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

reply to post by Xcathdra

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.

You keep saying this BS..

How about I say what I want to say and if you don't like it then leave..
Isn't that what you tell me??

edit: BTW, I have been to the states so again more BS from you.

Originally posted by monkcaw
Thou shall not make a Police Officer feel UNSAFE.

and yet you and others have made the argument that police officers make you feel unsafe. Or is that jsut a one way road again?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
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.

You know what.. you are exactly right. No idea why I do this to myself.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by monkcaw
Thou shall not make a Police Officer feel UNSAFE.

and yet you and others have made the argument that police officers make you feel unsafe. Or is that jsut a one way road again?

Police officers have a gun, badge, handcuffs, and a system behind them. Is it unreasonable for that to justify fear of the ones wielding these things in contradiction with their actual responsibilities?

reply to post by backinblack


Poster girl for vague answers. The unlawful order was found after the fact....DUH! Tyr to put yourself in his shoes for a bit...sheesh.

reply to post by Xcathdra


4th only applies to the govt? Oh please...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Says not 1 word about govt, or this is for them only... It actually says... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... Maybe for the govt to OBEY it? But thats about it... not for them to make up their own meanings of it

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by backinblack

 

Poster girl for vague answers. The unlawful order was found after the fact....DUH! Tyr to put yourself in his shoes for a bit...sheesh.

So she was taken into custody because the cop was sure he was going to figure out a crime in the future to claim she committed? Yeah, that sounds on the up and up.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

Interestingly, at about 1:54 in the video he says "you won't even move a foot further back" and she says she will, and appears to. But then he changes the rules on her again. She complied with this reasonable request, but that didn't appear to be enough for him, as if her following his order is now the wrong action to take. She couldn't win at this point.

He then says he's "going to arrest someone for not following police orders". This is where the problem arises. Police do not get to just "give orders" and expect them to be blindly followed by anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Go inside your house" with no statute to back it up won't be followed by anyone that has even a rudimentary understanding of their rights as citizens.

/TOA

C’mon people…learn the law. Your opinions mean squat in the court of law. Your lawyers opinion does count however.

Stop with the hate for bejezuz sake.

Put yourself in the Police Officers shoes and having to deal with the likes of you …and your opinions. All the while having to think about, “Is this person breaking the law?”

Get a life. There are more important things to worry about than this woman. Let her sink beneath the slime from which she arose.

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

4th only applies to the govt? Oh please...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Says not 1 word about govt, or this is for them only... It actually says... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... Maybe for the govt to OBEY it? But thats about it... not for them to make up their own meanings of it

Exactly, but he keeps saying that *we* don't understand the constitution or the law!
He also keeps insisting that the woman wasn't arrested for filming the cop. Of course she wasn't, that would be illegal and a violation of her human rights if he officially stated that as his reason. Instead, he quotes a law that the woman was obviously not in violation of since she did NOTHING to interfere with their duty, just as any member of the press doesn't interfere when they record the actions of police officers.

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

4th only applies to the govt? Oh please...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Says not 1 word about govt, or this is for them only... It actually says... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... Maybe for the govt to OBEY it? But thats about it... not for them to make up their own meanings of it

I was not aware that you, as a civilia,n could search a residence, car or person while acting under color of law.

Oh, wait, thats right, you cant, and because of that you are not subject to the 4th amendment, the government is. The 4th amendment is stating that a person is to be secure in their home and possession against unreasonable search and seziure, or in other words the government cant just show up and arrest you or search you, your car, house or belongings for no reason at all.

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

If I search your house for no reason at all, I violated the 4th.
If you show up at my house and search my house, you are tresspassing and possibly kidnapping, but you are in now way violating the 4th amendment because you are not acting under color of law.

It goes back to 42 USC 1983.

And once again, thank you for proving my point you have no idea how your own rights work. By all means, continue making your argument, its entertaing.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I was not aware that you, as a civilia,n could search a residence, car or person while acting under color of law.

Oh, wait, thats right, you cant, and because of that you are not subject to the 4th amendment, the government is. The 4th amendment is stating that a person is to be secure in their home and possession against unreasonable search and seziure, or in other words the government cant just show up and arrest you or search you, your car, house or belongings for no reason at all.

Um. Pretty sure that "person" is us.
People like morder and myself. You know. People.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I was not aware that you, as a civilia,n could search a residence, car or person while acting under color of law.

Oh, wait, thats right, you cant, and because of that you are not subject to the 4th amendment, the government is. The 4th amendment is stating that a person is to be secure in their home and possession against unreasonable search and seziure, or in other words the government cant just show up and arrest you or search you, your car, house or belongings for no reason at all.

Um. Pretty sure that "person" is us.
People like morder and myself. You know. People.

The key words are acting under color of law... You, the people, are not acting under color of law. Law Enforcement, however is, and as such, cant just show up and search your house. We have to have a warrant to do so. Where as the people, you, dont need a search warrant to search someone elses house because you cant, because you arent acting under color of law.

The 4th amendment applies to the government. Not a hard concept to grasp.

reply to post by Kitilani


No, not at all. I'm not him, but I would think that he thought she was interfering. And especially considering the individual involved, he probably thought he had justification.

reply to post by Xcathdra

All states actually have provisions for citizens to perform arrests: LINK

By a person believing themselves to be acting under the law, to enforce the law, as that officer obviously believed he was doing, were to contradict the constitution in their actions, would be violating their human rights. Furthermore, it was not the intention of the men who penned the bill of rights to establish laws to *give* anybody rights, merely to lay down the fact that people have those rights. If government does anything to violate those rights, they would then be accountable by law.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kitilani

 

No, not at all. I'm not him, but I would think that he thought she was interfering. And especially considering the individual involved, he probably thought he had justification.

Then please explain what you meant by it being after the fact. Please be factual with regard to the law.

o.k. lets use some common sense, people can argue all they like about what the law states etc.
it does not matter. because regardless, if the police act like idiots and treat people like trash, all they are going to do is turn peoples opinions of the police into a negative one, this causes police hate, that some police moan about.

i thought policing was also about working with communities and having good relations with them, what has become apparent to me is there is less tolerance from the police and less respect shown towards people. they are more likely to snap and talk to people like trash these days and arrest them over every little petty thing, instead of being polite and sensible and mindful of the public. it is not just this case but many otthers, not just in the U.S. but many countries.

and people comparing them to the nazi's are correct to do so, when the same behaviours become apparent it is important to beable to identify it, otherwise we will end in the same situation and history will repeat.

if police offices have a right to run around ordering people to do as they are told no matter what the order is, just because they have a gun and badge, and they take it upon themselves to do so because they can, then it is obvious to me that some police do not respect the public and cannot asses a situation using common sense.
they just want to go around and arrest people for the pettiest things ever because they can. so expect some police 'hate' if that is the way it has to be, unless a serious crime has been commited every experience with the police should be as pleasant as possible and polite, even if arrested for something petty. if it is not then it would go along way to explain where the police hate is coming from. bad experiences = negative opinions.

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

 

All states actually have provisions for citizens to perform arrests: LINK

edit on 3-7-2011 by Q:1984A:1776 because: (no reason given)

...a citiezens arrest is not the same as making an arrest acting under color of law. But by all emans, beleive what you want. You apprently arent going to listen so whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The key words are acting under color of law... You, the people, are not acting under color of law. Law Enforcement, however is, and as such, cant just show up and search your house. We have to have a warrant to do so. Where as the people, you, dont need a search warrant to search someone elses house because you cant, because you arent acting under color of law.

The 4th amendment applies to the government. Not a hard concept to grasp.

I wish you had a clue. This would be so much easier. The 4th protects us, the people. You are trying to say a protection to us from something does not apply to us because of its phrasing. It is really actually very clear who is being protected. Us, the people.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I dont need to know the "laws" all I need to know is the constitution and that im a FREE HUMAN BEING, and can do what I please in my own residence without interference...

I have my own mind and know the difference between right and wrong, I dont need somebody with a gun and an ego the size of the moon to tell me otherwise...