"If We Don't Have A RIGHT To Question A Police Officer Then We Are Living In A Police State!"

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


The 4th amendment applies to the Government, not the individual.

The bill of rights applies to the individual, except the 4th and 7th amendment. The 4th applies to the government, and the 7th deals with trials by jury in FEderal civil actions, and has never been applied to the states.

As I said before, your arguments are based on your limited understanding of how you think the law works. When you take the time to educate yourslef and learn, get back to me. Aside from that, my last post stands that there is no point to even respond to your posts because you do nothing but launch personal attacks, and repeat the same information over and over, even when you are proven wrong.

In case your wondering how I came to this conclusion, Ms. Good was charged in state court, not federal.

as I said, learn and get back to em.

Originally posted by Kitilani
What ever happened to personal responsibility? No need for babysitter cops to tell me when its time to go inside. Take your nanny state back to Russia, commie.

Exactly my point.. Where did Ms. good excersize personal responsibility when she decided to argue with the police? Nowhere in the officers argument did he say anthing about her standing in her yard or recording, Ms. Good brought that up.

She continued to bring that up, and the officer kept asking, then tellingher to back away.

Ms. Goods own actions is what resulted in her arrest.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thats just your opinion... Maybe people dont know the laws cause they are all BULL, and unnecessary? Who makes these laws anyways? The people who want to take our rights away...

The constitution was put in place to limit government involvement, not the other way around...

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -Thomas Jefferson

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by The Old American
You left that part out when you quoted me. Probably just a copy/paste error on your part. It happens to the best of us. I went ahead and put that back in so there's no confusion on why I commented on wardk28's post. Do you know what was it she said before she started recording that could've made them so nervous?

/TOA

Sorry ive done that to a couple posts now and its not intentional.

I have no idea what she said prior to recording, and neither does anyone else and thats my point. People have made comments about other people ebing near her and them not being told to move away, yet again nothing is on video.

The assumption is they targeted her because of the camera, while ignoring the possibility the people who were near her did in fact comply and move away.

People also ignore any prior history that may have been present during the encounter of the Police and Ms. Good. Prior knoweldge of how a person has acted around the police can be used when determining actions against those individuals in terms of conversation to telling a person to move away.

We are not required to wait for something to occur, nor are we required to explain our actions in the middle of a traffic stop.

All she had to do was back away. She opted not to and was arrested for it.

Xcath, you keep on clinging to the phrase "he gave her a lawful command." If his command was lawful, why did the DA refuse to pursue the case?

It's a simple question that requires a simple answer.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Why? Ya think the fact that she was in her jammies was giving him such a woodie that he was too distracted to do his job?

If I remeber the video correctly he told her to move away because of where she was standing, which was behind the officers, and he did not feel comfortable with them there.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Police are filmed all of the time by journalists while they are performing their duties and, most times, they have no problem with it. Usually, it's only when they are doing something sketchy that they have a problem with being filmed.

and I have had a couple instances where ive had quaint chats with media about where they are at, and in once case I about took a journalist to jail because they felt they could walk through my crime scene unhindered simply because they are the media.

Before you invoke the media though, SOTUS just ruled on what the defition is, and she does not meet the defintion of a journalist / media. Which again is irrelevant since she was not arrested for recording. A persons rights end the moment they infringe on others, and for some reason you guys are ignroing the rights of the people who were stopped.

Are you saying their rights are not important because they were black?
Or is the Ms. Goods rights more important because she is white?

Originally posted by OldCorp
Xcath, you keep on clinging to the phrase "he gave her a lawful command." If his command was lawful, why did the DA refuse to pursue the case?

It's a simple question that requires a simple answer.

I asked what "lawful command" she ignored and was told "failing to obey a lawful command"

Poster boy for the police force using vague answers, who'd of thought it??

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

 

The 4th amendment applies to the Government, not the individual.

The bill of rights applies to the individual, except the 4th and 7th amendment. The 4th applies to the government, and the 7th deals with trials by jury in FEderal civil actions, and has never been applied to the states.

As I said before, your arguments are based on your limited understanding of how you think the law works. When you take the time to educate yourslef and learn, get back to me. Aside from that, my last post stands that there is no point to even respond to your posts because you do nothing but launch personal attacks, and repeat the same information over and over, even when you are proven wrong.

In case your wondering how I came to this conclusion, Ms. Good was charged in state court, not federal.

as I said, learn and get back to em.

The STATE Constitution of New York also says the same things as the Federal Constitution. Your statement that she wasn't invoking her 1st amendment (federal) or 8th amendment (state) rights of the press, is blatantly false, as she obviously has flooded all available media outlets with her video. If a news broadcaster were commanded to go away because they were close enough to film an incident with the police, no matter what little law was used to justify that "lawful command" would be a violation both state and federal law.
How about you quote your law about "lawful commands" and I will quote the men who founded this country: "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Edit to add: I believe actually that the first amendment applies to the government, not the people, as it states "shall make no law". This is immaterial, as the spirit of the law clearly shows that there is no legal authority to prevent a person from being free to distribute information. There are a myriad of court rulings to support this.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Are you saying their rights are not important because they were black?
Or is the Ms. Goods rights more important because she is white?

Uh oh, here comes the race card...

Oh the poor cop was uncomfortable? Aww thats too bad... Hes a public servent(supposed to be anyways)... That is no cause to arrest a woman, how uncomfortable do you think she was in jail with murderers and rapists?

Originally posted by morder1
Thats just your opinion... Maybe people dont know the laws cause they are all BULL, and unnecessary? Who makes these laws anyways? The people who want to take our rights away...

Well no its the law, not my opinion. Secondly the people who make the laws would be the representativs the people, well those who decide to vote instead of just coimplain, elect into office.

And I find it hard to grant the premis of your statment about taking your rights away when people dont know what their rights are to begin with.

Originally posted by morder1
The constitution was put in place to limit government involvement, not the other way around...

Nor does the Constitution grant carte blanche for people to break the law or infringe on the rights of others. Unless you and the others are arguing your rights are more iportant than others?

If thats the case then I refer you to the book Animal Farm.

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by OldCorp
Xcath, you keep on clinging to the phrase "he gave her a lawful command." If his command was lawful, why did the DA refuse to pursue the case?

It's a simple question that requires a simple answer.

Thats been asked and answered.

Please show me where the PA said the officers command was not lawful? Please show me where after the PA opted not to press forward with that charge, they stated the officers actions were illegal. Please show me where the PA stated the Officer was going to be charged for making a false arrest, or for issuing a non lawful command.

As I stated, a person can break the law and not be charged. A person can be in compliance of the law, and not be charged.

You assume his actions wer eunlawful by virtue of the PA declining to prosecute. Show me how you made the leap of logic and how it supports your charge the officers actions were unlawful, when nothing has been stated by anyone to that effect.

This episodes exemplifies, yet again, the perfect storm that's been brewing pitting LEOs against citizens, this is only going to get worse.

There's many elements to this storm: law-mongering legislatures, Federal training and militarization, LEO culture, department policy, police union BS....etc.

But one of the most pernicious elements is the eleventh commandment:

Thou shall not make a Police Officer feel UNSAFE.

The paranoia indoctrinated into every Peace Officer during training has been sanctified by Law Enforcement culture and is being used to trump each of our civil liberties.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I admire your debating techniques but stop debating them. They are set in their ways. They hate cops and think they know better without ever having walked a mile in a Police Officers shoes. It’s called naiveté. Totally clueless.

I was darn near arrested while visiting Houston for asking an officer where I can pick my buddy up after he was arrested for public intoxication. But I approached the officer not doing the cuffing. Did my buddy deserve it? In my mind, no. They asked him to step outside, to which he politely complied. Once he was outside…BAM, PI. Entrapment? Yes. But Texas isn’t my state and they were within the law. Sucked to be my buddy that day.

We got him out the next day and charges were tossed.

Sucks to not know state laws.

Lesson learned.

Sounds exactly like animal farm...

All animals are equal, But other animals are MORE equal than others(Pigs who think laws dont apply to them)

Whats your point about animal farm? The pigs in the story are the cops IRL?

Hah...thinking about this... is this where the analogy of people calling cops PIGS came from?

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by OldCorp
Xcath, you keep on clinging to the phrase "he gave her a lawful command." If his command was lawful, why did the DA refuse to pursue the case?

It's a simple question that requires a simple answer.

I asked what "lawful command" she ignored and was told "failing to obey a lawful command"

Poster boy for the police force using vague answers, who'd of thought it??

You asked for the law and I provided it. The law itself has the elements listed that a person must violate to be in violation of that law. In this case, she intefered with the officers actions during the traffic stop.

He told her to back away numerous times, citing why he wanted her to move away.

She refused to do so, so instead of arresting her the first time she broke the law by refusing his lawful command, The officer gave her a full minute to move away, and she continued to argue and refuse.

Not sure how else to explain this to you. Its straight forward, from the law, to the elements, to her actions, to those of the officer, to the result she got.

What exactly is your inability to understand this? I mean aisde from your contiunued accusaiotns and personal attcks.

Even more so im not seven sure why ytour taking part in this thread other than to attack me personally since you are not American, have never visited the United States, have stated you will never visit the US.

Why take an iuntrest in something you know nothing about, unless its just to make your attacks on me.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The Old American

 

and as I stated, the 4th amendment does NOT apply to the individual, it applies ot the Government. Please take the time to learn the exceptions to the 4th amendment, the excusionary rule to the 4th amendment, and how an arrest actually works when a crime is comitted in the ofifcers presence.

As I said, there are NO 4th amendment violations present - period.

none, nadda, zip, zilch, zero.

Yes, you have stated wrongly that the provisions of the Bill of Rights do not apply to individuals. We all see that. But I'll play your silly game: the 4th Amendment applies restrictions on an entity as to what actions it can take against an individual's property and person.

The officer in question was in violation of the 4th Amendment by his unlawful order for her to retreat, and by his "unreasonable seizure" of her person. Her "4th Amendment rights" were not violated, because we as individuals don't have "4th Amendment rights". We have "inalienable rights" that are afforded protection by certain provisions of the Constitution, in this case by the 4th Amendment. He violated her inalienable right to be safe on her own property, in her person, and against unreasonable seizure by violating his restrictions of the 4th Amendment. Therefore, his actions were unconstitutional.

/TOA

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So, in this case an unlawful arrest occurred. If I saw this happening I have no right to question it? Of course I do. I have speech protected by the first amendment and can question the motives and actions of a police officer. They are public servants. This means they serve the public and must answer to the public. Obviously, my speech is not a danger to a person with a gun, baton, pepper spray, and taser attached to their hip for God's sake.

I agree, but unfortunately it would seem that "To Protect and To Serve" only applies to fellow cops and TPTB.
Sure, that's slightly disingenuous, but the essence is that this is what a lot of people are feeling.
They're basically fascist bully boys.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Actually, the quote you linked, does nothing of the sort to prove that she was in the wrong...

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree. A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration whenHE intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

HE? well SHE doesnt apply then does SHE?

Reading through all the double speak in this article... I see no way she was obstructing anything by standing in her private property and filming...

I do admire your time wasted on this thread trying to debunk every thing in here, when its obvious DHS has infiltrated every police station and letting the cops know its ok to take peoples rights away and send them to jail, even if it will be thrown out in court later... Just to let us peons know who the real boss's are

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Exactly my point.. Where did Ms. good excersize personal responsibility when she decided to argue with the police?

Who are you trying to kid? The police started arguing with her.
Twisting what happened to try to fit your belief now?

Nowhere in the officers argument did he say anthing about her standing in her yard or recording, Ms. Good brought that up.

Good.

She continued to bring that up, and the officer kept asking, then tellingher to back away.

Ms. Goods own actions is what resulted in her arrest.

Because the command to go inside was not lawful as evidence by the dismissal as well as your repeated failure to cite the law backing that command.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


Yeah.. Shes not media, she was not arrested for recording the officer, nor was she arrested for protesting, or for standing in her front yard, or for talking.

She was arrested for refusing the command to move away - which is valid.

Secondly, again learn how the constitution and laws work would you please, in addition to comprehension of what people type. Her going to the media has absolutely NOTHING to do with her 1st amendment rights, nor was she arrested because of it. In fact, she was arrested PRIOR to her releasing the footage, therefore no violation of her fisrt / 8th amendment rights.

She was NOT arrested for recording.

You can quote all the people form history you want, it has no bearing on the law or what it says, or how the courts have ruled on it. Going to court and telling the judge that these are the times which try mens souls has no bearing or releveance to you speeding or killing someone.

The 1st amendment is telling the governmen they can make no laws that abridge or take away a person ability to freely speak there mind when it comes to anything, and was placed for the sole reason of the Government. However, it does not allow a person to walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire, nor does it allow a person to walk into court and interrupt a judge.

There are exceptions to the first amendment, and they arise when a persons right begin to infringe on the rights of others. A term I keep using that you and others keep ignoring.

The 4th amendment applies to the government and specifially is directed at people acting under color of law. If I as a cop randomly stop in front of a person house and enter it, detain the people there and search their house, not only am I violating state and federal law, im also violating 42 USC 1983.

If you, as a civilian, does the same thing, you are not subject to a cicivl rights violation since you are not acting under the authority of color.