It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I would cooperate in those circumstances, personally. I think the OP did the right thing.

I am vehemently against someone stopping me for a tail light being out and then asking to search my vehicle. But I would cooperate with this type of request without a problem. Voluntarily cooperating with the police, imho, when it matters, helps to prevent the erosion of our rights. And, voluntarily cooperating is NOT having your rights taken away, its voluntarily cooperating.

The attitude that "the people" should never cooperate with police reminds me of ghetto people and their attitude. Its stupid. It fosters animosity between the two groups, and its counter productive to the people themselves who refuse to cooperate, who are killed, raped, robbed, etc., at much higher rates than people in neighborhoods with people who understand that ideally, police HELP citizens police the community. It SHOULD be a cooperative effort, not something we ignore and leave all to them. And not something we make harder for them just for the fun of it.

I really hate the "us against them" attitude some cops have, and I really, really hate abusive cops (or anyone who abuses power) and I fight against every legal erosion of our Constitutional rights. But that doesnt mean I hate cops or would not help them if I could, and if what they were doing was within the law, and just.

Half the problem of the "us against them" attitude some cops have comes from us.


I never said that people should NEVER cooperate with cops. In fact, I have clarified multiple times that I would have answered his questions and asked a few of my own, and based my reactions on his responses.

My point is that I wouldnt just do as he says, until I had a reason to understand why I was being asked to do so.




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   


Originally posted by TerribleTeam2 You know what, I think it is YOU that need's to get a proper education. If you knew how to read, you would have noticed in the OP that the poster said that he came in on the END of the conversation the Officer was having with Dispatch. Comprende??? Or do you want me to put it into simple words for you. MAN COME LATE INTO CONVERSATION. DIDN'T HEAR ALL. MEANS HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ELSE HAD BEEN SAID. Derp derp derp you get all "ZOMG NARC DON'T HATE ON ME PIGGY!!!".

Nice sensationalism and attempt to put me down. As I have said, I would have inquired further BECAUSE HE CAME IN AT THE ND OF THE CONVERSATION. Comprende? Way to throw out the exact insult that I have been predicting this whole time as well. Show me where I said "I hate pigs, or anything of that nature.

It truly is said that this is the best people can do.



At the end of the day, OP did the right thing, ended up having no problems


Yes, because it's only the right thing if you comply.



And yes, I have had run ins with cops, plenty of times. It would be at least 30 times, due to my work, and me driving so much. (Usually it was being pulled over for Random Breath Testing). Wanna know how many times I had any real "problems" with them? Twice. Once when an older cop decided to check my car, which was a company car, after being RBT'd. No idea why he wanted to, but he did, and the rego was out. Which meant there was no insurance either. Boom, $2200 in fines. No charges against me, and I didn't pay the fines cause it was a company car. And the 2nd time was recently, when I ended up getting arrested. Why? I tried sneaking into a bar (because I had been refused, but I'm always pushing my luck
) and when I tried sneaking in, security came over and went off at me, and ended up pushing me. Me, having been drinking booze for 12 hours, didn't take kindly to that, and pushed the guy back (almost flooring him too. I'm strong normally, but when I get fired up when drunk, I'm a hell of alot stronger). 1 cop comes over, and me being an arrogant prick, looked at him, and said "what are you gonna do, midget?" cause he was about 8 inches shorter than me, and replied with "well, I'm going to arrest you". This is where the fun began. I grabbed him by his jacket, and started pushing him back, while yelling "come on, arrest me!!!" Meanwhile 2 other cops came over, and in the end it took 3 of them to cuff me and put me in the paddy wagon. $1100 worth of fines later, and NO charges (I was fined for not being 50 metres from the place when I got told I couldnt get in cause I was drunk, and "re-entering the premises" even though I hadn't been in there), and it was all over. And you know what? It was MY fault, because I put myself into that position. If I had just moved along like I had been asked, I wouldn't have been arrested, and I wouldn't have been fined. But in your case, they weren't giving me my rights I deserved.


What exactly is the point of this story, other than it sounds as though you have a drinking and anger problem? It is in no way comparable to the Op. Another attempt to sensationalize?




Funny thing is, I ended up shaking the cops hands when I left the station, because they were actually decent guys. One of them that stayed with me the whole time actually told me that I could have been done for resisting arrest, common assault, and a couple of other things too, like swearing. They actually used their discretion, and decided not to charge me with those, because they could see I wasn't being a prick or anything, and was a decent person


You should have shaken their hands. A drunken belligerent trespassing on private property is in every way in the wrong. You are lucky someone didnt give you a beat down. They would have been within their rights.




The funny thing that I still laugh about now was the fact that one of the cops told me that they were worried about me, because they hadn't dealt that many guys that werent on some sort of drug, that had that amount of strength, and they had to deal with Bikies all the time. And me being the smart arse, I joked back with the comment "sh*t, you should see me when I'm sober, and I'm not all over they place!!!"
Even they had a bit of a chuckle at that one.



Again, what is the point of this, other than to make yourself sound tough? What does it have to do with ANYTHING we are talking about in this thread?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
SIGH!!!


for all the new/late comers, those who don't bother reading or suffer from knee jerk reactions or seem to misunderstanding:

i have always considered any kind of encounter with any agents of TCOTBIP [The Custodians Of The Black Iron Prison] to be a battle as far as i'm concerned yesterday was a victory.


some seem to think that just because i didn't go Afro-Samurai on the cop



i'm complacent, lazy, and careless of my rights.
apparently the use of psychological tactics and esoteric knowledge ain't manly enough for some


for those i will provide a few quotes:

from Sun Tzu's The Art of War:



All warfare is based on deception.
***
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
***

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.



from
The 36 Strategies



1-Fool the Emperor to Cross the Sea

Moving about in the darkness and shadows, occupying isolated places, or hiding behind screens will only attract suspicious attention. To lower an enemy's guard you must act in the open hiding your true intentions under the guise of common every day activities.


15-Lure the Tiger Down the Mountain

Never directly attack a well-entrenched opponent. Instead lure him away from his stronghold and separate him from his source of strength.

25-Replace The Beams With Rotten Timbers

Disrupt the enemy's formations, interfere with their methods of operations, change the rules in which they are used to following, go contrary to their standard training. In this way you remove the supporting pillar, the common link that makes a group of men an effective fighting force.


27-Feign Madness But Keep Your Balance

Hide behind the mask of a fool, a drunk, or a madman to create confusion about your intentions and motivations. Lure your opponent into underestimating your ability until, overconfident, he drops his guard. Then you may attack.

36-Exchange the Role of Guest for that of Host

Defeat the enemy from within by infiltrating the enemy's camp under the guise of cooperation, surrender, or peace treaties. In this way you can discover his weakness and then, when the enemy's guard is relaxed, strike directly at the source of his strength.

Japanese Folk Tale

In feudal Japan there lived a venerable Kendo master who decided to test his three highest-ranking students. He brought them one by one to an old temple in the nearby mountains where he told each student the following: "You have studied with me many years, now lets see if my teaching has been in vain. There within the temple awaits your test, pass and you will have graduated."

Within the dimly lit temple the Master had hidden four Samurai armed with clubs and instructions to jump anyone who entered the temple. The first student entered the temple and before his eyes could adjust to the light, was surprised and beaten by the Samurai."I am sorry, you have failed." Said the master.

The second student entered the temple and sensed the attackers. He was able to deftly evade their attack and defeat them. The student came out of the temple triumphant, but again the master said, "I am sorry, you have failed'

Finally the third student was brought to the temple and told about the test. The student replied, "But venerable master, protocol dictates that when entering a temple the master must always precede the student, so if you please, I shall follow you in." To which the master replied, "You rascal, you have learned all I can teach you."



from the incredibly prophetic [IMO] Ayn Rand
[though i don't completely agree with her monistic materialism]


We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless[eaters], according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer...

We have no demands to present to you, no terms of bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.
***
You who've lost the concept of a right, you who swing in impotent evasiveness between the claim that rights are a gift of God, a supernatural gift to be taken on faith, or the claim that rights are a gift of society, to be broken at its arbitrary whim -- the source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival.If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

****

"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up
against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful
gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but
we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to
rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack
down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes
them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding
citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted --
and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll
be easier to deal with."

-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"


i would also like to point out that i as a practicing anarchist
[as opposed to those who only talk about it in cafes an pubs]
i view government and it's agents as the enemy, i feel no moral obligation to fight fair or to follow the rules

but you can't bend/break the rules if you don't know them. know the enemy

my only moral obligation towards my fellow humans is to not initiate the use of force against them
or to defraud/steal from them
[govs, corps, institutions and organizations are NOT human beings irrespective of any "laws']

however if you were to initiate the use of force against me
or to defraud/steal from me then you are "fair game"
[i am NOT a scientologist]

nor do i believe in "fighting/standing up for my rights"*
but in exercising them to the fullest.

Where,When,How, and if necessary...
on whom i will.

*[that would imply that i'd didn't have them/lost them wouldn't it]


and to conclude this post the title of this thread says:

"...anomalous behavior on officers part" y'know like a weird event [unique in my case]

no praise for doing his job well/properly
[though why a job well done shouldn't praised escapes me at the moment]


looks like i'll be in and out today still going over replies



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zamini
 


????????? Which of my posts showed you 'psychopathic' reasoning.....and do you even understand what 'psychopath' means?!?! Please explain, in great detail....I wanna here this explanation!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


WRONG!!!! Its called "resonable suspicion"



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


thank you for the elucidation


i was under the impression that it meant Fate/karma/destiny as in "The Wyrrd of the White Wolf"
written by one of my favorites among your countrymen, Michael Moorcock

in the Occult context in which i use it here it's an "Olde Anglish" rendering of Weird, both as a descriptor and used as a noun [i.e. the/my Madness in Shade the Changing Man]

say hello to Tharg, Slaine, and the rest of the gang of 2000AD for me!!!
Splundig Vur Thrigg!!!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Puerto Rico but don't be
embarrassed and leave like the previous poster that was pointed out to


i would also like to thank everybody for keeping it somewhat civil no mods have had to intervene

and we are now on the home page folks

2nd in popular topics so let's keep that in mind



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Nice read. I'm glad you had a pleasant experience.

I don't take a pro- or anti-cop stance. Each one is an individual and will treat other people based on who they are as people. Some people are respectful and nice. Others are wads. Same with cops.


And that's exactly why the selection process needs improvement.

Where I come from, Psychiatrists cannot take on any patients or start their practice in a any way until they themselves have completed a full year of psychoanalysis / therapy with an experienced psychiatrist. Once you have such control and the potential to cause harm to another human being, be it physically or mentally, we as a society cannot risk just putting anyone in those positions.

Same thing should apply to cops. I don't think a cop should be given a gun, or a baton or a whistle until they themselves complete a year of therapy. How many would be deemed unfit to serve before they can do any damage?

Khar



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mademyself1984

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'.



Actually a cop does have the right to search you, just because you fit a description. Jesus...some of you are truly clueless....ever heard of a Terry stop? Try google out sometime. Are there crooked police officers out there? Sure. Are there assholes? Sure...however, most police officers are doing their jobs and nothing more. Don't you think if the norm was "all cops" are stealing away our rights there would be more stories about the cops who were decent instead of the infestation of stories on a daily basis in various news publications across the country when cops do the exact opposite of their "job"? For real man, read a book or something. Google Terry stop. Wanna learn how a police officer is supposed to "do his or her job", take a college course on Criminal Justice, do something, other than bitch about how cops have "no right" to search someone who "fits a description". P.S., if you decline a search, you have now crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion to probable cause.


The police officer is simply doing his job investigating a crime that has occurred. If you were the victim of a crime, you would hope that the criminal was caught so he would not continue victimizing others. If you look like the person who committed the crime, the officer will try to determine if you are indeed involved. As a matter of officer safety, he will check to make sure that you do not have a weapon that will be used against him. He checks your identity to know who he is investigating and checks your identification with a database to be sure he is not communicating with someone who has a warrant for their arrest.

Put yourself in the officer's position. You would want to go home to your family after you get off work that day wouldn't you? You would conduct an investigation as you have been trained to catch the suspect while keeping yourself safe from harm.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I think the big difference here is that the cop actually answered the questions asked of him rather than strong-arm the suspect into submission. He asked why he was being stopped, the cop gave him an answer. It was reasonable to expect to get a pat-down in that situation, especially after you've been made aware of the reason. Once he was IDed and determined to be free from suspicion, the cop let him go on his way with a polite gesture.

I wish all cops acted like this.


I had a similar thing happen to me back in college. I drove a silver Toyota sedan, which was very popular at the time. I was pulled over for no apparent reason, and when I absentmindedly went to retrieve my license from my wallet, which was in my bookbag in the back seat, I got a gun drawn on me and a bunch of yelling requesting to see my hands.

The cop checked my license and had a look-see in my car (visually, through the windows), explained to me that my car fit the description of one used in an armed robbery that just occurred, and thanked me for my time and sent me on my way. He had no way of knowing who I was or what I was reaching for in my back seat. I apologized for the dumb move as he approached, and all was cool.



edit on 28-5-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

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'.

Sorry if you have been quoted already...but here where I am it isn't as easy as that, especially if the police think you are under middle-class..

The cop is doing his job, he had his hand on the holster...why make the situation worse? Those are the situations you have to comply, otherwise you will be in the slammer or worse, shot.

I'm the type to stand up for myself, but I also know when is the right time to give in.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

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


Seriously. The way the OP responded came off as rude, disrespectful and arrogant. Even though it was typed on a keyboard and there's no tone of voice to refer to for evaluation's sake, there's really no way that "would you take your hands off your holster, please" could possibly not be rude. In my opinion, people who smart off to cops are the same people who end up like this.

Point is, stop trying to make a stand for your rights. It's a retarded mindset. Just follow the officer's orders and as long as he doesn't blantantly disregard your rights (asking you to take your hands out of your pockets is NOT against your rights), and as long as you have nothing to hide, then he'll go away. Simple.
edit on 5/28/2011 by banandar123 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The OP'er behaved in exactly the way that an innocent member of the public should behave..........and the police officer behaved in exactly the way that a police officer should behave.

It's a good story, but really........ it's a none story.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Wow at people screaming that you and your rights were violated. Some people here are acting like this is a reversal in cop behavior to some police-state status. A decade ago, you would've been in the dirt, on your face, and spending a night in jail for just "fitting the description". Atleast where I'm from anyway.

Its policemen like this one that give cops a good name, and then theres the bad ones, along with spectators who decide that good ones like this guy needs to burn, simply for their dislike of cops.

Hatred for cops and figures of authority seems to be growing. If people think that almost everything is going according to the planning of TPTB, then why not this? It only takes a couple of cop hating idiots wielding guns to usher in a police-state. Its even worse when those gun wielding idiots are ignorant of their rights, and claim that its their right to walk around and start feeding bullets to anyone that they do not like.

I Say Bravo. I like the story, and I like that cop.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Santh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by banandar123

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


Seriously. The way the OP responded came off as rude, disrespectful and arrogant. Even though it was typed on a keyboard and there's no tone of voice to refer to for evaluation's sake, there's really no way that "would you take your hands off your holster, please" could possibly not be rude. In my opinion, people who smart off to cops are the same people who end up like this.

Point is, stop trying to make a stand for your rights. It's a retarded mindset. Just follow the officer's orders and as long as he doesn't blantantly disregard your rights (asking you to take your hands out of your pockets is NOT against your rights), and as long as you have nothing to hide, then he'll go away. Simple.
edit on 5/28/2011 by banandar123 because: (no reason given)


It's 'retarded' to stand up for your rights?

Yikes....



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
It's 'retarded' to stand up for your rights?

Yikes....


Yea, because good citizens have nothing to hide.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Exactly which of the OP'ers rights were violated?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Exactly which of the OP'ers rights were violated?


Sweet merciful crap, I am not going to state this again. Read the thread.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So his right to be a smartass and to randomly have his hands in his pockets while driving was violated?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by banandar123
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So his right to be a smartass and to randomly have his hands in his pockets while driving was violated?


What are you even talking about?

First of all, yes he does have a right to be a smartass. As long as he is not verbally abusive, there is no law against being a smart ass.

Second, nobody was driving here.

Third, it's called a right to privacy as well as the right to deny search and seizure. It's also his right to be informed of WHY he is being stopped.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join