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.

 

Cops violate man's rights (again) while being interviewed by local news station!

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


That's odd with Tennessee, isn't it? In some ways, they can be among the worst for Law Enforcement attitudes and actions. Yet yours is among the states where you actually can say no and not have the matter pushed. That's one of the things I've found as I've gotten deeper and deeper into learning and understanding the law at the working level. There is no way to guess or assume what state will have what law or not, outside some of the most obvious. You just never know, it seems.

God Bless the nation for it too. The diverse nature of the states and ability to remain that way is among the core strengths and always has been, IMO.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

I'm backing away from the fight. Without cite, source or case law? It's no debate. It's not even a discussion when the disagreement is sincere and genuine. Without sourcing beyond strictly personal opinion and "it's this way 'cause I said so and you just believe it!', it's really nothing but simple fighting ( exceptionally personal/ugly with some)...and it seems, for whatever reason, that's been a theme today. Oh Well... Some days are good and some days just ...aren't. Time to get some work done for me anyway. Hanging out here isn't paying bills and today? Really isn't accomplishing much of anything but running in tight little circles of the same arguments for the 100th time ad naseum.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Disclaimer: this post is 100% free of any personal opinion. This is just a fact.


Writing for the Court in Florida v. Royer 460 U.S. 491 (1983), Justice White stated,
The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. — 460 U.S. at 497–498


Summary on wiki

This was a consensual encounter. Meaning cops had no reasonable suspicion of anything.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I always do my best to make sure I am legally prepared before any kind of altercation with Law enforcement. Even when I did my GMO protest at McD's, I made sure that I wasn't breaking any kind of wiretapping laws, as oft claimed, by recording the incident or the police officers.

Most cops don't really know the law, they rely on the pure ignorance of the citizen, to take his badge for face value, and "If the LEO say's it's true, it must be."

It's like some kind of disorder where you must be 'led' by those 'in charge'.

That's why whenever I start notifying them that the first time they try and illegally detain me, or issue an illegal arrest, they will hear first from my lawyer, and the second confrontation will come from the ACLU, when they pin their ass to the wall..

I always get badge numbers, etc...Now don't get me wrong, if I think the cop legit has something on me, I'll comply as required, but the whole "ID because I'm PD...."....

That crap don't fly with me....You wanna be a nazi? Take me like I was a jew...But I'm not gonna lay down like a lamb to slaughter.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


The thing all these patriot types fail to realize is that most cops are normal decent people. They're not out to harm anyone. They just want to get through there shift like the rest of us. So if they come talk to you, just be nice, normal, decent and cooperative and chances are you'll wont' be arrested. They might even let you off easy like with a warning. But the moment you're aggressive, hostile, rude, etc etc you're asking for trouble. Ya they might violate your rights even. They might beat you down if you tick them off. People are so dumb, the first law that happens in any scenario is the law of physics. and if they have a club and a gun and weigh twice what you do, chances are they're gonna win. So better to get locked up by mistake (and cooperate) than to get the beat down because you don't want your rights viloated. Well they'll violate more than your rights when you're getting the beat down because you're just an idiot. Just be nice to them. They have a hard job. If you're nice chances are more likely they're thinking something like "oh good this person isn't trouble". or something. But with everyone wanting to excersise there rights it's no wonder so many people get the beat down. No I like my bones in tact thank you very much, I just am nice and the last few times I got pulled over the cops were "extremely nice", both times they appologized for pulling me over. Mind you cops in Canada are generally pretty down to earth. They don't go beating up average people who are decent and normal. Just don't give them any reason to be violent. Like don't spought your mouth off, don't resist, don't be rude, and that won't trigger any aggressiveness. But there's no much else you can do. People and there rights, it's rediculous. The only time the rights are gonna come into play is way later in a court room. Not in the moment when it's you and the cops and they have the upper hand. I guess there's the rare scenarios that something odd happens but that's like one in a million. I think most cops are generally good people. I haven't had any problems with them. I even got arrested once, there was a warrent I didn't know about, and I didn't try and make the situation worse at all. So the guy let me use my cell phone all I wanted, I could use the bathroom, he offered me a water, and he let me wear the cuffs in front to be more comfortable. But if you're not civil, then they're not civil either.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

what source would you require ?
the Constitution or the specific amendment ?

your links are not referencing 'law-abiding citizens' ... they are referencing 'suspects'.
so, in your opinion, EVERY police encounter is with "suspects", right ?

otherwise, you have a hard time admitting you're wrong and that's sad for all of those readers who find your commentary valuable.

have a good day, great weather and cya 'round



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


So basically as a citizen of a self-proclaimed, "free country", you should not exercise any of your rights, that were explicitly put into place, to prevent, cops from overstepping their boundaries? That's like some Stockholm syndrome, crap...

I'll let them get pissy and whack me a few times with that billy club all they want...

It just makes me more money in the end, when I drag it out in court, like I was the next Rodney King..
edit on 27-7-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


It's not a free country anymore



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


I'm not a country...I was born free...Thanks..



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by spartacus699
 


I'm not a country...I was born free...Thanks..


you think you were and are



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


Prove I wasn't...My rights come from God, not governments...Which existed first : Man or Government?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I can understand why people see this as a problem. Make sense.

But there was no issue here. They were outside of the office and jail filming. The officers had every right to ask for identification. When he failed to comply, their first response should have been to ask them to remove themselves from the premises. Failure to comply can result in escalation.

An officer asking to see identification is not violation of the 4th amendment. It is not a search or seizure. In this case, the officers were violating nothing.

But I only have part of the story from one side.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
But there was no issue here. They were outside of the office and jail filming. The officers had every right to ask for identification.


They have every right to ask you to jump of a roof too. You have every right to tell them to go to hell.



When he failed to comply, their first response should have been to ask them to remove themselves from the premises. Failure to comply can result in escalation.


Comply? So now you change your whole premise. Compliance implies there is a lawfull order. Also cops have 0 rights to tell anyone to leave a public space.



An officer asking to see identification is not violation of the 4th amendment. It is not a search or seizure. In this case, the officers were violating nothing.


Asking? Make up your mind dude. Now you're back to asking. And yeah it has been already established that the officers were violating that guys civil rights. Twice. So feel free to correct your post



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


Geesh louise, I hope to God ur never on a jury for domestic violence.

Blame the victim much?



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


What you have failed to realize is that the jail and sheriffs office is not public property. You can't do whatever you want there.

Try and divert from the true all you like because you have a grudge.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Next time watch the source material before commenting. He wasn't in the jail.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
 





But there was no issue here. They were outside of the office and jail filming. The officers had every right to ask for identification.


Standing on or in a public accessway, such as a sidewalk structure, he is free to do whatever he pleases. However, inside of their building it is a very different story.

He was not inside the building, he was on the public accessway. They had zero articulable facts which would warrant reasonable suspicion of a crime, and even fewer to suffice probable cause for a terry stop for seeing him commit a crime.

They had no lawful power to request his ID, which is a personal paper still covered under the 4th Amendment by the way, due to the fact that they had neither of the above. Because of this, they can not legally take away his right on this, because he has not broken the law. Rights can only be suspended when a crime has been committed. This guy was neither legally or lawfully obligated to give the LEO his ID or papers.

He was fully within his rights to deny the cop his ID.

This is not Nazi Germany. You can not stop me and just demand my 'papers' without even moderately having reasonable suspicion that I've broken the law. You must have a reason, like me breaking the law, to even be talking to me. Unless you do have that, I am not compelled by law to contract with you as a LEO. Unless you have articulated your reasonable suspicion of the crime I committed, you must allow me to be free to go. If I am not free to go, then by default that means you are detaining me. In order for an officer to legally or lawfully detain you, he must voice reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, or probable cause supported by reasonable suspicion.

That is the law. I suggest you learn it.
edit on 16-8-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join