Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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?



Sorry - I have obviously not made myself clear. The hypothetical situation does apply. I am not talking about a crime in progress in you home. If you got that imppression it is becasue I did not articulate my example adequately.

I am saying that if a crime has been commited either in your home, your home town, or any place you live/work/play you would naturally want to help the police solve the crime - yes?

Why you would need any additional information other than "You fit the description of a fellon we are chasing and we would like to ask you some questions in order to eliminate you from our enquiries"?

I for one would be more than happy to help. It is in my best interests after all.

I think we are probably in agreement in this???




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Absolutely... and no, there is no flaw to that logic at all.

But hey.. your one of those people who is so obstinant that even when you are wrong, you refuse to see it, even when it is going to get you into trouble.

Dont say you were never warned.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.


At which point I would have you at gun point and would be taking you into custody until I determine you are not part of whats going on and are not a threat to me or anyone else in the area.

your continued insistance with "Specific and Articulable Facts" as the law says" ignores the fact that its incumbant upon the officer, not you, to answer to those guidlines. Those answers will come in my report after the incident is concluded and not before.

The simple fact that you match the description is "specific and articulable".
edit on 29-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


Haha, yeah, that was a pretty crappy response.... I do not need the police to protect me though, never have, never will. I don't call 911, I lock and load.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Wrong. Saying 'you match a description is neither specific or articulable.

And once you take your penis extension, im sorry, gun out, and point it at me, i will comply, as I have said all along. I will let my lawyer figure it out after that.

I wont give a cop, who, more than likely was in the lower 15% of his graduating class, a reason to do something stupid. Because that is all many need. A reason.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Absolutely... and no, there is no flaw to that logic at all.

But hey.. your one of those people who is so obstinant that even when you are wrong, you refuse to see it, even when it is going to get you into trouble.

Dont say you were never warned.





There is no flaw in the logic that it is up to cops to decide if they are within their rights in what they are doing? So, then, how do so many cops get in trouble for breaking the law? How come so many cases are thrown out becuse of procedure?

Oh, thats right, its because it is ABSOLUTELY NOT up to a cop to decide if he is within the law. That is why we have a judicial system

But being so well versed in the law, I'm sure you already know that. When the police get to decide the laws, that is called a police state. It is something that I dont live in, and will fight against.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mademyself1984


No, he probably asked instead of demanded, because he who fit the description, wasn't being a pain in the officer's ass. If he had denied the search, the officer would have eventually done it anyways, because the officer HAS that right. And no, to perform a Terry Stop, (consider when you attend a sporting event, or concert, and officers pat down those entering, Terry Stop) an officer simply needs to approach you and ask you if he may search you. Again, if at which point you decline, he now has probable cause to utilize his police discretion, to perform a warrantless search. Again. Open a book.And I "resort" to name calling, when the person being called the name "fits the description". And yeah, I got "high and mighty" because of my Bachelors? Not exactly but I suppose it would make sense that is your assumption. I'm simply pointing out that I have been educated on my rights as a civilian as well as the rights of officers of the law, and I know the difference between a violation of my rights and an officer doing his job. Clearly, you aren't understanding the difference between the two. Which leads me to my question, exactly what schooling, training, education; do you have on the matter?
edit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: confusing language
edit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: additionally


Going to a concert in a private venue does not constitute a Terry Stop. It does not need to be justified as such, as it is, again, a PRIVATE venue.

Again, the specific language used to define a Terry Stop is that the officer must have specific and articulable facts. The description in the OP was not that. All we know is that the suspect had long hair. This is not specific in any way.

I would have asked him for more information. If he had a better description than that, I would have gladly obliged. If not, I would have been on my way.

From the Terry v Ohio case:



"In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that 'we must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.' " (392 U.S. 1, at 16, Fn 12, quoting State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, at 130)


and a bit more for you, from Justice Byron White



"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him.
Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation
." (392 U.S. 1, at 34).



You can name call and dangle your bachelors all you want, you can try and make this personal. I recognize immaturity when I see it. I wont take the bait.




It's seriously amazing. I'm done attempting to communicate with you, you clearly have a serious lack of understanding. You win, captaintyinknots, you win. Feel better buddy? Good, now go mouth off to a police officer and see where your "rights" get you.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join