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

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

They hate their arrogance and they hate that they use their title to do what they want..

I think its because our educational system has ailed most people, and because of that they dont know how their government works, they dont understand the fact they are subject to state law, while trying to invoke the Federal Constitution, they dont understand how the laws work, what mitigating circumstances are, what case law and supreme court rulings can do to laws.

They are upset with the police because they dont understand the law or the process.

People are pissed at the Police because of their own ignorance, and not the police. People need to educate themsleves on how things work, insetad of relying on others to do it for them.

The nager is based on laziness and apathy. The anger is based on the fact its easier to attack something you know nothing about than it is to take the time to learn about something.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I've been arguing the same thing. People don't realize how dangerous a traffic stop can be. There is no such thing as a routine traffice stop. If that traffic stop went horribly wrong and she was hurt or killed, the officer would have been held accountable. She could have recorded and been fine but he asked her several times to go into the house. Also she said something before she started recording that made the officer feel like she was targeting him. I know I wouldn't like it if someone came onto my job, said something they made me feel like they were out to get me and then started recording. She got exactly the response she was looking for. If you want to question your local officials, by all means do it but there is a time and place for everything.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Last part of the 4th amendment:
"...and the persons or things to be seized."
Obviously a person was seized. She was on her own property, not committing a crime, as evidenced by the court ruling of dismissal. Therefore, the cop had no probable cause or warrant to enter her property and "seize" her. Also, to your argument that the courts will dismiss something simply because it reflects poorly on their image, violations of basic human rights by an officer obviously puts them in a bad light.
Furthermore, I see that you didn't comment on her first amendment right being violated, on this occasion, or the last, which you seem to love talking about. Care to explain how the cop wasn't violating that right? Even if he had the right by local law to command a person to do something, does that supersede the bill of rights? If your answer is yes, What legal precedent do you have for this? If we allowed this, then any cop could move in and arrest every person, peaceably assembled, to petition the government for redress of grievances, simply because a single person in the crowd needed to be arrested, and any person in proximity would be "threatening" to the cops.

reply to post by wardk28


Accountable? You make me laugh. You expect us to believe that a cop would be held accountable for another's actions, when they murder people and are given no "punishment" except for paid leave? And you wonder why the public has no respect for cops anymore.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Also she said something before she started recording that made the officer feel like she was targeting him. I know I wouldn't like it if someone came onto my job, said something they made me feel like they were out to get me and then started recording. She got exactly the response she was looking for. If you want to question your local officials, by all means do it but there is a time and place for everything.

What was it she said? It wasn't on the video as she was silent. I'm not saying I require proof that she provoked them, mainly because it's only hearsay at this point, but the evidence by the behavior of the LEOs in question during and after, as well as of the department, weigh in her favor that nothing was said to make them feel threatened.

/TOA

Originally posted by OldCorp
She was a good 10-15 yards away from the officer as she was filming. How exactly was she in a position to "interfere" with anything?

No she was not. GO back and read the accounts and media artiles. She was 10 to 15 FEET, not yard, away. 10 to forming a traffic stop. She was to close, and the officer wanted her to move away.

Originally posted by OldCorp
It was obviously NOT a "lawful command," as evidenced by the fact that the DA refused to prosecute her. If his command were lawful, the DA would have pursued prosecution.

Your leap of logic is fail. As I have stated, a person can be in violation of the law, and still not be prosecuted for various reasons. Just because the charge was dropped, doesnt mean she didnt violate the law, nor does it imply the officer did.

Originally posted by OldCorp
She had every right to refuse an UNlawful command, and I applaud the fact that she stood her ground.

She has every right to complain after the fact, not during. She does not get to decide the distance an officer is comfortable with, the officer does. Why, because he is in control of this particular traffic stop. He had every legal right to tell her to move away, she refused, broke thelaw in the process, and was arrested for it.

Originally posted by OldCorp
People DO have a right to question the police, and they DO have a right to disobey an unlawful command.[/quote

Your story has nothing to do with the op or the situation. Also, SCOTUS has already ruled that an officers peace cannot be disturbed, so your argument is a mute point.

People have a right to question the police when the time and palce are appropriate. Ropadside during a traffic stop involving suspcted gang members and the potential for a weapon in the car is neither the time nor the place, and the lady was arested because, not hvaing all the information herself, made an incorrect assumption about the reason for the stop and refused to move away.

You can disobey what you perceive as a lawful command, but in the end you can still be arrested and charged for it. The burden is going to be on you to explain how the command the officer gave is unlawful.

Originally posted by OldCorp
The way I see it, he violated her rights under the 1st and 4th amendments. If he, or any other officer, can't operate within the laws they are sworn to uphold, then they need to think about making a career change: I hear McDonald's is hiring.

Her 1st amndment rights were never violated, as she was never arrested for video recording, nor because she wouldnt shut up. She was arreststed for refusing to back away.

Her 4th amendment was not violated. I find this invocation funny as hell..

Please explain how the 4th was violated.

reply to post by wardk28


Its going to take one of these people wanting to record and not knowing what they are walking up on getting killed, in which case we will have people arguing the police failed to protect the 3rd party by not keeping her away.

This thread is jsut liek the other 2 - same group of people who hate the police who dont know the law, how it works or how the government works, complaining about an officers actions and making leaps of logic to support their arguments.

For a group of people who demand the law be applied, they are very inconsistent when it comes to the shoe being on the other foot.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, it applies to the government. Since the officer was present when she decided to argue, he had all the PC he needed to make the arrest. Because she was being arrested, and not intending to search her property, no search warrant is needed. A search of her persons is an exception to the 4th amendment warrant requirement, since its a search incient to an arrest.

The 4th was not violated by the Police.

again, please learn how it works if you are going to try to make an argument with it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

They hate their arrogance and they hate that they use their title to do what they want..

I think its because our educational system has ailed most people, and because of that they dont know how their government works, they dont understand the fact they are subject to state law, while trying to invoke the Federal Constitution, they dont understand how the laws work, what mitigating circumstances are, what case law and supreme court rulings can do to laws.

They are upset with the police because they dont understand the law or the process.

People are pissed at the Police because of their own ignorance, and not the police. People need to educate themsleves on how things work, insetad of relying on others to do it for them.

The nager is based on laziness and apathy. The anger is based on the fact its easier to attack something you know nothing about than it is to take the time to learn about something.

You dare to call us ignorant because we think that the United States Constitution supersedes all other laws? You also think that the state's laws weren't in breach here? Here's an example of something that is in every single state's constitution in some form or other:
8.Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel.

9. Right to assemble and petition; ...
You know where that is from? The Constitution of the State of New York. Of course you would know that though since you are so well educated.

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by wardk28

 

Accountable? You make me laugh. You expect us to believe that a cop would be held accountable for another's actions, when they murder people and are given no "punishment" except for paid leave? And you wonder why the public has no respect for cops anymore.

And this comment right here is where you have estroyed any credability you had left to amke an argument against the Police. Your ability to make a blanket statment without shoiwing any sources / evidence to support your claim.

In case you are wondering, this is the post where I decided to just ignore you, since you apparently dont seem to care about the law or how it works, and are instead more instreated in calling the Police Nazis and Gesttapo.

When you decide to educate yourself a bit more, get back to us in the thread. Otherwise I will leave you with your Nazi arguments and lack of knowledge all to your lonesome.

and people wonder why the public goes to jail when they try to interfere.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Her 4th amendment was not violated. I find this invocation funny as hell..

Please explain how the 4th was violated.

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.

Relevance highlighted. LEOs are not immune from violating the 4th Amendment. When he gave her an order, that had no legal backing, she was no longer secure in her person or house, and she was unreasonably seized.

I am pro-police. I'm not trying to lump all LEOs together. I've only once, in my almost 5 decades on this Earth, been harassed unreasonably by a police officer. In every other meeting I've never been treated with anything but respect, even once when I wasn't treating him in kind. I don't have a mad on for cops, but there exists currently, with increasing frequency, a habitual erosion of citizens' liberties in the same manner as what happened to this lady. Quite frankly, it's becoming difficult for me to defend even the good ones.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
What was it she said? It wasn't on the video as she was silent. I'm not saying I require proof that she provoked them, mainly because it's only hearsay at this point, but the evidence by the behavior of the LEOs in question during and after, as well as of the department, weigh in her favor that nothing was said to make them feel threatened.

/TOA

When we are doing our jobs, and a 3rd party involves themseleves either by physical means, verbal means (yelling at us or trying to incite others to go after us, or trying to get the people we are dealing with wound up) or non verbal means via gestures, or just being present, it creates a problem, both for the police doing their jobs, as well as the people we are dealing with at the time.

The officer asked her to move away and Ms. Good decided to argue. The officer spent the next minute trying to explain to her to just back away, and Ms. Good refused. After multiple requests, and then orders to move away, the officer ended the stalemate by arresting her for failing to obey a lawful command.

Her presence and refusal to move away when told to do so, even after the officer cited the reasons why he wanted her to move back, are valid on its face.

She can disagree all she wants, and she has valid recourse and redress of grievances. There are legal avenues established for that action, and one of them is not arguing roadside.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Once again, it is you who is ignorant of how the law works and the spirit of why it was enacted. Simply because there is a piece of legislation making something illegal, doesn't mean that it can be used to contradict the bill of rights which supersede ALL laws in this nation, whether state or federal.
This:"The right of the people to be secure in their ***persons***, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" obviously states that the individual has the right to be free of oppressive regimes arresting them without reason. The cop arrested her without legal backing, therefore the courts dismissed the case against her. How is that hard for you to understand? The cop was in the wrong, and if he had just gone along with his business, the woman would have gone back in her house when he left.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by wardk28

 

Accountable? You make me laugh. You expect us to believe that a cop would be held accountable for another's actions, when they murder people and are given no "punishment" except for paid leave? And you wonder why the public has no respect for cops anymore.

And this comment right here is where you have estroyed any credability you had left to amke an argument against the Police. Your ability to make a blanket statment without shoiwing any sources / evidence to support your claim.

In case you are wondering, this is the post where I decided to just ignore you, since you apparently dont seem to care about the law or how it works, and are instead more instreated in calling the Police Nazis and Gesttapo.

When you decide to educate yourself a bit more, get back to us in the thread. Otherwise I will leave you with your Nazi arguments and lack of knowledge all to your lonesome.

and people wonder why the public goes to jail when they try to interfere.

And here is where you show that you have lost this debate, as there are numerous cases that have been discussed on this site with the outcome stated above, many of which I'm sure you've taken part in, defending the officers in question.

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
You dare to call us ignorant because we think that the United States Constitution supersedes all other laws? You also think that the state's laws weren't in breach here? Here's an example of something that is in every single state's constitution in some form or other:
8.Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel.

The simple fact you are making the comment leads me to the conclusion that yes, you are ignroant of how the laws work, as well as the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution applies to the individuals and states via the 14th amendment. At the state level, in this case the charge itself, is a local/state matter, not federal. No Federal law has been broken, as such there is no federal violation present.

The State cannot pass any laws that violate federal law, and any that do are automatically irrelevant because of the Supremacy clause.

Her first amendment was not violated because she was not arrested for recording, or being present in her front yard, for protesting, because of her religious choices etc.

She was arrested because she was told to move away and she refused. If you bothered to check local and state law, in addition to the FEderal body of law and SCOTUS rulings, you would find the officers actions and order was in fact lawful based on the criteria. The officers actions were valid under local and state law, and in no way shape for form violated 42 USC 1983.

Originally posted by OldCorp
9. Right to assemble and petition; ...
You know where that is from? The Constitution of the State of New York. Of course you would know that though since you are so well educated.

edit on 3-7-2011 by Q:1984A:1776 because: removed stuff about gambling, as it wasn't pertinent.

And since she was not protesting anything, and was standing in her front yard to close to a traffic stop, what you just cited is irrelevant, and reinforces that yes, you have no idea how the law works.

You guys think its as simple as quoting Constitutional lines and its not. You guys dont understand how the fEderal body of law works, howits applied to the states, who has jurisdiction in a matter like this, what laws are in effect let alone how they work.

Go back and learn, then get back to me.

None of her rights were violated, either at the state or federal level.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I've been arguing the same thing. People don't realize how dangerous a traffic stop can be. There is no such thing as a routine traffice stop. If that traffic stop went horribly wrong and she was hurt or killed, the officer would have been held accountable.

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.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by The Old American
What was it she said? It wasn't on the video as she was silent. I'm not saying I require proof that she provoked them, mainly because it's only hearsay at this point, but the evidence by the behavior of the LEOs in question during and after, as well as of the department, weigh in her favor that nothing was said to make them feel threatened.

/TOA

When we are doing our jobs, and a 3rd party involves themseleves either by physical means, verbal means (yelling at us or trying to incite others to go after us, or trying to get the people we are dealing with wound up) or non verbal means via gestures, or just being present, it creates a problem, both for the police doing their jobs, as well as the people we are dealing with at the time.

The officer asked her to move away and Ms. Good decided to argue. The officer spent the next minute trying to explain to her to just back away, and Ms. Good refused. After multiple requests, and then orders to move away, the officer ended the stalemate by arresting her for failing to obey a lawful command.

Her presence and refusal to move away when told to do so, even after the officer cited the reasons why he wanted her to move back, are valid on its face.

She can disagree all she wants, and she has valid recourse and redress of grievances. There are legal avenues established for that action, and one of them is not arguing roadside.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Xcathdra

Also she said something before she started recording that made the officer feel like she was targeting him. I know I wouldn't like it if someone came onto my job, said something they made me feel like they were out to get me and then started recording. She got exactly the response she was looking for. If you want to question your local officials, by all means do it but there is a time and place for everything.

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

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.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

but I think the officer had every right to ask her to turn the camera off and go back inside.

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?

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.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
And your problem is your inability to understand how it works. I cant say this enough with you, and yet you refuise to acknowledge it every singel time because the truth wont support your argument.

Eventually you will learn that just calling people ignorant when you are wrong does not eventually make you right. It might take a while but I am patient.

You can break the law and not be charged with the crime. It happens all the time. Just because the PA decides not to prosecute, does not mean the actions of the arresting officer are illegal.

Then you tell me EXACTLY why these charges were dropped and we do not have to choose between what you seem to think is the only option and what reality presents as actual options including no legal ground to prosecute.

Nor does it mean the person arrested never violated the law. It simply means circumstances are present that the the PA has weighed and made a decision.

Sure but it sure as hell does not mean they did violate the law either, does it?

Please, learn how the system works instead of just guessing.

I know how it works and that is why I said the charges would be dropped long before they were. I also said little to nothing will happen to the cop in question and the ones that took part in the ticketfest in Corn Hill.

You on the other hand are still arguing that she was wrong after the charges were dropped.