plane.

And really, honestly what is the point of a check point if they are not checking every car? Seems pointless to me, but that would be impossible with out some sort of x-ray machine or similar type device, as they would never be able to physically check each car. Still, seams stupid to me and a pointless waste of money and resources. Why not just build a wall along the whole boarder and staff it with good patrols and pay them a good living to actually get the job done? But that's another story.

Do I think the agents acted horrible, Yes and if they are found guilty, which they more then likely are of excessive force, then they should be reprimanded and punished, if not, loose their Jobs. Those guys were HUGE, so why would they need to resort to what they did without a personal vendetta. I think that is clear also, because people don't do things unprovoked. He was testing them and succeeded the first time, if that was the first time, and I doubt that highly or again, he wouldn't of been equipped to go to that level without his own "probable cause" to use his rights.

Peace

[edit on 23-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Marked one did you have a problem understanding my reply to jfj123? You had responded, was it clear to you? Just curious because you responded to it. Thanks



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

I honestly can't believe this mentality.
If you've done nothing wrong, you won't mind the police searching your house, car, computer, bank records, person, and check into your background. I mean it's ok right? You've done nothing wrong, right?
We don't need to protection of the Constitution, right?



With a warrant, they are more then welcome to search what ever the law allows them to.

Why do you need to have a warrant? I thought you had nothing to hide?


You are right, it's ok because, I've got nothing to hide nor have done anything wrong, so why would I care? You might, I don't...I'm clean.

Um because it would violate your rights ?!?!?! duh.
Look you obviously don't care about your rights under the Constitution. That is of course YOUR RIGHT
However, those of us who do understand what the Constitution means to the United States, we do care.
All I ask is that WHEN your Constitutional rights are violated at some point, don't complain, just take it and move on.


Protect the constitution from what, your imagination that it shields you?

No from abuses. Not sure why you don't get this unless of course you haven't studied history in school yet. If that's the case, my apologies.


Were you a signer on the document?

What does that have to do with anything at all????????


When was the last time you've heard of a document legally binding to you, that you didn't sign being over the age of 18?

The Constitution sets forth a list of rules, if you will, that everyone must follow to create a fair and just society. If you need a link so you can read and understand the Constitution, let me know.


Also, how sad are you going to be when Marshall Law suspends the constitution and then abolishes it?

When is this supposed to happen? I noticed you typed WHEN so please supply the information of when and how. I'd greatly appreciate it.


The highest document in the land that can be turned off like a light switch? Wow, powerful document.

It's not that simple.


I need a copy so I can hold it out in front of me when someone attacks so when they see it they disappear, or I could just be nice to people and not incite a beating by being uncooperative and provoking.

Obviously you're not an American and in addition you seem to have a lot of hate for Americans. Just curious but what have we done to you?


So next time you're rude to someone, anyone, and if you're beaten, you deserved it and you should just forget it right?



Won't happen, I'm nice to people, but if it did, I wouldn't be rude again and that's the point right?

Sure. If someone beats you, you'll role over in a second and take it like a little sissy boy.



So let's recap.
A "rude" person, attempted to exercise their Constitutional Rights and for that, he was beaten and tasered. Does it still sound OK to you?



I couldn't judge with out hearing both sides of the story or it wouldn't be proper judgment on my part. I don't promote violence and don't think anyone needs to be beaten or tasered, but it's not my life being threatened by an uncooperative suspect.

I thought you couldn't judge until you heard both sides?
When were their lives being threatened? That would indicate you heard their side and since you've already heard the preachers side, that's both sides, isn't it?



You're missing the whole point. You are actually complaining that he is exercising his Constitutional rights. Do you get that? And on top of it, you're blaming him for the beating. Did he do ANYTHING violent? NO Did he do ANYTHING against the law? NO.



Why don't you tell me the point to what he was doing was. Do you know?

Yes, he was standing up for his Constitutional rights. Like I've said a number of times.


He specifically said, he brought a camera because they have camera's on him. You are telling me he wasn't trying to provoke the situation, when he admitted it himself?

Still not getting it.
Yes he bought a camera and brought it along as a witness to what was going on.
He wasn't trying to "provoke" anything. He doesn't want to see his rights abused and unlike you, he is willing to stand up for himself.


He travels with a copy of the constitution. Is that normal if you don't intend a problem with which you will need to recite it?

I didn't see the part where he actually travels with a copy of the Constitution. In any case, so what? People travel with the bible all the time. The police travel with a copy of miranda all the time.
This isn't nazi germany is it? Assuming he really does travel with a copy of the Constitution, so what?


He was provoking them because he doesn't like the checkpoint that every other citizen goes through with no problem.

I can't believe you're still not getting it.
Let's say a cop knocks on the door to your home and says, "I want to come in and search your house. Open the door."
The cop has no warrant but he still wants to search your house top to bottom. Based on your thinking, this is ok with you.
So the cop comes in and searches your house top to bottom for let's say 15 minutes then asks you some questions, then says, "ok everything is fine, have a nice day".
The next day he knocks again to do the same thing.
Why would you think that is ok? Why would you want to live in that kind of society?


I said, I understood his frustration, but I don't need to carry a copy of the constitution with me, because I don't need to recite it living peacefully.

The jews in nazi germany were living peacefully too.
And the reason you live peacefully is because people do recite it and pledge allegiance on a regular basis. If you live in America, you should learn about your own country. If you don't live in America, disregard



You would only carry it around because you needed it to recite from anticipating a problem. That's foreknowing trouble is about to happen, and it takes 2 to tango, don't forget that.

huh?
So being prepared is bad?
Do you have a spare tire in your car? If you do, you know trouble is going to happen like a flat tire.
Do you have a spare car and house key? If you do, you know trouble is going to happen like you may lose your keys.


You, like him, are letting your emotions get the best of you, so you need it to protect you.

Not at all. I just know that many people have died to protect our freedoms and when those freedoms are taken away, it dishonor's all those who have sacrificed to ensure those freedoms.


Emotional people do rash things. If you are being a good citizen, then you are being the constitution.

You seem to think that if you're a good citizen, your rights won't be abused. Why would you think that when it happens all the time?


That is WHAT THE POINT OF IT IS..a "living document". Be it, and you won't need it, it is just that simple.

Then why are innocent peoples rights being violated?


By the way, why do you support the troops, but not the police,

I never said I don't support the police. In fact I do support the police who obey the laws they are sworn to protect.
I understand there are many good cops and they have a VERY hard job and frankly think they should have many more resources then they have and should be paid a lot better then they are.

The cops I DON'T support are these types:
An off duty cop beats a helpless, female bartender





"I can do whatever I want"......nice cop !!
Here the cop violated someone's 1st amendment rights not to mention assault, etc..



because when Martial Law kicks in...

You really seem to be stuck on this martial law thing.
Since you seem CONVINCED this WILL happen, what will you do? Being nice isn't going to do anything for you. Did being nice do anything for 6 million jews in nazi germany?


the troops will be the police.

No they won't.


Will you support them then?

I support all those who legally enforce the law under the Constitution of the United States. I don't know why you don't think I support the police when I've NEVER stated that at ANY point.


I guess the answer is yes, because you won't have any rights or I should say, the illusion of your rights will be gone.
[edit on 22-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]


All I can hope is that when you graduate high school and go to college, you'll learn more about how society works and why. I also hope you'll learn how to post here properly without QUOTING your entire post.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bringthelight
 


:12 "What do you need?"
:22 "What's the purpose of this checkpoint?"
:37 "I can roll it down but I'm not gonna roll it down."

Under a minute and he's already being belligerent and quite the ass-hat. Sorry to say it but he brought all this on himself. It's a CHECKPOINT. They have no idea who you are. Just answer the freaking questions with respect and you're on your way in 10 minutes. Sheesh.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Just feel the need to say that I had a problem understanding your reply to jfj123 because i can't read between the quotes, i kind of get lost as to who's asying what.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by wiredamerican
 


FROM

"Once the drug detection dog has sniffed the target vehicle and has alerted to the presence of the odor of narcotics, you must consider whether a warrant is required to search the vehicle. The automobile search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant clause, known as the Carroll doctrine, may eliminate the need for a warrant. The automobile exception provides that you may search the vehicle without a warrant simply upon probable cause, even if the vehicle is in police custody. Losing the mobility (exigency) of the vehicle by towing or some other means does not destroy the validity of the search. An auto exception search extends to the trunk and containers. This doctrine applies to vehicles that may be used as homes, such as motor homes and vans, as long as they are capable of mobility. It also applies to trailers towed behind vehicles.

Although the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the automobile exception in the recent case of California v. Acevedo, some members of the Utah Supreme Court appear to be grasping to hold on to a pre-Acevedo decision in State v. Larocco. In Larocco, the court rejected a warrantless search of a VIN number on a parked car. The court noted that there had never been any exigency concerns and that police had adequate time to secure a warrant. However, the Larocco decision was a plurality, that is to say that it is not binding precedent for trial courts. A Utah Supreme Court decision, State v. Anderson, just released this past month, continues the debate."


On the use of Dogs- if the handler is alerted to the "presence" of Drugs or a person, then they will usually search. IF you are doing something that "appears" that you are acting odd- then- that would be probable cause to search. Some years ago, I pulled over while talking on my cell fone in a neighborhool. I pulled away and headed down a street-then a Police car was tailing me closely. I told my friend that they were going to pull me over. We went around a couple of blocks to my friend's house and they switched on the lights. I was informed that I had stopped in a Known drug neighborhood and for that reason, I was taken out of my truck-sat on the curb while he ran my information. After that he asked to search my truck. I politely refused. He tried the old game of "if you have nothing to hide.." which I steadfastly said No again to. He promptly let me go- but told me not to come back...I informed him that I live in the area, work there and have friends there and that wasnt going to happen.

Generally speaking if you really do not have anything to hide and you are Polite and Respectful then you will not have issues. I have been to the Border Checks many times as a trucker. I must have my CDL and freight papers ready when I reach the Agent. I get asked about who is in the cab, what my load is and am I a US Citizen. That's it and they have had these for years- no big surprise.

In California they have an AG check (Bug check) for vehicles- they do the same kinds of things.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


So, it is the second time around you can read? Had to let those emotions calm down a little bit first huh?

Cops coming to my house, my computer, my bank records and what ever else you had mentioned outside of being a checkpoint doesn't apply to the situation we were speaking of, that was just you being emotional and acting out in a tantrum.

Of course you don't remember him carrying the constitution around, as he said, because that would make the situation a little odd. People don't carry bibles around to proclaim their rights so that is moot. Officers carry Miranda rights around because that is part of their duty, so that point is moot.

I'm sorry you have to break into insults like "sissy boy", but really you could call me what ever you like. Adults work through things rationally, children call each other names. This is what separates the men from the boys, their behavior.

As I have said, and you can review the posts. I don't support abuse of power, be it an officer of the law or arriving to work late, the president of the united states or the president of Enron. A persons constitution, I believe, should be where the buck stops because they are the highest law in the land. A law is nothing unless it is enforced and you my friend have the final say in enforcing, not an officer, they just respond to your judgment.

What that cop did to that woman turns my stomach and the fact that men watched it happen...there is no excuse.

There will be bad seeds in any field. The person embezzling money is no better. A person using pirated software is no better. A person using any advantage they have to directly or indirectly hurt someone else is just as brutal. Because I can see this, I can weight right and wrong and not what is just good for me and my rights, but others equally. This is my constitution of which I have solely signed which makes me responsible for me so there is no one to blame, only ONE to be responsible for: Mankind.

"There is no war but ours my friend"....Wag the Dog
eniro



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienChaser
 


Yes he is dragging his feet, they all seem to do that here. I'm guessing he thinks that she'll get tired of showing up for court and will just stop coming (it's a stalling tactic they use here to try and get the case dropped), but i don't think she's gonna give up that easily, at least i hope not.

They thought he would plead guilty when he went to court in February, but he didn't.

He's facing 15 felony charges including aggravated battery, official misconduct, intimidating, and communicating with a witness. That's what police officers do here in Chicago if you dare to press charges on them, they get your info from the department and they have their buddies come and intimidate you, or follow you around get you on bogus traffic stops, etc.

The Independant Police Review Authority recomended that he be fired.

He was due back in court this month, but we haven't heard anything as of yet. He did thid over two years ago and still hasn't gone to trial, it'll probably be another two years before it gets to trial if it does at all.





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join