It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Originally posted by mademyself1984
Seriously? You keep proving my point. It has nothing to do with my "fear" of the police. It has everything to do with my Bachelors in Criminal Justice. You clearly are not "familiar" with the Terry Stop case. Nor are you familiar with what "rights" of yours are being violated. No rights are violated if an officer believes it is necessary to question you, the simplest conclusion to your being questioned would be to acknowledge for whatever reason the officer is doing his job. Now, you can claim your rights are being violated, however, they aren't. It's pretty simple, if you aren't doing anything wrong, 99.9 percent of officers will acknowledge that, thank you for your time and patience, and be on their way. The second you act like an arrogant prick, you are susceptible to a "warrantless search" and potentially more inconvenience than that depending on your behavior from that point forward. I've been stopped numerous times for would have been minor traffic violations at strange hours of the night. Did I need to be pulled over? Most likely not. The time of night/morning gave the officer reasonable suspicion (which they could technically have of anyone on the road once bars have closed), the moment I did something "not within traffic codes/laws" I gave said officers probable cause to stop me, issued whatever tests, perform whatever searches, and take whatever action, whether it was a warning, a ticket, or making an arrest, they felt necessary. Because I was in fact doing nothing wrong other than a minor slip up, and I was cordial, patient, and cooperative with the officer who was in fact doing his job, and nowhere near violating any of my "rights", I was treated politely in return, and free to go. I've had an instance where I probably could have been arrested, because I was borderline over the limit to be driving, and my attitude and behavior with the officer earned me the chance to make a phone call and have someone meet me at my car to drive me and my vehicle home. It's called discretion. There's another term to look up whenever you get around to it. Honestly I don't know how any of this is that complicated. If an officer stops you for literally no reason, treats you disrespectfully, makes an unlawful arrest, or beats you or tases you or draws his weapon, perhaps even shoots, for no reason. Fine, that officer clearly violated your rights as a human being. However, it doesn't happen as much as you sensationalist "I hate pigs" crowd would like to believe.
Did you really just act high and mighty because you have a bachelors? REALLY????
I have to say, this is the second time you have resorted to immediately jumping to name calling and insults, and it's the last time I'll stand for it. You, with your impressive bachelors, aught to know that resorting to name calling and insults is a sign of someone without an argument.
As I have said all along, there is a reason that this officer ASKED the person, and didn't TELL them what to do. It is because they did not have a specific enough description to fully identify him as a suspect. If they had, they would have detained him immediately.
You and our google warrior Terry Stop cases are irrelevant. They simply did not have enough to reasonable search him, which is why it was all request, and not demand. To be a Terry Stop, the officer must have, and this is the SPECIFIC language, “specific and articulable facts”. This means, as I have said ALL ALONG, that I have EVERY RIGHT to ask for the facts of WHY I am being approached.
And again, AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG, if he cannot provide them, I have no further obligation.
Furthermore, if the officer did not ask him if he had weapons on him, which, by the OP's description, he did not, he does not have a right to search for them, in a suspicion case.
And again, I never said I hate pigs. That is sensationalist tripe.
Take your bachelors and get a real education.
Seriously? You keep proving my point. It has nothing to do with my "fear" of the police. It has everything to do with my Bachelors in Criminal Justice.
Originally posted by Sp33d
I like this story. I do things that are deemed illegal, which I feel are ridiculous laws put in place to stress power. On one hand I feel "im not doing anything wrong therefore i can smoke my pot" the law feels otherwise. Point is is that these guys have a job to fulfill. Ive been pulled over about 10 times and I have received ONE ticket. And it was for a seatbelt. We always say cops abuse there power but on the other hand we find it hard to say we citizens abuse our power. Yes freedom Yes freewill but where is the line drawn? Cops gotta do there job jsut as we have to fulfill ours. I am not saying hey lets give cops unlimited power but I mean reall....if they feel I match a description let them do there job and count me out as a NON-Suspect. There is NOTHING wrong with that. People like to put up a fight just because they can, because they know a little about the law. but the truth is is that if you have NOTHING to worry about let the man/woman do their job and carry on...
P.S. I have been caught with Marijuana a bunch of times (although its practically legal) I found honesty and cooperation are the best way to get out of trouble.
Good story OP! S&F
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.
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 curious7
Why make their jobs a lot harder than they have to be? Most police officers are just normal everyday men and women who wanna get on with it and feed themselves and their families with no hassle. Why create hassle for them just because you read a few bits and pieces about the overly aggressive douchebags that ruin the profession for everybody else?
Originally posted by TheDevilOfLies
nice propaganda piece
2nd line like all of the other posters do
edited to say, EVERY other story on here gets shut down without anything to back it up news story or proof wise
but here we can just pretty much make up any story we want involving good cops and it gets tons of attention
yet a ufo video with tons of separate videos gets shut down
interesting way things work around here
i think its shameful that we should have to focus on a cop doing something good, or doing their job PROPERLY
its like oh wow this cop didnt abuse the crap out of me, lets give him a big pat on the back and a shiny new medal
hes a cop, its his job to do things the way he did themedit on 28-5-2011 by TheDevilOfLies because: (no reason given)
27 Mayo 2011
Armed assault at Banco Popular
The man fled the scene in a van
Ricardo Cortés Chicofirstname.lastname@example.org
A man robbed at gunpoint at about 12:19 noon of the Banco Popular branch at Borinquen Avenue in Barrio Obrero, police said.
According to preliminary data from the case, the man , of whom there are barely accurate descriptions currently, fled the scene in a white colored Chevrolet Astrovan.
an unknown amount of money stolen.
viernes, 27 de mayo de 2011
Robbery at Banco Popular Borinquen Avenue at Barrio Obrero
Police have spent hours on the trail of a man about six feet high, robbed the branch of Banco Popular on Borinquen Avenue in Barrio Obrero in Santurce at noon.
The man was described as of slim build, fair complexion, short dark hair and about six feet tall.
It was reported that the heist was conducted by a note and took an undetermined amount of cash. Fled the scene on board a bus white Chevrolet Astro Van.
Authorities were searching for the vehicle and the individual, which is believed may have inked hands with banks explosive device placed at the bags of money.
The Theft and Fraud Division of Financial Institutions of the Police is in charge of the investigation and sought the cooperation of the public to help find the whereabouts of the individual, the agent reported Francisco De Jesus Delgado, the headquarters press office general.
You can call confidentially at 787-782-9006, 787-343-2020.
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'.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
would you mind placing your hands on that wall there sir?
we're on the alert for a suspect whose description matches yours, this will be over quickly either way,sir
so i "assume the position" my Wyrrd isn't acting up and i'm not even feeling nervous so...
sure , no problem, though i have to advise you that i don't have any ID on me at the moment.
i get a quick pat-down [non tsa-version] while i refer to my Semitic appearance which is referred to in local spanish as "arabe"
oh no sir! it's nothing like that at all. [turns out it's a case of armed robbery.
would you mind removing what ever that is in your pocket sir?
it's just a leather pouch with 4 flash drives which i show explaining that i repair computers.
oh may i have your name sir?
i give him my legal/given by parents name [ the one with the squeaky clean record]
thank you sir and makes to leave...
and halfway there turns around [Colombo came to mind] and returns
holds out his hand and introduces him self
have a nice day sir.
and then gives a full description of my appearance and clothes so i won't be stopped again!
and rides off
edit on 27-5-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added editedit on 27-5-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional clarificationedit on 27-5-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit & additional clarification
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 languageedit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: additionally
"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)
"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).