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

reply to post by TKDRL


sorry have edited OP
as follows

when i consciously register the tail end of an exchange between a cop on a bike and a dispatcher from a police radio nearby.

normally my conscious mind filters that out
as cops here will often do stuff to attract your attention and when you look at them, use that as an excuse for a fishing expedition


sorry about any confusion

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Attitude like this is what gets people shot! Seriously if the OP matched the description of an armed robber the police certainly DO have the right to stop you and search you it.is.their.JOB. While you have the right to politely decline I have to right to live in a safe place and if that means the police stop people that match the description of a criminal to rule them out then so be it, if you have nothing to hide why create a problem?

reply to post by Wetpaint72


actually SOP with me involves the use of flip remarks [like request that officer take hand off gun] and gauging responses
a psycho would have pulled his gun and barked at me to get up against the wall.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by OnceReturned

 

Not really... Had the description, been a bit more descriptive, maybe.... Long hair, that's pretty bad. If they had some clothes color that matched along with the long hair, that I could see.

If the description was, dude was black, does that mean they can stop and pat down all black dudes? No.

edit on Fri, 27 May 2011 13:07:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

It sounds to me from the story like there was more to the description. The cop saw the OP and then asked the dispatch about the long hair. Presumably there was something else about the OP that caught the cops attention and the long hair was what made him follow up on it.

In order to be looking for anyone at all, the cop would have to have known something about what the person looked like. The cops have been chasing people for a while now... I would suspect that they know they're not going to narrow down the possible suspects much by saying something so general as "he has long hair." They would never find the guy if they stopped everyone with long hair, which is why it's almost certain that that isn't what they were doing.

They don't act on such general descriptions as "a black dude" because it's not helpful. Believe it or not, most the time they really are trying to catch the bad guy. Based on the cops attitude during the rest of the OPs encounter, does he sound like he just set out to be marginally disruptive to anyone he saw that he didn't like? If he were just out to get people with long hair, he wouldn't have been cool about it.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Yeah, it looks like you are probably right, I was just going by what I saw at the time

it is 2:45 PM and Police chopper is still flying around.


2:46 just went over my house now.

no worries though

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

It depends upon the situation. In response to an armed robbery that was stated the cause, he could have shot you if you resisted. At any rate, you would end upon face-planted to the ground after being tazed and the 'cuffs would be deployed.

..."Armed robbery" suspect in the area as evidenced by the 'copters, etc., and you would want the guy to kiss your ass? Your whole attitude on that situation is crazy. The cop was doing exactly what they have always done, trying to catch a bad guy. If you wanna make yourself the bad guy, they WILL oblige you.

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Yes, yes he does. If an armed robbery just occured in the area and a description was given, and then a cop sees you nearby, and you fit the description, he can and should treat you as though you might have done it. If they couldn't act on matching descriptions at the time and in the location of the crime, how would they catch anyone?

It sounds like the cop was pretty cool about it. If it had been you in the OPs position, and you had resisted, it would have ended worse for everyone. (Except that you'd likely have a frontpage thread bashing cops for excessive force...)

I disagree, and I would challenge it as far as I could. He can ask me to cooperate, but unless he has read me my rights, I dont have to oblige. I am innocent until proven guilty. Just because I look like someone that has been described in a crime is not probable cause, and does not supersede my rights.

Considering that the OP was not under arrest, he could not have resisted. But he had every right to decline the officer's requests. To do so politely is not resisting, and does not give the cop any more rights than they had to begin with.

Originally posted by Jubes

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Attitude like this is what gets people shot! Seriously if the OP matched the description of an armed robber the police certainly DO have the right to stop you and search you it.is.their.JOB. While you have the right to politely decline I have to right to live in a safe place and if that means the police stop people that match the description of a criminal to rule them out then so be it, if you have nothing to hide why create a problem?

Again, the cop did not place anyone under arrest. This means it is up to the civilian if he wants to cooperate. The whole 'if you have nothing to hide, why hide anything' is an indictment of what is wrong in America. I dont have to prove I am not doing anything. The police have to prove I am.

If the cop did shoot me for declining his requests, that is HIS illegal action. Fear will not keep me from living within my rights, as it seems to for so many others.

Originally posted by arriana

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

How else do they catch the guy? Seriously, armed robbery, he matches the description and they just walk on by? What would your reaction be if he *was* the guy and he got away with it? More cop bashing, thats what.

Cant win with some people

If catching the guy means we all give up our rights to privacy, I'm sorry, but it isnt worth it.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


What country did this happen in? The reason I ask is because you said this was translated from Spanish.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I disagree, and I would challenge it as far as I could. He can ask me to cooperate, but unless he has read me my rights, I dont have to oblige. I am innocent until proven guilty. Just because I look like someone that has been described in a crime is not probable cause, and does not supersede my rights.

He couldn't arrest you without probable cause - and I agree he didn't have that - but, he could briefly detain you and frisk you for weapons based on reasonable suspicion, which he did have.

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only.

Considering that the OP was not under arrest, he could not have resisted. But he had every right to decline the officer's requests. To do so politely is not resisting, and does not give the cop any more rights than they had to begin with.

I don't mean resist in the criminal sense, I mean resist the cops attempts to investigate.

He could have refused to empty his pockets, but would that have really made anything better? It's not like that's the kind of thing we need be doing to really stick it to the man and embrace our rights as Americans. It's just trivial obstinance that introduces a difficulty where none would otherwise exist. Why not comply with an investigation? Can you really make the case that it is ethically or morally preferable to exercise your right to refuse to empty your pockets, rather than facilitate the process by just showing him that you're not the guy they're looking for?

It seems to me like "the right thing to do" would be to help out here. I agree with the objective - catching the armed robber - and going along with it would not involve a substantial negative consequence for me personally; I just have to show this cop what I have in my pockets. It's a trivial act that would aid in a process which I want to succeed (catch the bad guy). The idea that resistance for the sake of resistance is worth it because otherwise our rights will be slowly erroded doesn't seem reasonable. Do you think that the OPs compliance has really sped up our descent into an Orwellian police state? Do you really think that not showing the cop what was in your pockets would delay any larger process at work that is minimizing civil liberties?

It seems like the rights you're appealling to here ought to imply the responsibility to use them in an appropriate way. It's more virtuous to aid in a legitimate pursuit of justice than to interfere with that pursuit just to remind everyone that - technically - you don't have to play along if you really dont want to.

reply to post by joyride0187


PR Puerto Rico

cops don't have tasers here
not an expert but the gun looked like glock


and to posters who are implying i am a wimp i feel exactly the same way but only about psycho-cops and other authoritarians for whom i have a near psychotic hatred, i know all their tricks as i was raised by one myself.

while i only weigh 173lbs i am 6'2 and pretty tough [see my avy under my user name] and once picked up a punk who weighed twice as much by neck and hurled him into the gutter.

however magick and a bit of voodoo-psychology have served just fine up till now, leaves nothing that can be proven in a court of law, and i have never been pestered by the same cop twice.

the last time the cops came to my house it was over 20 officers and 5 patrol cars, all just so i could stop by the precinct house and sign some papers, i saw them from a block away and waited for them to leave. upon finding out why, i went there, and they hastily shoved some papers at me about agreeing to show up in court, which i read carefully 3 times, you could cut the tension there with a knife.

they did not want me there a second longer than necessary
after the only time i got locked up there or anywhere.


the most powerful weapon in the world only fires neurons.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


For the record, I was not implying you are a wimp. I was simply stating my view on situations like this. To each his own.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Not quite sure I believe you....


The officer just tells you have a nice day after matching the description of a armed robbery suspect with NO ID???

Then there was a previous seperate incident where more 20 officers came to your house in 5 patrol cars just to get you to sign some papers? It seems highly unlikely that the police would ride 4 deep for this purpose.

Also you said earlier you gave the police your legal name (the one with the squeaky clean record). Does this imply that you have another alias that isnt so squeaky clean? If so you have commited at the very least a misdemeanor crime by withholding this information.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


no offense taken or implied

and agree with the spirit of your posts

however still don't have the power to do things Omen style

Always gets me how much some people hate cops.

I've had a handful of run ins, via parties being broken up, speeding, traffic violations, and once for matching a description.

That one annoyed me, but didn't cost me more than 2 minutes. I was coming out of my job, cop rolls past, then backs up and blocks the drive way. He walks up, asking me to shut off the engine. I do and immediately whip out my ID. He asks me what I am doing, said I just left work. He said he has to run my ID bc there was a stabbing a few blocks away and I match the description. I ask what the description was, he said white male, full beard, mid length hair, knit cap, sleeve tats. I pull up my sleeves and show him the only thing covering them is a mass amount of hair, he says ok I just have to run this to make sure. My boss then walks out asking what the issue is. I let him know and he laughs and asks if I'm ok, tells the cop I've been inside for 8 hours and no way I could've stabbed someone without him knowing. The cop come back, apologises, shakes my hand and says to have a nice day, and make sure I get my car inspected since it was 7 days past the date.

All this took 2 minutes.

My other run ins were fine. One was a busted licence plate light, one I was definetly speeding and the cop dropped how much so it wouldn't be a felony, and the parties...well let's just say there was good reason to bust them up and they were more than nice to us, considering the situation.

But some of you are right, a different person who was more lippy, and this would be front page cop bashing news here on ATS. Something tells me this goes 5 pages and gets lost in the ether.

reply to post by joyride0187


feel free to examine my post history

you'll find i'm quite the cop basher myself

[though i believe in fairness when judging others]
also more details re 20 cops incident as i really don't want to type all that out
[ 35 wpm was my "record" for typing in high school ]

see also references to Wyrrd in this thread
and yes a bit sloppy on officers part

as for your other question:
"a warrior uses any weapon available"

once spent 3 yrs with 5 of 'em

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


If more than 20 cops came to your residence in 5 patrol "cars", then where did they expect to put you? In the trunk?

reply to post by iamsupermanv2

all this took 2 minutes

exactly

any arguments about my rights would have prolonged the whole thing unnecessarily and from long experience i know they aren't interested and only do so as a psychological tactic