ZOMG!!! got stopped by a cop just now, anomalous behavior on officers part

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


How many times am I going to get this same response?

It isnt a matter of being unhelpful, or being a pain in anybodies ass. Its a matter of not having to follow a cops orders just because. I have explained my position plenty of times in this thread, yet some of you still want to jump to the 'pig hating arrogant sob' retort. Get over it. Throwing out labels to try and make me look bad does not make your argument any stronger.

I'm sorry, I thought you were being stupid, my mistake. I failed to see the genius in "not following orders just because".

I don't know why you would take this approach. If there is a crook in you home would you not want to help the police catch him? No? Please explain.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


How many times am I going to get this same response?

It isnt a matter of being unhelpful, or being a pain in anybodies ass. Its a matter of not having to follow a cops orders just because. I have explained my position plenty of times in this thread, yet some of you still want to jump to the 'pig hating arrogant sob' retort. Get over it. Throwing out labels to try and make me look bad does not make your argument any stronger.

I'm sorry, I thought you were being stupid, my mistake. I failed to see the genius in "not following orders just because".

I don't know why you would take this approach. If there is a crook in you home would you not want to help the police catch him? No? Please explain.

You're right, the genius is in always doing as you are told. Carry on.

Granted you have cops that go WAY beyond what is legal and ethical. However there as so many people out there that assume they can just disregard what ever an officer says give them the finger and then be expected to be treated decent. It does not work that way and neither does life! You treat someone like sh**t your gonna get it back. A vast majority of officers out there are no different then you or me with one exception. You don't go to your job every day with the thought in the back of your mind that you could realistically be killed that day. They do their job and go home to their families.

You wonder why cops are cautious? How would you feel walking around with a target on your back?? I suggest walking a mile in their shoes before you start spouting off about how they are pigs and evil and all other stupid crap I see in Cop related threads every day. I am 35 years old and never had an unpleasant experience with a Cop. I treat them as people who have a Sh**t job to do. I don't take it personal. So maybe just maybe all you who have such issues with Law Enforcement need to go take a long hard look in the mirror, I'm guessing YOU are the root of the problem not the other way around.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


How many times am I going to get this same response?

It isnt a matter of being unhelpful, or being a pain in anybodies ass. Its a matter of not having to follow a cops orders just because. I have explained my position plenty of times in this thread, yet some of you still want to jump to the 'pig hating arrogant sob' retort. Get over it. Throwing out labels to try and make me look bad does not make your argument any stronger.

I'm sorry, I thought you were being stupid, my mistake. I failed to see the genius in "not following orders just because".

I don't know why you would take this approach. If there is a crook in you home would you not want to help the police catch him? No? Please explain.

You're right, the genius is in always doing as you are told. Carry on.

You don't feel like answering the question then?

Would you help the cops protect your home?

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


How many times am I going to get this same response?

It isnt a matter of being unhelpful, or being a pain in anybodies ass. Its a matter of not having to follow a cops orders just because. I have explained my position plenty of times in this thread, yet some of you still want to jump to the 'pig hating arrogant sob' retort. Get over it. Throwing out labels to try and make me look bad does not make your argument any stronger.

I'm sorry, I thought you were being stupid, my mistake. I failed to see the genius in "not following orders just because".

I don't know why you would take this approach. If there is a crook in you home would you not want to help the police catch him? No? Please explain.

You're right, the genius is in always doing as you are told. Carry on.

You don't feel like answering the question then?

Would you help the cops protect your home?

I dont feel like answering the question, as it is just another attempt to make this an emotional argument instead of a logical one, and it has no relevance to the conversation being had. We are not talking about a crime in progress, where the criminal is being witnessed committing the crime. We are talking about a scenario in which the suspect has already fled, and the cops are trying to ID him.

Two completely different instances. Nice try though.

Like I said, you are right. It is better to NEVER ask questions, to ALWAYS do as you are told. Questioning authority only leads to bad things.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Terry is very much applicable to this case. The description matched, and the person is supposedly armed. It very much meets the criteria to do a terry frisk.

Yes I am a cop, and no I dont always take the position of support of law enforcement, and have been very clear on that topic in my posts, and other members can verify that I dont rubber stamp law enforcement actions.

You are the person who stated what you would do had it been you. You placed yourself into the thread by doing that, and by assuming you were correct in your response, which you were not.

I have asked you a few tiems now, specifically, what rights are being violated, and what court cases supoport your argument. Are you going to share those with us, or keep running in circles about being peronally attacked? As far as getting over ones self, I would suggest you take your own advice.. You are doing exactly wehat you accuse others of doing, making personal attacks - with me " being a cop".

Please provide us with your case law and explains what rights are being violated. Its a simple request that you ahve failed to answer. I have gone back through the thred, and you have no provided any answers specifically for those 2 questions.

What rights are violated?
What case law supports your assertion.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Terry is very much applicable to this case. The description matched, and the person is supposedly armed. It very much meets the criteria to do a terry frisk.

Yes I am a cop, and no I dont always take the position of support of law enforcement, and have been very clear on that topic in my posts, and other members can verify that I dont rubber stamp law enforcement actions.

You are the person who stated what you would do had it been you. You placed yourself into the thread by doing that, and by assuming you were correct in your response, which you were not.

I have asked you a few tiems now, specifically, what rights are being violated, and what court cases supoport your argument. Are you going to share those with us, or keep running in circles about being peronally attacked? As far as getting over ones self, I would suggest you take your own advice.. You are doing exactly wehat you accuse others of doing, making personal attacks - with me " being a cop".

Please provide us with your case law and explains what rights are being violated. Its a simple request that you ahve failed to answer. I have gone back through the thred, and you have no provided any answers specifically for those 2 questions.

What rights are violated?
What case law supports your assertion.

Round and round we go. You continue to ignore the specific language I have provided. You claim that any description is worthy of a Terry Stop, and that is simply not so. Go back through the thread. I have posted the specific language more than once.

You continue to assert that I would ignore the cop outright. You continue to skew the stance that I have stated many times. Its getting redundant, and tired.

To answer your question, no rights were violated in this instance. Why is that? By obliging the cop, the OP forfeited his rights. Had he refused, or asked questions, and was forced with no explanation, THEN his rights would have been violated.

I spoke of what I would do in the situation, which did put those actions into the topic of conversation. That you dont understand the difference between debating the topic, and attacking the poster, makes me feel very bad for those that would rely on you as an authority figure.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Lol right...

Had the person refused, and the officer detained him at that point, NO the persons rights would not have been violated.

This is exactly what I am talking about when people make claims that are wrong. It is an investigative detention based on the fact the person matched the description of a person who is armed and committed a felony. Had the perwson refused to cooperate, he would have been pistol pointed at that point, and taken into custody pending further investigation.

He would have been terry frisked for officer safety, and its irrelevant at that point if the person tries to refuse the terry frisk (which is not a search).

Even after all of that, no rights were violated, and the person would have no standing in court either. No 42 usc1983 violation occured, no state law was violated, and no departmental policy is violated, making the officer immune to civil lawsuits.

Again, you say had he refused his rights would have been violated -

Explain which rights, in what manner they are violated, and under what law citation supports your argument.

reply to post by banandar123


No dude, your cool lol

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Lol right...

Had the person refused, and the officer detained him at that point, NO the persons rights would not have been violated.

This is exactly what I am talking about when people make claims that are wrong. It is an investigative detention based on the fact the person matched the description of a person who is armed and committed a felony. Had the perwson refused to cooperate, he would have been pistol pointed at that point, and taken into custody pending further investigation.

He would have been terry frisked for officer safety, and its irrelevant at that point if the person tries to refuse the terry frisk (which is not a search).

Even after all of that, no rights were violated, and the person would have no standing in court either. No 42 usc1983 violation occured, no state law was violated, and no departmental policy is violated, making the officer immune to civil lawsuits.

Again, you say had he refused his rights would have been violated -

Explain which rights, in what manner they are violated, and under what law citation supports your argument.

For someone who calls out those who HAVE supplied documentation to back up their claims, you sure jump to the "Because I said so" justification quite often.

It's also quite clear that you havent bothered to look at ANY of the things I posted in counter earlier in this thread, as, if you had, you would not continue to spew the exact same argument which is A)off-base from what I have been saying this whole time; and B) fully addressed in my counter.

If the officer cannot supply (and for the umpteenth time, this is the EXACT legal language) "specific and articulable facts" he cannot claim the right to Terry frisk.

If the cop provided that, as I have said this whole time, I would gladly oblige.

It's sad when one would go so far to vilify someone who simply wishes to live within their freedom.

Its as though you think if you ask the same thing and make the same statements enough times, the other facts will disappear.

reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks

No rights were violated. Please read the OP's thread again without the aggressive attitude to law enforcement.

I did not say any rights were violated. They were not. The one thing that the OP should have done was asked what the description was. (In the U.S.) You have a legal right to know. If the description was close to me I would submit to a search not for the polices sake, but for the sake of catching the robber.

I don't have an aggressive attitude for law enforcement, I have an agressive attitude toward the shills of law enforcement and government on this site

Witch is not you, just so you know

cool story brah. I was so interested I didn't even bother to capitalize the appropriate letters in my first sentence.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


WOW!!!

I totally believe everything you said, word for word, without any evidence whatsoever of your encou

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You don't feel like answering because you know I am right.

If there is a police officer trying to protect your home or neighbourhood you would have to be a complete idiot not to help him do that.

I am glad we agree.

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

You don't feel like answering because you know I am right.

If there is a police officer trying to protect your home or neighbourhood you would have to be a complete idiot not to help him do that.

I am glad we agree.

I know you are right about what? Your hypothetical situation is not relevant to the conversation being had. If you believe it is, please explain how the two situations are related...one involves a crime in progress, one involves a search for a suspect after the fact.

Not relevant at all.

For the last time, I have not said I would not cooperate. I have said I would require more information before I would. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

reply to post by sumgai


yes, hard to believe isn't it!
[probably why it was moved to the gray area]

it's actually a 1st for me.

which is why i chose to post this thread about what qualifies IMO as a Fortean event!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
If the officer cannot supply (and for the umpteenth time, this is the EXACT legal language) "specific and articulable facts" he cannot claim the right to Terry frisk.

If the cop provided that, as I have said this whole time, I would gladly oblige.

It's sad when one would go so far to vilify someone who simply wishes to live within their freedom.

Its as though you think if you ask the same thing and make the same statements enough times, the other facts will disappear.

You keep changin your position.. First it was you wouldnt comply, then it is you would based on the op situation, and then you wouldnt. Now you would? And again, you keep ignoring and then stating the Terry stop criteria...
Long story short, you wont know if you meet any of that criteria until after you have been detained, so I still fail to see, based on your own statements, how you would comply given the fact the info you would demand, wont be given to you until after the fact.

The criteria for Terry, as you keep pointing out, is the standard law enforcement use when we determine if we are going to stop a person and do a patdown. That determination is not up to you, nor is it your place to decide if the police are within those guidelines.

Originally posted by Skerrako
I did not say any rights were violated. They were not. The one thing that the OP should have done was asked what the description was. (In the U.S.) You have a legal right to know. If the description was close to me I would submit to a search not for the polices sake, but for the sake of catching the robber.

I don't have an aggressive attitude for law enforcement, I have an agressive attitude toward the shills of law enforcement and government on this site

Witch is not you, just so you know

As with the above conversation, you can ask, and the info will most liekly come after the fact, not before. I just want to make people aware that what they are perceiving as a right to know, is after the fact, not prior to it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
If the officer cannot supply (and for the umpteenth time, this is the EXACT legal language) "specific and articulable facts" he cannot claim the right to Terry frisk.

If the cop provided that, as I have said this whole time, I would gladly oblige.

It's sad when one would go so far to vilify someone who simply wishes to live within their freedom.

Its as though you think if you ask the same thing and make the same statements enough times, the other facts will disappear.

You keep changin your position.. First it was you wouldnt comply, then it is you would based on the op situation, and then you wouldnt. Now you would? And again, you keep ignoring and then stating the Terry stop criteria...
Long story short, you wont know if you meet any of that criteria until after you have been detained, so I still fail to see, based on your own statements, how you would comply given the fact the info you would demand, wont be given to you until after the fact.

The criteria for Terry, as you keep pointing out, is the standard law enforcement use when we determine if we are going to stop a person and do a patdown. That determination is not up to you, nor is it your place to decide if the police are within those guidelines.

Originally posted by Skerrako
I did not say any rights were violated. They were not. The one thing that the OP should have done was asked what the description was. (In the U.S.) You have a legal right to know. If the description was close to me I would submit to a search not for the polices sake, but for the sake of catching the robber.

I don't have an aggressive attitude for law enforcement, I have an agressive attitude toward the shills of law enforcement and government on this site

Witch is not you, just so you know

As with the above conversation, you can ask, and the info will most liekly come after the fact, not before. I just want to make people aware that what they are perceiving as a right to know, is after the fact, not prior to it.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Sure I do. Try going back and rereading what I have said. My stance has not changed once in the thread. More baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit me.

And you continue to ignore the legal language and evidence I have presented which contradicts your claims.

Nice try.

Furthermore, if it is not up to me as a citizen, does that make it up to you, as a cop, to decide if you are within the guidelines? Because there is a SERIOUS flaw with that logic.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


reply to post by Xcathdra


perhaps you should both back up a bit and then restate your arguments[briefly and to the point] or stands as it were

EDIT-as there has been some swerving on both parts

it is difficult to determine who is "trolling" who here IMO.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

reply to post by Xcathdra

 

perhaps you should both back up a bit and then restate your arguments[briefly and to the point] or stands as it were

it is difficult to determine who is "trolling" who here IMO.

I'm not sure how anyone could accuse me of trolling. I have stated my opinion, and been constantly bombarded with sensationalism, accusations, insults and lies since I have done so.

I'll state it again, just as I did in my first response:

In this situation, I would politely decline the officers requests until he could give me solid reasoning for doing so. "Specific and Articulable Facts" as the law says.

Plain and simple.