CarSPIN Forums

This chase started with a guy giving a police officer a funny look- nothing more. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I7UKMgWWNc&feature=related

So cops should get to pull over anyone they want cause they give them funny looks

????

I'm no legal beagle but the logic there sounds flawed

I mean u could make any # of implications from that vid...

It all started with a funny look- didn't say antything about that being the only reason for the chase. 

It says right in the video that this is an attempted escape from the Warren County (wherever that is) jail.

You guys need hi def camcorders on your patrol cars.

The problem with the "funny look" thing is that an officer who pursues someone will probably have a lot of the resulting charges dropped due to lack of probable cause.  Giving a cop a "funny look" is not grounds for pursuit or a traffic stop, legally.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 04, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
The problem with the "funny look" thing is that an officer who pursues someone will probably have a lot of the resulting charges dropped due to lack of probable cause.  Giving a cop a "funny look" is not grounds for pursuit or a traffic stop, legally.

Honestly, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason for probable cause to pull somebody over, whether it was true or not.  If the person doesn't comply with an LEO's request to pull over, for whatever reason, the very act of fleeing becomes a probable cause.  I think that the danger of having charges thrown out for lack of probable cause is more connected to a search of the vehicle than the act of pulling somebody over.  I've never had an officer search my car, or ask to search my car, any of the times I've been pulled over, probably because there was no probable cause to ask for such a search.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 04, 2009, 05:06:03 PM
Honestly, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason for probable cause to pull somebody over, whether it was true or not.  If the person doesn't comply with an LEO's request to pull over, for whatever reason, the very act of fleeing becomes a probable cause.  I think that the danger of having charges thrown out for lack of probable cause is more connected to a search of the vehicle than the act of pulling somebody over.  I've never had an officer search my car, or ask to search my car, any of the times I've been pulled over, probably because there was no probable cause to ask for such a search.

I've had officers ask to search my car. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have refused.

I'm not sure about the validity of the "fleeing itself is probable cause" argument. Not that I can say, I just don't know. It seems an awful lot like saying that refusing to allow a search is probable cause to go ahead with the search. (and by search, I mean outside the allowances a Terry frisk would give). There's also the legal axiom about "the fruits of a poisonous tree."

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 04, 2009, 05:09:52 PM
I've had officers ask to search my car. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have refused.

I'm not sure about the validity of the "fleeing itself is probable cause" argument. Not that I can say, I just don't know. It seems an awful lot like saying that refusing to allow a search is probable cause to go ahead with the search. (and by search, I mean outside the allowances a Terry frisk would give). There's also the legal axiom about "the fruits of a poisonous tree."

I don't think that refusing a search is the same thing as refusing to comply with a request to pull over.  Refusing a search certainly doesn't give probable cause to make one.  But if an officer signals to you to pull over and you refuse, that act in itself is illegal (unlike declining to allow a voluntary search).  At least that's my understanding.

Quote from: rohan on January 04, 2009, 06:45:06 AM
This chase started with a guy giving a police officer a funny look

It sounds like it started when the con broke out of jail.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 04, 2009, 05:14:46 PM
I don't think that refusing a search is the same thing as refusing to comply with a request to pull over.  Refusing a search certainly doesn't give probable cause to make one.  But if an officer signals to you to pull over and you refuse, that act in itself is illegal (unlike declining to allow a voluntary search).  At least that's my understanding.

Its my understanding that an officer needs probable cause to pull you over in the first place (sobriety checkpoints in the Democratic republic of Kalifornia, and other sub-legal exceptions notwithstanding). Therefore, if an officer attempts to do so, they are the ones that broke the law first.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 04, 2009, 05:31:28 PM
Its my understanding that an officer needs probable cause to pull you over in the first place (sobriety checkpoints in the Democratic republic of Kalifornia, and other sub-legal exceptions notwithstanding). Therefore, if an officer attempts to do so, they are the ones that broke the law first.

Let's be realistic.  There can always be a probable cause to pull someone over.  The threshold is very low.  The officer only has to say he saw you swerve, or pass a red light, or say you were speeding.  If you flee, cause a whole big ruckus over that, and then claim you fled because the officer had no cause to pull you over, who is going to believe you?

Quote from: dazzleman on January 04, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
Let's be realistic.  There can always be a probable cause to pull someone over.  The threshold is very low.  The officer only has to say he saw you swerve, or pass a red light, or say you were speeding.  If you flee, cause a whole big ruckus over that, and then claim you fled because the officer had no cause to pull you over, who is going to believe you?

Nobody at all, especially if an officer is willing to perjure himself.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 04, 2009, 05:33:55 PM
Nobody at all, especially if an officer is willing to perjure himself.

Exactly my point.  If you're directed to pull over by an LEO, it's better to just do it.  If you've really done nothing wrong, you've got a lot less to lose, and you're on much stronger ground to challenge whatever comes from the stop, than you do if you flee, whether you're right about the probable cause issue or not.  Once you flee, nobody is going to believe your assertions of innocence.

There is the technical side of the law, and then there is the way in which the law is actually applied in practice.  It's a lot better to base your actions on the latter than the former.

If it needs to be said, I was simply talking about the technical legalities.

In practice, if a guy bolts, he probably had a reason to.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 04, 2009, 05:43:32 PM
If it needs to be said, I was simply talking about the technical legalities.

In practice, if a guy bolts, he probably had a reason to.

I agree.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 04, 2009, 05:31:28 PM
Its my understanding that an officer needs probable cause to pull you over in the first place (sobriety checkpoints in the Democratic republic of Kalifornia, and other sub-legal exceptions notwithstanding). Therefore, if an officer attempts to do so, they are the ones that broke the law first.

Actually, I need reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, not probable cause. I need probable cause to make an arrest.

Quite frankly, I can get reasonable suspicion to make a stop very easily. Like I explain to new officers when I'm training, the law is very extensive and you're probably in violation of some statute whenever you're driving. Recognizing reasonable suspicion is all about knowledge of the law and how the law is interpeted by the courts.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 05, 2009, 12:56:25 AM
Actually, I need reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, not probable cause. I need probable cause to make an arrest.

Quite frankly, I can get reasonable suspicion to make a stop very easily. Like I explain to new officers when I'm training, the law is very extensive and you're probably in violation of some statute whenever you're driving. Recognizing reasonable suspicion is all about knowledge of the law and how the law is interpeted by the courts.

Sounds like we need to redo some laws. 

I don't care about the chase, but the much excessive force to apprehend the suspect after he clearly gave up.

Dude that's my local news channel. That happened about 20 miles north of me on I-71.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 05, 2009, 04:20:45 PM
I don't care about the chase, but the much excessive force to apprehend the suspect after he clearly gave up.

He just escaped from jail. What do you expect?

Quote from: Tave on January 04, 2009, 10:03:37 AM
It says right in the video that this is an attempted escape from the Warren County (wherever that is) jail.

One of the local county jails in Cincinnati.

No one expects an officer to give up on a chase when the guy is making a break from jail. :rolleyes: C'mon...

Regarding searches:  I've never had my vehicle searched, personally.  And like Dave, I've never had an officer ask.  I've always just sat there and waited while my tax bill was prepared in the cruiser behind me.  I suppose I don't look like the type to be transporting drugs and/or weapons in my vehicle.

If an officer did ask to search my vehicle, I don't know if I would want to comply at first.  It would make me feel like a criminal, and I wouldn't take that lightly.  I would ask why and what he was looking for.  If it was reasonable, I might go for it, but if the guy was sarcastic or gave a "because I said so' type answer, no way.  Now, of course, the thing is that if he wanted to pursue it, you'd probably be sitting there forever while they wait to get a warrant, so you're essentially stuck unless you comply - whether they eventually can get a warrant or not.

For our officers - what makes you want to search a vehicle?  I suppose just suspicion, someone fitting the profile, you can tell a mile away usually I'm sure.  But what are the specifics?

Quote from: dazzleman on January 04, 2009, 05:06:03 PM
Honestly, I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a reason for probable cause to pull somebody over, whether it was true or not.  If the person doesn't comply with an LEO's request to pull over, for whatever reason, the very act of fleeing becomes a probable cause. 

Definitely.  I was talking about a run-of-the-mill traffic stop though, not a pursuit.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 05, 2009, 07:26:38 PMFor our officers - what makes you want to search a vehicle?  I suppose just suspicion, someone fitting the profile, you can tell a mile away usually I'm sure.  But what are the specifics?

It's tough to give specifics on why we ask for voluntary searches. It's very case-specific and rarely just one thing. Most of the time, it's a combination of small signals...driver and passenger behavior, things that are visible in the vehicle, high crime areas and people who don't seem to fit the population, recent specific problems in the area, etc, etc, ad nauseum. To put it simply, alot of it is just a "click" for an officer when the small signals trip something in our training and experience.

And, on the off topic search issue, I encourage you guys to understand the basics of search and seizure. There's alot of misinformation and misunderstanding, even in this very thread, about search and seizure rights and limitations. It's a citizens' duty to know his or her rights...if you don't, then you won't  know then the government takes them away.

Quote from: sparkplug on January 05, 2009, 05:33:36 PM
So is that why you stop little old ladies and write them tickets. Because they're easy to catch, huh? We know now!!!!

On occasion you just need the adrenaline rush of a good police chase, right? You big squealer. What do you have to say for yourself and don't tell me Oink.

Oink.

bing your sig is very relevant to this thread hahahah

Cops chase for the same reason that a dog licks his balls . . .

Rohan just made up the part about the "funny look," and "why we chase" to flamebait. This wasn't a random traffic stop--it was an attempted jailbreak. :rolleyes:


This is a horrible, horrible example to use to talk about search procedure and citizen rights.

Notwithstanding James Young's penchant for auto fellatio, WRT searches, I've had the pleasure, but meh - LEO wants to search your car I have to imagine it WILL get searched it if you don't voluntarily acquiesce - it'll just mean you'll be waiting on the roadside for a dog or a warrant.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 06, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
Notwithstanding James Young's penchant for auto fellatio, WRT searches, I've had the pleasure, but meh - LEO wants to search your car I have to imagine it WILL get searched it if you don't voluntarily acquiesce - it'll just mean you'll be waiting on the roadside for a dog or a warrant.

If a cop was that adamant in wanting to search my car, I would just let him. Waiting for him to get a warrant is just a waste of my time.

I would make him get a warrant every time.

Quote from: hotrodalex on January 06, 2009, 01:07:13 PM
If a cop was that adamant in wanting to search my car, I would just let him. Waiting for him to get a warrant is just a waste of my time.

Yeah but then you'll just get the interior of  your car ripped out with you sitting on the side of the road to pick it up.. is that what you really want?

They can't tear your car apart. If they do that, they'll get kicked off the force or get sued. The police chief wouldn't allow that. Or at least I don't think so.

You guys are all wrong about vehicle search and seizure.

1. Requests for voluntary searches are just that...voluntary. If I had probable cause to search your vehicle, then I wouldn't be asking for consent to search, I'd be in your vehicle searching and wouldn't care how much you object.

2. Searching a motor vehicle isn't the same as searching a residence. Sometimes a search warrant is necesary, but other times I can search the vehicle because of its very nature. Courts have declaired that because of a motor vehicle's mobile nature, they frequently fall under exigent circumstance exempting them from warrant restrictions.

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

4. Chances are, if I have enough for a warrant for your vehicle (and need one), then you're probably already under arrest. Both an arrest and a warrant require the same level of proof...probable cause. In that case, I'll just put you in jail and tow your vehicle so I can search it in a controlled and safe environment.

5. Sometimes, I CAN tear the hell out of the interior of your vehicle. Apparently, you've never seen what the Boarder Patrol and DEA do to vehicles. Now, I'd better come up with something hidden in that vehicle if I do it, else I'm likely to be on the carpet doing some explaining.

Like I said earlier, you guys really need to read up on at least basic search and seizure. It's one of your Constitutional rights, after all, and you should at least understand it. Fraid I don;t have the time or space to give an entire lecture on search and seizure on here...sorry.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 06, 2009, 11:03:11 PM
You guys are all wrong about vehicle search and seizure.

1. Requests for voluntary searches are just that...voluntary. If I had probable cause to search your vehicle, then I wouldn't be asking for consent to search, I'd be in your vehicle searching and wouldn't care how much you object.

2. Searching a motor vehicle isn't the same as searching a residence. Sometimes a search warrant is necesary, but other times I can search the vehicle because of its very nature. Courts have declaired that because of a motor vehicle's mobile nature, they frequently fall under exigent circumstance exempting them from warrant restrictions.

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

4. Chances are, if I have enough for a warrant for your vehicle (and need one), then you're probably already under arrest. Both an arrest and a warrant require the same level of proof...probable cause. In that case, I'll just put you in jail and tow your vehicle so I can search it in a controlled and safe environment.

5. Sometimes, I CAN tear the hell out of the interior of your vehicle. Apparently, you've never seen what the Boarder Patrol and DEA do to vehicles. Now, I'd better come up with something hidden in that vehicle if I do it, else I'm likely to be on the carpet doing some explaining.

Like I said earlier, you guys really need to read up on at least basic search and seizure. It's one of your Constitutional rights, after all, and you should at least understand it. Fraid I don;t have the time or space to give an entire lecture on search and seizure on here...sorry.

If you think you have probable cause and arrest somebody but don't find anything. What do you mean by tear apart the vehicle? Do you rip up the interior, tear out the carpet, slash the seats.

If they do that and find nothing then the authority in question would have some responsibility to compensate the suspect/accused/victim.

Quote from: sparkplug on January 06, 2009, 11:34:25 PM
If you think you have probable cause and arrest somebody but don't find anything. What do you mean by tear apart the vehicle? Do you rip up the interior, tear out the carpet, slash the seats.

If they do that and find nothing then the authority in question would have some responsibility to compensate the suspect/accused/victim.

I stress the "chances are" part of my statement. Just because I have probable cause for a search warrant doesn't mean that I'll always have probable cause for an arrest. If I have the PC for an arrest, I'll make it. If I just have the PC for the search warrant but not for an arrest before the search is executed, then I'll just get the warrant and perform the search. I don't arrest somebody before the warrant is executed with the assumption that the search will provide my PC for the arrest. I'd probably just do an "investigative detention" until I can perform the search and then go from there based upon what I find.

As for what I mean by "tear apart the vehicle," I mean exaclty what I said. Remove body and interior panels. Pull up carpeting. Open up seats. Drill into gas tanks. Pretty much everything you can imagine. This kind of treatment is usually reserved for suspected drug or weapon transporting vehicles where there's suspicion of hidden compartments, though, and are always based on search warrants. There's not, necessarily, any responsibility to compensate the owner if nothing is found if it's based upon probable cause and done in accordance with a valid search warrant. The owner could sue through civil court or negotiate with the agency for recompensation, I suppose.

If you leave a innocent motorist vehicle in a undrivable condition then that's without good conscious and you are defrauding the civil liberties of the individual.

I'm keeping Matlock on speed dial. :lol:

I'm saying that I don't see the point in making him get a warrant. I have nothing to hide. So I'm just gonna be wasting my time sitting there waiting for him to get the warrant.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 06, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
Notwithstanding James Young's penchant for auto fellatio, WRT searches, I've had the pleasure, but meh - LEO wants to search your car I have to imagine it WILL get searched it if you don't voluntarily acquiesce - it'll just mean you'll be waiting on the roadside for a dog or a warrant.

However, if you do voluntarily acquiesce, and something is found in your vehicle, you really have no legal recourse. If you don't allow the search, it becomes the authority's job to make sure they dot the i's and cross the t's when making the case for a 'reasonable" search and seizure.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 06, 2009, 11:03:11 PM
You guys are all wrong about vehicle search and seizure.

1. Requests for voluntary searches are just that...voluntary. If I had probable cause to search your vehicle, then I wouldn't be asking for consent to search, I'd be in your vehicle searching and wouldn't care how much you object.

2. Searching a motor vehicle isn't the same as searching a residence. Sometimes a search warrant is necesary, but other times I can search the vehicle because of its very nature. Courts have declaired that because of a motor vehicle's mobile nature, they frequently fall under exigent circumstance exempting them from warrant restrictions.

3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

4. Chances are, if I have enough for a warrant for your vehicle (and need one), then you're probably already under arrest. Both an arrest and a warrant require the same level of proof...probable cause. In that case, I'll just put you in jail and tow your vehicle so I can search it in a controlled and safe environment.

5. Sometimes, I CAN tear the hell out of the interior of your vehicle. Apparently, you've never seen what the Boarder Patrol and DEA do to vehicles. Now, I'd better come up with something hidden in that vehicle if I do it, else I'm likely to be on the carpet doing some explaining.

Like I said earlier, you guys really need to read up on at least basic search and seizure. It's one of your Constitutional rights, after all, and you should at least understand it. Fraid I don;t have the time or space to give an entire lecture on search and seizure on here...sorry.

For the audience, can you explain the concept of a Terry frisk?

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:11:08 PM
For the audience, can you explain the concept of a Terry frisk?

Comeon, Soup...man up and ask "what the hell's a Terry Frisk?" :lol:

A "Terry Frisk" is based on the USSC decision Terry v. Ohio. Basically, Terry v. Ohio said that, based upon an officer's experience and observations, if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity they can stop the person and pat them down for weapons for officer safety. The pat down has to be relatively non-invasive (it's a pat down, not a dig-though-the-pockets search). Terry can also apply to "lunge area" (ie, the area that a person could get to easily to retrieve a weapon). Terry primarily applies to weapons, though an experienced officer can also get other contraband from a Terry Frisk if they can elaborate on recognizing the feel of other contraband through an outside of the clothing frisk (and experienced officer might be able to explain how they knew it was a crack pipe in a guys pocket by feel through past experience with patdowns and drug paraphernalia).

Quote from: bing_oh on January 07, 2009, 03:19:34 PM
Comeon, Soup...man up and ask "what the hell's a Terry Frisk?" :lol:

A "Terry Frisk" is based on the USSC decision Terry v. Ohio. Basically, Terry v. Ohio said that, based upon an officer's experience and observations, if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity they can stop the person and pat them down for weapons. The pat down has to be relatively non-invasive (it's a pat down, not a dig-though-the-pockets search). Terry can also apply to "lunge area" (ie, the area that a person could get to easily to retrieve a weapon). Terry primarily applies to weapons, though an experienced officer can also get other contraband from a Terry Frisk if they can elaborate on recognizing the feel of other contraband through an outside of the clothing frisk (and experienced officer might be able to explain how they knew it was a crack pipe in a guys pocket by feel through past experience with patdowns and drug paraphernalia).

I could have explained it to them, as an add-on to your post, but it would have been less convincing. My understanding is that an officer can search, without a warrant, any area within the car that a suspect could "lunge to" and retrieve a weapon.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:23:16 PM
I could have explained it to them, as an add-on to your post, but it would have been less convincing. My understanding is that an officer can search, without a warrant, any area within the car that a suspect could "lunge to" and retrieve a weapon.

Terry originally applied to the search of a person for weapons (the original case involved two guys walking around casing a bank to rob it), but the courts have recognized the need to check "lunge area" because of the frequency of hidden weapons. I stress weapons in all of my posts about Terry because that's what Terry searches are for...weapons. They are not evidentiary searches, though evidence can sometimes be produced from Terry searches.

We could also get into Terry Stops, aka investigative detentions, which was the other big part of the Terry v. Ohio ruling.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
However, if you do voluntarily acquiesce, and something is found in your vehicle, you really have no legal recourse. If you don't allow the search, it becomes the authority's job to make sure they dot the i's and cross the t's when making the case for a 'reasonable" search and seizure.

That's a fairy tale. One's best bet IMO is to buck up and admit to what you've got, and hope the system takes it easy on you.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 07, 2009, 03:33:12 PM
That's a fairy tale. One's best bet IMO is to buck up and admit to what you've got, and hope the system takes it easy on you.

Then your opinion is worth less than the time it took me to read it.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:35:04 PM
Then your opinion is worth less than the time it took me to read it.

Comeon, Soup. We were having a civil discussion, here. If you want to debate Coug's opinion, then do it. Don't just make smartass one-liners.

Besides, Coug's opinion holds merit. Maybe other officers are different, but I don't just ask for permission to search at random. I always have a reason for asking. Refusing might just encourage me to dig deeper. As for holding out hope that I'll leave an i undotted or a t uncrossed, it's pretty unlikely. Search and seizure is an officer's bread and butter. I know search and seizure law better than most of the local defense attorneys...I have to, since I don't have a week to spend in the local law library researching it like they do before making a decision.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 07, 2009, 03:43:56 PM
Comeon, Soup. We were having a civil discussion, here. If you want to debate Coug's opinion, then do it. Don't just make smartass one-liners.

Besides, Coug's opinion holds merit. Maybe other officers are different, but I don't just ask for permission to search at random. I always have a reason for asking. Refusing might just encourage me to dig deeper. As for holding out hope that I'll leave an i undotted or a t uncrossed, it's pretty unlikely. Search and seizure is an officer's bread and butter. I know search and seizure law better than most of the local defense attorneys...I have to, since I don't have a week to spend in the local law library researching it like they do before making a decision.

But, I'm good at smart assed oneliners, especially with Cougs. Anyways, if you know for certain that the car you're in is 100% clean, there's probably little risk, but there is still some. According to your own post, if an officer does tear apart the car and do the full no-holds barred search, he'd better uncover something.

Besides, Coug's interpretation is based on expecting leniency if anything should be found, which also implies an officer would be unduly harsh on anyone who did actually dare to assert their rights. If the officer is a professional (which most are), neither answer is going to make much difference. If the officer is not, then the chances fo them making a mistake are also greatly increased.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:51:51 PMBesides, Coug's interpretation is based on expecting leniency if anything should be found, which also implies an officer would be unduly harsh on anyone who did actually dare to assert their rights.

Actually, I took it as implying that a jury, prosecutor, or court would be partucularly harsh on a subject who appeared uncooperative. Juries traditionally show little sympathy for anyone who appears to be deceptive. Prosecutors are much less likely to give favorable plea conditions to someone who was uncooperative. Judges tend to give harsher sentences to people who fail to show remorse through their actions. Someone who impedes a saerch that later produces fruits of a crime could be viewed as any of these.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 07, 2009, 03:56:24 PM
Actually, I was implying that a jury, prosecutor, or court would be partucularly harsh on a subject who appeared uncooperative. Juries traditionally show little sympathy for anyone who appears to be deceptive. Prosecutors are much less likely to give favorable plea conditions to someone who was uncooperative. Judges tend to give harsher sentences to people who fail to show remorse through their actions.

If I have a lawyer worth half a shit, whether or not I submitted to the search should be inadmissable, since denying an officer a voluntary search is well within my rights.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:51:51 PMAccording to your own post, if an officer does tear apart the car and do the full no-holds barred search, he'd better uncover something.

That's an interesting implication that you're making...

Quote from: bing_oh on January 07, 2009, 03:59:48 PM
That's an interesting implication that you're making...

You can't tell me that such things have never happened, can you? I'm not making a blanket accusation or saying that its a common occuurence, but the possibility of it is there.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:58:52 PM
If I have a lawyer worth half a shit, whether or not I submitted to the search should be inadmissable, since denying an officer a voluntary search is well within my rights.

Just because you're within your rights refusing to submit to a search doesn't mean that the jury never hears about the refusal. There are plenty of suspects who refuse to speak to me during an investigation, for example, and they're well within their rights to do so. But the jury still gets to hear how I brought them in and gave them the chance to talk to me and they refused. It's part of outlining the course of the investigation to the jury and will be admitted.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
You can't tell me that such things have never happened, can you? I'm not making a blanket accusation or saying that its a common occuurence, but the possibility of it is there.

No, I'm not saying it's never happened nor that it won't happen again the the future. But your implication is at least mildly insulting and rather inapproprate considering that the conversation is about legal precidence related to search and seizure. If you want to talk about what might happen if some corrupt cop wants to search your vehicle, then how the law applies really doesn't mean a damn thing.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 07, 2009, 04:08:12 PM
No, I'm not saying it's never happened nor that it won't happen again the the future. But your implication is at least mildly insulting and rather inapproprate considering that the conversation is about legal precidence related to search and seizure. If you want to talk about what might happen if some corrupt cop wants to search your vehicle, then how the law applies really doesn't mean a damn thing.

Don't take it as an insult, but as a simple statement. The question at hand is whether or not one should allow a voluntary search of one's vehicle, even if one is unaware of the presence of anything illegal in it.

How did it come to pass that LEOs have so many laws concerning what they can and cannot do in the first place? If you were an infallible, always trustworthy, always law-abiding, and always well intentioned breed, we would have no needs of search and seizure laws, or really any laws at all constraining your actions.

Unfortunately, you're all human, and thus the people at large have seen that it is necessary to enact laws which protect themselve not only from criminals, but from those that we employ to protect us against the criminals as well.

This should not be taken as an insult, but a simple fact of your daily routine that the public at large does not give their trust completely and without reservation.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 03:35:04 PM
Then your opinion is worth less than the time it took me to read it.

But worth at least the time it took you to respond to it, eh?

No harm intended, I'm just infusing a does of ying. I still think that if acquiesce whilst you knowingly have some baddies the chance that at some point you may net a goodwill break is better than the chance that refusing the search will net you a procedural break.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 07, 2009, 04:29:50 PM
But worth at least the time it took you to respond to it, eh?

No harm intended, I'm just infusing a does of ying. I still think that if acquiesce whilst you knowingly have some baddies the chance that at some point you may net a goodwill break is better than the chance that refusing the search will net you a procedural break.

Granted, if you're out and out "ridin' dirty," you're going down no matter which way you swing it.

Two specific incidents in my own life come to mind immediately though.

The first, when I first brought home the Cadillac, I got pulled over on the way. Although I owned the car at the time, I was less than 100% certain about whether or not something contraband could have been left in it, at least in trace amounts. Its happened, there was a thread on a VW forum not too long ago where the new owner of a bus found pounds and pounds of pot in his floorboards when he cut them out for a restoration.


The second, I know a friend who got booked (and eventually released) for possesion of a short-barelled shotgun. it was legal, but the arresting officer measured from the wrong location on the weapon. He also transposed a couple of numbers in the serial number and tha brought up the wepaon as stolen. He had voluntarily complied with the search.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 04:23:27 PM
Don't take it as an insult, but as a simple statement. The question at hand is whether or not one should allow a voluntary search of one's vehicle, even if one is unaware of the presence of anything illegal in it.

How did it come to pass that LEOs have so many laws concerning what they can and cannot do in the first place? If you were an infallible, always trustworthy, always law-abiding, and always well intentioned breed, we would have no needs of search and seizure laws, or really any laws at all constraining your actions.

Unfortunately, you're all human, and thus the people at large have seen that it is necessary to enact laws which protect themselve not only from criminals, but from those that we employ to protect us against the criminals as well.

This should not be taken as an insult, but a simple fact of your daily routine that the public at large does not give their trust completely and without reservation.

There's one law regarding search and seizure...it's the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The "laws" you're referring to are actually case law handed down by various courts...in other words, they're interpetations of the Fourth Amendment under different given scenarios. Such interpetations can come about even when the officer involved was correct in his actions (see Terry v. Ohio, where the officer's actions were ruled as proper under the Fourth Amendment). So, implying that the girth of case law is in place because of officer impropriety is incorrect too.

Insulted by your insinuations of not (I am, but quite franky I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it tonight), it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If the officer was unscruplious enough to lie about what he found during a consent search, then what makes you think that he wouldn't just say that the item was in plain view, arrest you for it, and search the vehicle incident to that arrest?

Assuming improriety makes the whole conversation pointless, as someone can easily skirt the law with knowledge and deception. You're smart enough to understand that, which indicates that you're just taking shots to take shots. If that's accurate, it's rather disappointing...this was becoming a productive and educational thread for people unfamiliar with their rights regarding search and seizure.

Asuming impropriety is a long ways from assuming the possibility of impropriety. Just as most traffic stops happen without incident, its the poor officer who doesn't take reasonable precautions in case the next traffic stop doesn't go so well, the flipside of that is that a prudent citizen would take reasonable precautions of the same type.

And yes, the fourth amendment is there quite simply because the people as a whole do not completely ( or did not as the case may be) trust their appointed officials (in this case, the federal government) with complete and unchecked authority. All the case law that stems from that is there simply to clarify what is and what is not reasonable. The unavoidable implication here is that the government, and agaents acting for that governemnt, are quite capable of being unreasonable.

And no, I'm not taking shots just to take shots.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 09:39:51 PM
Asuming impropriety is a long ways from assuming the possibility of impropriety. Just as most traffic stops happen without incident, its the poor officer who doesn't take reasonable precautions in case the next traffic stop doesn't go so well, the flipside of that is that a prudent citizen would take reasonable precautions of the same type.

And yes, the fourth amendment is there quite simply because the people as a whole do not completely ( or did not as the case may be) trust their appointed officials (in this case, the federal government) with complete and unchecked authority. All the case law that stems from that is there simply to clarify what is and what is not reasonable. The unavoidable implication here is that the government, and agaents acting for that governemnt, are quite capable of being unreasonable.

And no, I'm not taking shots just to take shots.

Then what's the point in this turn in the conversation? If an officer is willing to lie, then your rights under the Fourth Amendment...and whatever objectives, legally correct or not, you might voice to that officer on the scene...mean absolutely jack shit. You seem to be missing the simplest of points: refusing a consent search to prevent officer impropriety wouldn't work because an officer willing to act improperly wouldn't ask for consent.

I would also assume that this officer's "impropriety" could be exposed, and if the validity of the search can be called into question, it might be. However, if I voluntarily consent, that pretty much seals that deal.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 07, 2009, 10:44:52 PM
I would also assume that this officer's "impropriety" could be exposed, and if the validity of the search can be called into question, it might be. However, if I voluntarily consent, that pretty much seals that deal.

I'm going to give this one last shot and then I'm done with it. I can only bang my head into the wall for so long.

I'll give you two scenarios involving your corrupt police officer manipulating search and seizure and I'll let everybody else voice their opinion on which one would look better to a jury in a court of law. Assume that both scenarios spring from a valid traffic stop...

1. Officer approaches the car and, during contact with the driver, requests a consent to search. Driver consents. Off. Corrupt plants a bag of marijuana that he "finds" and charges the driver for. In court, the driver says, "That's not my pot. Why would I give the cop permission to search if I had pot in the car?"

2. Officer approaches the car, pulls out the driver, and charges him for a nonexistant bag of pot. In court, the officer says that he approached the car, smelled the distinct smell of burning marijuana and observed a clear plastic bag of leavy green material that later tested positive as marijuana. Driver testifies "That's not my pot! He planted it!"

Quote from: bing_oh on January 08, 2009, 08:22:53 AM
I'm going to give this one last shot and then I'm done with it. I can only bang my head into the wall for so long.

I'll give you two scenarios involving your corrupt police officer manipulating search and seizure and I'll let everybody else voice their opinion on which one would look better to a jury in a court of law. Assume that both scenarios spring from a valid traffic stop...

1. Officer approaches the car and, during contact with the driver, requests a consent to search. Driver consents. Off. Corrupt plants a bag of marijuana that he "finds" and charges the driver for. In court, the driver says, "That's not my pot. Why would I give the cop permission to search if I had pot in the car?"

2. Officer approaches the car, pulls out the driver, and charges him for a nonexistant bag of pot. In court, the officer says that he approached the car, smelled the distinct smell of burning marijuana and observed a clear plastic bag of leavy green material that later tested positive as marijuana. Driver testifies "That's not my pot! He planted it!"

Well, all i can say about that is, I'm not worried about pot.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 08, 2009, 03:10:22 PM
Well, all i can say about that is, I'm not worried about pot.

They're hyoptheticals and the contraband seized doesn't matter, but you already understand that. Now you're just intentionally avoiding the question because I've got ya backed into a corner.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 08, 2009, 05:27:37 PM
Now you're just intentionally avoiding the question because I've got ya backed into a corner.

No, I'm admitting you're right.







Schmuck.

;)

What wrong with pot. Everybody uses pots for cooking on the stove. Of course they could be a hazard in a vehicle.

Quote from: sparkplug on January 08, 2009, 08:13:12 PM
What wrong with pot. Everybody uses pots for cooking on the stove. Of course they could be a hazard in a vehicle.

:lol:

You're going to make your future teenage kids roll their eyes out of their heads.

The entire legal/justice system is contingent on "the law" being followed.  While you should be aware of your rights, you shouldn't assume any particular officer is out to get you during a traffic stop to the point where they'd plant evidence and put their career - if not their freedom - in jeopardy.

What would your average officer even gain from planting pot in your car during an average stop for speeding or some other mundane traffic infraction?

Quote from: TurboDan on January 09, 2009, 01:33:13 AM
The entire legal/justice system is contingent on "the law" being followed.  While you should be aware of your rights, you shouldn't assume any particular officer is out to get you during a traffic stop to the point where they'd plant evidence and put their career - if not their freedom - in jeopardy.

What would your average officer even gain from planting pot in your car during an average stop for speeding or some other mundane traffic infraction?

The same thing every dictator has had since the beginning of time.


Power.

Quote from: Minpin on January 09, 2009, 01:39:01 AM
The same thing every dictator has had since the beginning of time.


Power.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Minpin on January 09, 2009, 01:39:01 AM
The same thing every dictator has had since the beginning of time.


Power.

The power to do what?  Arrest you?  There are plenty of people out there committing crimes who are rightfully arrested every day, so I doubt many officers have any shortage of arrest experience.  Like I said, I just don't understand what a police officer would gain by risking his career and a possible criminal charge by randomly planting evidence during a traffic stop.

If you go around assuming every police officer is out to get you and is intent on planting evidence and putting you in jail, that's a terrible way to live. 

Quote from: TurboDan on January 09, 2009, 01:33:13 AM
The entire legal/justice system is contingent on "the law" being followed.  While you should be aware of your rights, you shouldn't assume any particular officer is out to get you during a traffic stop to the point where they'd plant evidence and put their career - if not their freedom - in jeopardy.

What would your average officer even gain from planting pot in your car during an average stop for speeding or some other mundane traffic infraction?

If an officer asks to search your car, or does a frisk for weapons, at that time, its well beyond an average traffic stop.

An officer who searches a car intending to use the claim that he "saw it in plain sight," but cannot actually produce anything that he found in a car might expose himself to disciplinary action.

I'm not saying its likely, I'm saying that its happened.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 09, 2009, 09:16:55 AM
The power to do what?  Arrest you?  There are plenty of people out there committing crimes who are rightfully arrested every day, so I doubt many officers have any shortage of arrest experience.  Like I said, I just don't understand what a police officer would gain by risking his career and a possible criminal charge by randomly planting evidence during a traffic stop.

If you go around assuming every police officer is out to get you and is intent on planting evidence and putting you in jail, that's a terrible way to live. 

The power to know they can control the fate of other people. Look im not saying every cop is bad, but there is a reason why a majority of people don't trust the police.

Quote from: Minpin on January 09, 2009, 05:01:49 PM
The power to know they can control the fate of other people. Look im not saying every cop is bad, but there is a reason why a majority of people don't trust the police.

You watch too much television.  The power to affect someones life isn't the ecstatic rush you seem to think it is.  It is very stressful and at times depressing.   

Quote from: Catman on January 09, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
You watch too much television.  The power to affect someones life isn't the ecstatic rush you seem to think it is.  It is very stressful and at times depressing.   

I don't have time for TV.


I do go to class too often though. If only I could get some real life experience...

Quote from: Minpin on January 09, 2009, 08:41:17 PM
I don't have time for TV.


I do go to class too often though. If only I could get some real life experience...

Eventually you will. 

I hope so.

Then I can come in here, post about something and it will be worth more than the single ply toilet paper the university gives me to wipe my chapped ass with.

Quote from: Minpin on January 09, 2009, 08:47:46 PM
I hope so.

Then I can come in here, post about something and it will be worth more than the single ply toilet paper the university gives me to wipe my chapped ass with.

LOL good one. :lol:

Quote from: Minpin on January 09, 2009, 05:01:49 PM
The power to know they can control the fate of other people. Look im not saying every cop is bad, but there is a reason why a majority of people don't trust the police.

I don't think it's true that a majority of people don't trust the police.

In all cases, trust is situational, and conditional.  It's not an either-or thing.  You must trust people in certain situations, or under certain conditions, but not others.

And I think that's how most law abiding people feel.  They trust the police for the most part, but believe that there need to be controls on any people who have the power of life and death over others.

"Trust" in the police no doubt varies widely among communities, and depends upon situations.  When you're speeding, you don't want to encounter the police; at that point in time, they're the enemy.  But for most law abiding people, the vast majority of the time, the police are their ally, and they see them that way.  At least I do, and that's the case with just about everybody that I know.  Nobody I know, that I can think of right now, is hostile to the police in general, even if they've had encounters in the past (generally traffic stops).

And if the police do step over the line with people who are actually part of the criminal element, how much do you think the average law-abiding person cares?  Not much.

I agree, Dave.  I also don't think individual police officers are "out to get" anyone on anything aside from a speeding ticket.  I don't see the reasoning and/or the benefit behind going to the lengths of planting evidence, tearing up peoples' upholstery, etc. for the mere "payoff" of arresting someone for "power."  Like I was saying before, there are plenty of people committing crimes that warrant arrests anyway, and plenty of people who actually are carrying drugs with them.

The most popular reason for people not "liking" police, I believe, isn't even the fact that they give out tickets.  It's the fact that police officers, themselves, exempt each other from the same limitations the public endures.  The PBA cards, shields in the window, etc. creates far more ill-will towards the police than any traffic stop ever would.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 10, 2009, 09:45:03 AM
I agree, Dave.  I also don't think individual police officers are "out to get" anyone on anything aside from a speeding ticket.  I don't see the reasoning and/or the benefit behind going to the lengths of planting evidence, tearing up peoples' upholstery, etc. for the mere "payoff" of arresting someone for "power."  Like I was saying before, there are plenty of people committing crimes that warrant arrests anyway, and plenty of people who actually are carrying drugs with them.

The most popular reason for people not "liking" police, I believe, isn't even the fact that they give out tickets.  It's the fact that police officers, themselves, exempt each other from the same limitations the public endures.  The PBA cards, shields in the window, etc. creates far more ill-will towards the police than any traffic stop ever would.

Yes, it's the idea of being a chump.  Many people wouldn't mind taking their lumps for traffic violations if they didn't think that others doing the same thing were getting away scot-free because of the PBA cards, shields, etc.

Quote from: Tave on January 05, 2009, 05:41:18 PM
No one expects an officer to give up on a chase when the guy is making a break from jail. :rolleyes: C'mon...

No- you only get to see PART of the newscast-  the officer that started this chase did so because a random guy gave him an odd look- he followed and tries to stop him for a minor traffic violation- something good officers do dozens of times a day - try to detect criminal activity..  After the chase has already started he gives dispatch the plate and they run it- it comes back stolen----- they thought he was a escapee they didn't even know from what county.  But then again you know everything so0oooooo......

 

Quote from: sparkplug on January 05, 2009, 05:33:36 PM
So is that why you stop little old ladies and write them tickets. Because they're easy to catch, huh? We know now!!!!

On occasion you just need the adrenaline rush of a good police chase, right? You big squealer. What do you have to say for yourself and don't tell me Oink.

You do realize that everyone is required to follow the law- right? 

Quote from: TurboDan on January 04, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
The problem with the "funny look" thing is that an officer who pursues someone will probably have a lot of the resulting charges dropped due to lack of probable cause.  Giving a cop a "funny look" is not grounds for pursuit or a traffic stop, legally.

When we get funny looks sometimes that's all we need depending on the whole picture- time of day- area- type of vehicle and occupants (scumbags in million dollar home area) etc.  Reasonable Suspicion that crime is afoot is all we sometimes need- if the officer can't articulate that we have to come up with a legal reason to stop a car- and I have a book call the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code that is over 500 pages on why and how to operate a car in Michigan.  Pretty sure I can think of one legal reason even if it is just to check your VIN or do a tire inspection- it's call pre-text stop and it's perfectly legal.

Quote from: Tave on January 06, 2009, 01:14:15 PM
I would make him get a warrant every time.

We don't need a warrant a good many times when someone refuses for a car.  You might want to find out what you're talking about before you just type whatever comes to your mind.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 06, 2009, 11:03:11 PM
3. You wouldn't be "waiting on the side of the road" for a K9 to arrive any longer than it takes the officer to finish his business directly related to the stop. The courts have ruled that a motorist can't be held longer to wait for a K9 to arrive than is necessary to complete the stop. By the way, a K9 walk around isn't a search and you can't stop an officer from doing one.

Not entirely accurate bing- they've said "reasonable time" and used 20-30 minutes as reasonable.  If the dog happens to be 35 minutes away and is enroute "due dilligence" applies to the case is becomes the measure of reasonable.
Otherwise good post.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 07, 2009, 03:43:56 PM
Comeon, Soup. We were having a civil discussion, here. If you want to debate Coug's opinion, then do it. Don't just make smartass one-liners.

Besides, Coug's opinion holds merit. Maybe other officers are different, but I don't just ask for permission to search at random. I always have a reason for asking.

I almost always asked to search on every stop- I've only ever had very few guys refuse and we always got a hit with the dog.  It's pretty easy to explain that practice in court-

"Officer how many people do you ask to search their cars?"
"Almost everyone I stop." 
"Why?"
"Because the law allows me to ask."

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 07:16:58 AM
I almost always asked to search on every stop- I've only ever had very few guys refuse and we always got a hit with the dog.  It's pretty easy to explain that practice in court-

"Officer how many people do you ask to search their cars?"
"Almost everyone I stop." 
"Why?"
"Because the law allows me to ask."

You must be one of those scary cops, Randy..... :lol:  I probably wouldn't really mind getting my car searched, since I don't have anything to hide.  I subscribed strongly to the 'one illegal thing at a time' rule, so if I plan on speeding, I make sure everything else is in order..... :lol:

But I've never had an officer ask to search my car.  Probably because I appear so innocent.  Officers are pretty good at profiling people, and I don't think I fit the profile of somebody who is engaged in criminal activity other than minor traffic violations.  I never did.

I imagine there are differences in how extensively you search cars.  Do you do just perfunctory searches on some, and more extensive ones on others, where you have more suspicions?

In all honesty dazzle if someone said yes I usually just kinda looked a little here and there- it was mostly to see what they'ld say and how they acted.  And yes I guess I was probably a pretty intense street cop compared to what most of you guys are used to but look where I learned to be one- if you weren't doing you job for real you were just a KIA waiting to happen.  I guess the difference is that quite alot ot othe time when we just looked around in the cars we found the drugs and guns- sometimes I forget the rest of the country isn't like my world.

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 07:41:37 AM
In all honesty dazzle if someone said yes I usually just kinda looked a little here and there- it was mostly to see what they'ld say and how they acted.  And yes I guess I was probably a pretty intense street cop compared to what most of you guys are used to but look where I learned to be one- if you weren't doing you job for real you were just a KIA waiting to happen.  I guess the difference is that quite alot ot othe time when we just looked around in the cars we found the drugs and guns- sometimes I forget the rest of the country isn't like my world.

You were a cop in Detroit, right?  That definitely explains the difference.  You have to be a lot more aggressive there.

I've never been pulled over in a place like that.  My main "crime" is speeding, and crowded urban hellholes don't lend themselves to that.  I also tend to avoid those areas more and more as the years go by.  I could be 'profiled' in an area like that as a drug buyer if a cop spotted me, but it just never happened (and I'm not a drug buyer).

I've been pulled over in the placid suburban areas where I have always lived.  Cops there tend to be more laid back, even friendly, especially with people who live in the area.  Even if they give you a ticket, they're nice about it usually.  When I was younger and got pulled over, the cop who ticketed me called me by my first name, and generally treated me like a younger brother who needed a gentle correction.

And even if a tough street cop from a place like Detroit were to pull me over, they'd see right away that I'm not anything like their typical 'clientele.'

Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2009, 07:47:00 AM
You were a cop in Detroit, right?  That definitely explains the difference.  You have to be a lot more aggressive there.

Yes for 11 years.  Tony did it for 15 I think.  We both left within a year of eachother.  And it's not hard to speed in those areas- in fact speeding is as common there as anywhere except in downtown areas and still pretty common there to. 

When we were trained - my training officer was Tony- we were taught
1) Expect to kill someone today.
2) A good cop never gets cold wet or hungry.

well that was what he told me a good cop should know but these are the rules he taught me about being a cop
a) protect your partner
b) protect yourself
c) a lazy cop is a dead cop just waiting to get dead
d) assume everyone wants to kill you. 

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 08:14:03 AM
Yes for 11 years.  Tony did it for 15 I think.  We both left within a year of eachother.  And it's not hard to speed in those areas- in fact speeding is as common there as anywhere except in downtown areas and still pretty common there to. 

When we were trained - my training officer was Tony- we were taught
1) Expect to kill someone today.
2) A good cop never gets cold wet or hungry.

well that was what he told me a good cop should know but these are the rules he taught me about being a cop
a) protect your partner
b) protect yourself
c) a lazy cop is a dead cop just waiting to get dead
d) assume everyone wants to kill you. 

Now that's a tough environment.

My uncle was a prison guard for his whole career, and I guess that could be even worse.  Even in Detroit, there's a least a small chance that you'll encounter a decent person.  In prison, there's no chance.

I'm glad you got out of that hellhole.  I would imagine that after a number of years of that, you could develop a form of traumatic stress syndrome.  It has to be a lot like being in war all the time.

Suburban cops have it much easier, by comparison.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2009, 08:20:48 AM
Now that's a tough environment.

My uncle was a prison guard for his whole career, and I guess that could be even worse.  Even in Detroit, there's a least a small chance that you'll encounter a decent person.  In prison, there's no chance.

I'm glad you got out of that hellhole.  I would imagine that after a number of years of that, you could develop a form of traumatic stress syndrome.  It has to be a lot like being in war all the time.

Suburban cops have it much easier, by comparison.

Even in Detroit's worst areas most of the people are good people- just poor.  but they're not the one's you really deal with most of the time unless they're victims.  Tony used to say that only in Detroit do the good guys really stand out- but I think that's probably true of anywhere that's like Detroit- Philly LA NY Atlanta and so on.  It's a hellhole- for sure - but it's also home so you know you get used to it.  I can't believe now the things I think about us actually getting involved in and we just thought it was normal- the fights - being shot at most nights- the trash- the crime- and the worst was the corruption.  It all just seemed so normal back then.  And yah there's lots of good cops there who're just emotional walking wounded- it's sad to because no-one in the city administration cares about anything other than what they can get for themselves. 

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 07:10:33 AM
We don't need a warrant a good many times when someone refuses for a car.  You might want to find out what you're talking about before you just type whatever comes to your mind.

Jesus you're pissy today.


If the officer doesn't need a warrant to search my car, what I will or will not allow doesn't make a fucking difference.


I will make him get a warrant every time he needs one. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious.




You don't need a warrant if they refuse? No, you said yourself you use a canine to get a hit if they refuse. Which leads me to believe if the canine doesn't hit, you'll still need a warrant or something else.

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 09:52:50 AM
You don't need a warrant if they refuse? No, you said yourself you use a canine to get a hit if they refuse. Which leads me to believe if the canine doesn't hit, you'll still need a warrant or something else.

I may be pissy- but your wrong. 

Warrantless search exceptions- get educated.

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 10:28:49 AM
Warrantless search exceptions- get educated.

Can you read?

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 09:52:50 AM
If the officer doesn't need a warrant to search my car, what I will or will not allow doesn't make a fucking difference.


I will make him get a warrant every time he needs one.

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 10:32:29 AM

Can you read?

Yes tave- cut and paste the part of your response you chose instead of answering the part I actually quoted.  Good for you!   :ohyeah:

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 10:36:38 AM
Yes tave- cut and paste your response instead of answering the part I actually quoted.  Good for you!   :ohyeah:

I'm confused what you thought I meant by "something else:"

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 09:52:50 AM
Which leads me to believe if the canine doesn't hit, you'll still need a warrant or something else.

i.e., an exception :nutty:


That part of my post was in response to this:

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 07:16:58 AM
I almost always asked to search on every stop- I've only ever had very few guys refuse and we always got a hit with the dog.  It's pretty easy to explain that practice in court-

"Officer how many people do you ask to search their cars?"
"Almost everyone I stop." 
"Why?"
"Because the law allows me to ask."

and this:

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 07:10:33 AM
We don't need a warrant a good many times when someone refuses for a car.  You might want to find out what you're talking about before you just type whatever comes to your mind.

If you don't need a warrant, you need SOMETHING. If you already have that something, then you don't need the warrant.



For the record, my car has been searched twice and I agreed to both of them, because I knew the officers had cause to search it. If they have that, THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO TO STOP THEM.





So, I must assume that you thought I originally said,


"I would make them get a warrant every time, even if they don't need a warrant." :loopy:

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 10:46:21 AM
I'm confused what you thought I meant by "something else:"


i.e., an exception

I'm guessing if you'lda meant that- you'lda written that. But whatever. 

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 10:56:13 AM
I'm guessing if you'lda meant that- you'lda written that. But whatever. 

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman. :huh:


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 11:10:24 AM

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman. :huh:


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

You'll probably know after you take the relevant class in law school.

A lot of these "Driving and the Law" threads seem to descend into nitpicking, and it isn't just the LEOs who bring things to that level. 

I wish somebody would get a ticket so we can joke about that in this section of the board, rather than have all the nitpicking about law and physics, etc.  :lol:

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 11:10:24 AM

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman. :huh:


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

Nitpicking on details is all they got.
Good luck trying to discuss broader philosohical issues with them.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2009, 11:13:28 AM
A lot of these "Driving and the Law" threads seem to descend into nitpicking, and it isn't just the LEOs who bring things to that level. 

That's probably true too.

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 11:10:24 AM

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman. :huh:


You, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

What do you expect? The vast majority of people have it wrong on their "rights" and general things LE - just look at this thread.

Quote from: Tave on January 11, 2009, 11:10:24 AM

Well fuck man, I'm sorry I don't know police jargon as well as you. I'm not a policeman. :huh:

Well it's not jargon- it's legal language used by the Supreme Court.  Jargon would be like me telling you I'm filling out a "UD-10" filling out a 53-10 or picking up my kellight.  Proper legal wording isn't something you guys would let us slip on- so maybe I took it a little personally.

QuoteYou, Houddog, and Bing-Oh tend to nitpick at people who post in this section of the forum. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, but the rest of the board is never going to be as familiar with the material as you are. I have the feeling that sometimes, it would be a lot more productive if all of you would just take it easy and try not to get caught up in the specific details. I'm sorry I didn't know the legal speak for "warrantless search exceptions" and used a vague term in place of it. I think if you had looked at my posts objectively, you would have recognized that I had a decent grasp of the general idea.

Being a police officer is all about the details.  The details can change both the flow of the incident (in court or on scene) and can completely change the meaning of a law or interpretation by police - prosecutors and juries.  We HAVE to nitpick as part of what we do and who we are- and our jobs become who we are to a point.  Not always a good point but just the way it is.  By the same token you guys come down on us for all kinds of things you see because you're nitpicking us- that road runs both ways- 

Sorry for the misunderstanding - but you were wrong.   :evildude: :lol:

Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2009, 11:19:04 AM
What do you expect? The vast majority of people have it wrong on their "rights" and general things LE - just look at this thread.

These discussions always seem to turn into a dialogue of the deaf, especially when James Young gets involved.  At that point, I just stop reading.

It's good that you point out the technicalities of what rights people really have, versus what they think they have.  If they listen, it may actually help them when they get into a situation where that knowledge is required.

I've actually never been totally clear on the repercussions of declining to allow a voluntary search.  I know about the whole 'in plain sight' ruling that if something suspicious is in plain sight, it gives the officer probable cause to do a larger search (and forgive me if I'm using the wrong technical terms here).  But if an officer is simply suspicious about something, based on instinct, and asks to do a search and I say no, what actually happens?

No you got the terms right dazzle. 

And sometimes I do get upset but it's like you pointed out most of the guys here are exactly like the rest of the public- they think they know their rights and very few of them really do.  Sometimes that's because some rights change from state to state.

If the officer doesn't have any exceptions to fall back on the best he can do without probable cause is to get a k-9.  But if he has a valid reason- permission or not- he can search.  Most of us will ask first even if we have an exception (except for search incident to arrest and then we don't care what you want) or other probable cause just because it makes it easier- if they say no we just tell them to get out anyway and explain it when we're done. 

The one thing I can't say strongly enough- the public thinks they know their rights the police know what those rights are.  If you want to know what your rights are take a class or read a book!  And that's not meant as mean either.

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 11:34:07 AM

The one thing I can't say strongly enough- the public thinks they know their rights the police know what those rights are.  If you want to know what your rights are take a class or read a book!  And that's not meant as mean either.

The depends on what your definition of a right is...

Quote from: rohan on January 11, 2009, 07:16:58 AM
I almost always asked to search on every stop- I've only ever had very few guys refuse and we always got a hit with the dog.  It's pretty easy to explain that practice in court-

"Officer how many people do you ask to search their cars?"
"Almost everyone I stop." 
"Why?"
"Because the law allows me to ask."

Not in MA

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 11, 2009, 04:15:29 PM
The depends on what your definition of a right is...

Your rights are those protections afforded to you within the US Constitution and how they are interpeted by the judicial system. Pretty sure that definition is the same for everybody.

As for knowledge of individual rights, I can say confidently that some people could recite the Bill of Rights for me. A few of them could tell me what the courts have ruled on them. An extreme minority could tell me how those court ruling apply to your rights in the real world. A good cop can tell you all of those things, because we have to apply them every day and doing it wrong will get you fired and sued.

Many of you guys should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231875321&sr=8-1

Quote from: Lebowski on January 13, 2009, 12:36:07 PM
Many of you guys should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231875321&sr=8-1

Ah, yes, with such sage advice as, "Keep your dope at home," it's a winner.

Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2009, 01:05:35 PM
Ah, yes, with such sage advice as, "Keep your dope at home," it's a winner.

:huh:

I never said reading it was tantamount to getting a law degree, but it does explain the basics pertaining to a legal search of a home or vehicle, and from the comments in this thread many here apparently don't know the facts.  I imagine it varies somewhat from state to state, but I live in the same state as the author.

As for keeping your weed in the car, there are thousands upon thousands of people in this country too stupid to figure out as much on their own. 

How about simply, "Don't do dope?"

Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2009, 03:11:04 PM
How about simply, "Don't do dope?"

You should try that one - I bet you'll sell a lot of books.


Perhaps you can follow it up with an even more lucrative sequel, entitled "Don't speed".

Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2009, 11:13:28 AM
I wish somebody would get a ticket so we can joke about that in this section of the board, rather than have all the nitpicking about law and physics, etc.  :lol:

I'm willing to get one if you're willing to pay for it. :lol:

Quote from: hotrodalex on January 13, 2009, 06:48:38 PM
I'm willing to get one if you're willing to pay for it. :lol:

As long as it's under $200, it's not a problem.... :evildude:

I couldn't let police search my car. I've might have donuts which they'll confiscate as contraband.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 13, 2009, 08:03:07 PM
As long as it's under $200, it's not a problem.... :evildude:

Seriously? I'll be back in a hour. :lol:

Quote from: Lebowski on January 13, 2009, 12:36:07 PM
Many of you guys should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231875321&sr=8-1

Written by a former FBI agent and criminal defense lawyer. :rolleyes: I'd recommend taking a class in criminal law at your local community college.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 13, 2009, 10:49:30 PM
Written by a former FBI agent and criminal defense lawyer. :rolleyes: I'd recommend taking a class in criminal law at your local community college.

What's wrong w/ criminal defense lawyers?  :lol:

The suggestion to take a criminal law course is a good one, I may look into that at some point.

Quote from: Lebowski on January 14, 2009, 08:25:04 AM
What's wrong w/ criminal defense lawyers?  :lol:

The suggestion to take a criminal law course is a good one, I may look into that at some point.

I was rolling my eyes at the fact he was a former FBI agent... :lol:

I'm sure he has plenty of book knowledge...and maybe even a little practical experience...in application of the law. But, as an FBI agent, he's probably lacking in the street experience of the average road cop...the FBI is just a different kind of LE. As for being a defense lawyer, I can't count the number of time a lawyer has convinced me to throw his client into jail through bad advice. Sometimes, they just try to be too smart for their own good and it bites their clients in the ass.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 12, 2009, 12:59:41 AM
Your rights are those protections afforded to you within the US Constitution and how they are interpeted by the judicial system.

No, the rights enumerated (not afforded by the constitution and the BOR pre-existed the constitution, or any legal document for that matter) by the Bill of Rights are simply expressions of what was already there.

Does this sound familiar, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

I trust it does. Rights do not flow from the government, they are intrinsic. Whether or not the right to free speech is "afforded" me by the bill of rights is a moot point: it is my right. Were the Bill of rights to be negated tomorrow, it would be the law that became unjust, it would not remove any of my natural rights, and I would be within those natural rights to withold my consent to be governed.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 08:46:31 PM
No, the rights enumerated (not afforded by the constitution and the BOR pre-existed the constitution, or any legal document for that matter) by the Bill of Rights are simply expressions of what was already there.

Does this sound familiar, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

I trust it does. Rights do not flow from the government, they are intrinsic. Whether or not the right to free speech is "afforded" me by the bill of rights is a moot point: it is my right. Were the Bill of rights to be negated tomorrow, it would be the law that became unjust, it would not remove any of my natural rights, and I would be within those natural rights to withold my consent to be governed.

Firstly, the Bill of Rights are not necessarily considered intrinsic rights of all men. The Constitution specifically says that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights. The Amendments...including the Bill of Rights...are additions or alterations to the original Constitution. Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights was not originally included in the US Constitution and, therefore, it can be argued that the "unalienable rights" referred to in the preamble are not referring to the Amendments that were later added.

Also, any Amendment to the US Constitution could, technically, be legally removed. Removing one of the first 10 Amendments is nearly unfathomable, but still technically possible.

Finally, it's not your right as an individual to decide if the law violates your individual unalienable rights nor is it your right to withold your consent to be governed. To assume that every individual person has that right would be to destroy the foundation of the nation in which we live, essentially creating anarchy. Those powers are only afforded to the People as a collective, not the person as an individual.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 14, 2009, 09:09:10 PM
Firstly, the Bill of Rights are not necessarily considered intrinsic rights of all men. The Constitution specifically says that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights. The Amendments...including the Bill of Rights...are additions or alterations to the original Constitution. Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights was not originally included in the US Constitution and, therefore, it can be argued that the "unalienable rights" referred to in the preamble are not referring to the Amendments that were later added.

Also, any Amendment to the US Constitution could, technically, be legally removed. Removing one of the first 10 Amendments is nearly unfathomable, but still technically possible.

Finally, it's not your right as an individual to decide if the law violates your individual unalienable rights nor is it your right to withold your consent to be governed. To assume that every individual person has that right would be to destroy the foundation of the nation in which we live, essentially creating anarchy. Those powers are only afforded to the People as a collective, not the person as an individual.

That was the declaration of independance.

Anyways, read up on the conditional ratification of the constitution, and throw in a few of the anti-federalist letters. That may very well change your outlook on the subject. While this view is no really reflected in current case law, more than a couple of Supreme Court Justices over the years have agreed with it.

In any case, all government comes down to personal consent. Without the individual, there is no collective. The will of the majority does not negate the rights of the minority, or as Ben Franklin more succinctly put it, "Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Two of the most oft ignored amendments in the bill of rights also support my view:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

That is: there are rights retained by the people even if they are not enumerated in the bill of rights, and the federal government has no powers outside of those granted it specifically by the constitution. Obviously, a literal reading of either of these amendments opens a legal can of worms these days. (where, for instance, does the constitution allow for the setting of a minimum wage?)

Quote from: bing_oh on January 14, 2009, 08:17:28 PM
I was rolling my eyes at the fact he was a former FBI agent... :lol:

I'm sure he has plenty of book knowledge...and maybe even a little practical experience...in application of the law. But, as an FBI agent, he's probably lacking in the street experience of the average road cop...the FBI is just a different kind of LE. As for being a defense lawyer, I can't count the number of time a lawyer has convinced me to throw his client into jail through bad advice. Sometimes, they just try to be too smart for their own good and it bites their clients in the ass.

It's not a great book, but it does explain the basics of the law such as searching a vehicle vs. a home etc.  It's stuff the average person may not know, but at the same time it's a quick/easy read (it's what I categorize as "shitter reading" ... not something you read cover to cover, simply flipping through it during 4 or 5 good sized dumps is enough to get through the good information in the book).

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 09:15:39 PMIn any case, all government comes down to personal consent. Without the individual, there is no collective. The will of the majority does not negate the rights of the minority, or as Ben Franklin more succinctly put it, "Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

While it's true that there is no collective without the individual, that does not make the opinion of the individual equal to that of the collective. You seem to be taking the personal consent to be governed a step too far. You live within this nation and, by doing so, consent to be governed by its laws. You cannot simply say that you don't agree with a choice of the majority and refuse to consent to be governed and still live within the society. You either work to change the opinion of the People or you find another society that better fits your personal opinion.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 09:15:39 PM
That was the declaration of independance.

Anyways, read up on the conditional ratification of the constitution, and throw in a few of the anti-federalist letters. That may very well change your outlook on the subject. While this view is no really reflected in current case law, more than a couple of Supreme Court Justices over the years have agreed with it.

In any case, all government comes down to personal consent. Without the individual, there is no collective. The will of the majority does not negate the rights of the minority, or as Ben Franklin more succinctly put it, "Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

I have to believe that Bing is more right than wrong, as are you. 

But, I do believe you are over-simplifying what his post intends. 

All he is saying is that only a very few rights are basic human rights, the rest are granted "by the people."  I agree completely with him on this part.  He is also saying that the individual cannot chose to be governed because he feels that is his right, when in fact it is not. 

Also, let us not forget that Ben Franklin was also an owner of slaves and frequently used them for more than "field work" so I am not willing to place him on such a pedestal. 

"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." 

Quote from: bing_oh on January 14, 2009, 09:31:26 PM
While it's true that there is no collective without the individual, that does not make the opinion of the individual equal to that of the collective. You seem to be taking the personal consent to be governed a step too far. You live within this nation and, by doing so, consent to be governed by its laws. You cannot simply say that you don't agree with a choice of the majority and refuse to consent to be governed and still live within the society. You either work to change the opinion of the People or you find another society that better fits your personal opinion.

People do it everyday. Most of the time, we call them criminals. Most of the time, that's the correct way to look at them. Sometimes, another term is more appropriate.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 14, 2009, 09:31:26 PM
While it's true that there is no collective without the individual, that does not make the opinion of the individual equal to that of the collective. You seem to be taking the personal consent to be governed a step too far. You live within this nation and, by doing so, consent to be governed by its laws. You cannot simply say that you don't agree with a choice of the majority and refuse to consent to be governed and still live within the society. You either work to change the opinion of the People or you find another society that better fits your personal opinion.

:ohyeah:  Great post.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 09:34:59 PM
People do it everyday. Most of the time, we call them criminals. Most of the time, that's the correct way to look at them. Sometimes, another term is more appropriate.

Sniper target?  :huh:

Quote from: Lebowski on January 14, 2009, 09:23:00 PM
It's not a great book, but it does explain the basics of the law such as searching a vehicle vs. a home etc.  It's stuff the average person may not know, but at the same time it's a quick/easy read (it's what I categorize as "shitter reading" ... not something you read cover to cover, simply flipping through it during 4 or 5 good sized dumps is enough to get through the good information in the book).

One of the biggest problems as an average person with reading about a subject that isn't common knowledge is whether or not the information you're getting is accurate or not. When it comes to something as important as individual rights, I'd just be suspicious of a book packaged like that.

Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2009, 09:36:50 PM
Sniper target?  :huh:

:clap:

Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2009, 09:34:15 PM
I have to believe that Bing is more right than wrong, as are you. 

But, I do believe you are over-simplifying what his post intends. 

All he is saying is that only a very few rights are basic human rights, the rest are granted "by the people."  I agree completely with him on this part.  He is also saying that the individual cannot chose to be governed because he feels that is his right, when in fact it is not. 

Also, let us not forget that Ben Franklin was also an owner of slaves and frequently used them for more than "field work" so I am not willing to place him on such a pedestal. 

"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." 

Ok, only a few basic rights are human rights.

Can we take it that life is one of those? That's at least clearly stated enough, isn't it? What value does a right to life have, if I do not have the right to support it, to defend it, to live it as I will as long as i don't infringe on the rights of others?

What is the right to life withoput the right to property? A  man cannot sustain his own life whilst standing naked in the wilderness. He needs clothing, shelter, food. Therefore, he has the right to obtain those things and to retain those things, for to deny him that right is to deny him the means to sustaining life.

All men choose whether or not to be governed. Whether you consider it his right or not, its a fact. You and I have both chosen to be governed, perhaps for different reasons. perhaps it is simply that we do not find our governemnt unctuous enough to refuse, perhaps we believe it does us good, perhaps we are simply unwilling to pay of throwing off the yoke.

These choices are relatively easy to make here, because we have one of the fairest and most just governments in existence. If that was not the case, if we chanced to live in Nazi era germany or Stalinist Russia, would we or would we not have that same right; regardless of the opinion of the majority? Did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto not have the right to shoot the bastards simply because the majority would have allowed them to be burned?

Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2009, 09:36:50 PM
Sniper target?  :huh:

You mean like Vicki Weaver?

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 09:44:21 PM
Ok, only a few basic rights are human rights.

Can we take it that life is one of those? That's at least clearly stated enough, isn't it? What value does a right to life have, if I do not have the right to support it, to defend it, to live it as I will as long as i don't infringe on the rights of others?

What is the right to life withoput the right to property? A  man cannot sustain his own life whilst standing naked in the wilderness. He needs clothing, shelter, food. Therefore, he has the right to obtain those things and to retain those things, for to deny him that right is to deny him the means to sustaining life.

There is zero right to property, as this is a land of opportunity, the closest qualifying right would be the pursiut of happiness.  But, that would only apply if property would make you happy.   But I digress, there are no rights to food, shelter or clothes.  There is, of course, the right to pusue those things.  In our society nothing of the kind is guaranteed, or at least it SHOULD NOT be.

QuoteAll men choose whether or not to be governed. Whether you consider it his right or not, its a fact. You and I have both chosen to be governed, perhaps for different reasons. perhaps it is simply that we do not find our governemnt unctuous enough to refuse, perhaps we believe it does us good, perhaps we are simply unwilling to pay of throwing off the yoke.

These choices are relatively easy to make here, because we have one of the fairest and most just governments in existence. If that was not the case, if we chanced to live in Nazi era germany or Stalinist Russia, would we or would we not have that same right; regardless of the opinion of the majority? Did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto not have the right to shoot the bastards simply because the majority would have allowed them to be burned?

We are NOT talking about Germany or Russia, we are talking about the United States.  Muddying the water with the mention of them is just plain pandering to emotions and not actually making a coherent argument. 

Of course there are people whom have chosen not to be governed, they are criminals.  And, in this society, criminals cannot be tolerated as their very existance violates the tennants of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and by extention, our rights. 

But, and this is a big but, the government MUST act with OUR  best interests at heart.  Something it has not done in an overall manner in roughly 75 years.

Quote from: hounddog on January 14, 2009, 09:56:18 PM
There is zero right to property, as this is a land of opportunity, the closest qualifying right would be the pursiut of happiness.  But, that would only apply if property would make you happy.   But I digress, there are no rights to food, shelter or clothes.  There is, of course, the right to pusue those things.  In our society nothing of the kind is guaranteed, or at least it SHOULD NOT be.
We are NOT talking about Germany or Russia, we are talking about the United States.  Muddying the water with the mention of them is just plain pandering to emotions and not actually making a coherent argument. 

Of course there are people whom have chosen not to be governed, they are criminals.  And, in this society, criminals cannot be tolerated as their very existance violates the tennants of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and by extention, our rights. 

But, and this is a big but, the government MUST act with OUR  best interests at heart.  Something it has not done in an overall manner in roughly 75 years.

You're right: I should have said "The pursuit of property, or the right to keep one's property," but again, I'm pretty sure you knew that. To quote myself "Therefore, he has the right to obtain those things and to retain those things."

No, I was not talking about exclusive American rights. "All Men," not "all US citizens in good standing." Notice I mentioned several time the intrinsic ature of these rights, and realize, that at the time the declaration of independance was written, there was no such thing as the "United States of America." The point is that governments; and yes, even our own government is capable of things that violate every basic right we have.

It just so happens is that the BOR is the best and most powerful enumeration of some of those rights. (and not by its own admission in the 9th amendment, all of them)


"..very existance violates the tennants of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and by extention, our rights"

A good turn of phrase, I like it. But, I would ask, what does that mean if it is our own government which does those things? What are our rights when the government violates the tennants of the declaration of independance, or the constitution, or the bill of rights? Have these things happened in our history? Have they happened more than once? Could they happen in the future?

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 10:36:50 PMA good turn of phrase, I like it. But, I would ask, what does that mean if it is our own government which does those things? What are our rights when the government violates the tennants of the declaration of independance, or the constitution, or the bill of rights? Have these things happened in our history? Have they happened more than once? Could they happen in the future?

For the individual, our governmental system has been set up with just such instances in mind. The US Supreme Court is created exclusively to preside over allegations of violations of the rights within the US Constitution.

If you're talking about an extreme example, well, the Declaration of Independence says "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...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."

Of course, once again, it states "the People," indicating a decision of the collective not of the individual. And, the Declaration also says that long-established governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

Quote from: bing_oh on January 14, 2009, 10:48:41 PM
For the individual, our governmental system has been set up with just such instances in mind. The US Supreme Court is created exclusively to preside over allegations of violations of the rights within the US Constitution.

If you're talking about an extreme example, well, the Declaration of Independence says "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...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."

Of course, once again, it states "the People," indicating a decision of the collective not of the individual. And, the Declaration also says that long-established governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

Of course I'm talking about an extreme case.

But, since you were kind enough to mention both the SCOTUS and the phrase "the People;"

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No substantive argument that I know of has ever held the opinion that the "People" mentioned in the first amendment conferred a collective right only, or that the right to petition for grievances had to constitute a majority of anything. It is , and always has been considered an indvidual right.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Heller vs. DC recently confirmed that the people mentioned here are the same people mentioned in the first amendment. Why it took so long to do so, I have no idea, but it is clear that here also the phrase "the people" confers an individual, and not a collective right.

Amendment IV
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.

Again the same wording, again, you would not argue that this is a collective right only, would you?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Is there any reason at all to believe that "the people" mentioned in amendments one, two, and four are a different people than the ones mentioned in nine and ten? Is it a different "people" mentioned in the declaration of independance? In fact, are there any rights in any of the documents mentioned which are conferred solely upon the collective and denied the individual?

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 11:14:36 PMIs there any reason at all to believe that "the people" mentioned in amendments one, two, and four are a different people than the ones mentioned in nine and ten? Is it a different "people" mentioned in the declaration of independance? In fact, are there any rights in any of the documents mentioned which are conferred solely upon the collective and denied the individual?

I don't recall anyone saying that the rights afforded in the Constitution weren't intended for individuals. Nor do I see how this has any bearing on the conversation we're having.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 14, 2009, 10:48:41 PM

Of course, once again, it states "the People," indicating a decision of the collective not of the individual. And, the Declaration also says that long-established governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

Quote from: bing_oh on January 15, 2009, 12:20:58 AM
I don't recall anyone saying that the rights afforded in the Constitution weren't intended for individuals. Nor do I see how this has any bearing on the conversation we're having.

We were talking about the definition of a right, I believe. You said that rights were granted by the constitution and the bill of rights. I said they were intrinsic, universal, and predated those austere documents, which is a view backed up by the text of the bill of rights and the declaration of independance, if not current case law.

You said the term "the people" applied only to the collective. I said that there is no right held by the collective that is not held by the individual.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 15, 2009, 01:07:19 AM
We were talking about the definition of a right, I believe. You said that rights were granted by the constitution and the bill of rights. I said they were intrinsic, universal, and predated those austere documents, which is a view backed up by the text of the bill of rights and the declaration of independance, if not current case law.

You said the term "the people" applied only to the collective. I said that there is no right held by the collective that is not held by the individual.

I never said that "the people" only applied to the collective and not the individual. I said that there were instances where "the people" referred to the collective and there were rights (like the decision to disband a government) that belonged the collective rather than the individual.

Anyone ever read On Civil Disobedience?

Quote from: Tave on January 15, 2009, 12:38:03 PM
Anyone ever read On Civil Disobedience?

YEARS ago.  Don't know it well enough to have a fun discussion on it.  Need to read again...

Basically he argues that individuals have a duty to nonviolently resist government they don't believe in, because a nation needs men of conscience. Martin Luther King Jr was a big believer in Thoreau and his ideas, as was Ghandi.

Quote from: Tave on January 15, 2009, 01:16:26 PM
Basically he argues that individuals have a duty to nonviolently resist government they don't believe in, because a nation needs men of conscience. Martin Luther King Jr was a big believer in Thoreau and his ideas, as was Ghandi.

I remember that overarching point...wasn't Thoreau also the first guy to say "government which governs best governs least"? 

I'm not sure. That sounds like him.

This thread makes me glad I didn't go to law school.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 14, 2009, 08:46:31 PM
No, the rights enumerated (not afforded by the constitution and the BOR pre-existed the constitution, or any legal document for that matter) by the Bill of Rights are simply expressions of what was already there.

Does this sound familiar, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

I trust it does. Rights do not flow from the government, they are intrinsic. Whether or not the right to free speech is "afforded" me by the bill of rights is a moot point: it is my right. Were the Bill of rights to be negated tomorrow, it would be the law that became unjust, it would not remove any of my natural rights, and I would be within those natural rights to withold my consent to be governed.

And therein lies part of the reason why Australia does not have a constitutionally-guaranteed Bill of Rights.

Quote from: omicron on January 16, 2009, 08:51:26 AM
And therein lies part of the reason why Australia does not have a constitutionally-guaranteed Bill of Rights.

Your fair country is also not the result of an armed insurrection. But, my point was and has been that regardless of what guarantees your government may or may not give you, all men have intrinsic rights.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 16, 2009, 03:04:37 PM
Your fair country is also not the result of an armed insurrection. But, my point was and has been that regardless of what guarantees your government may or may not give you, all men have intrinsic rights.

Yeah, but you can't just open up all the prison gates and say "play nice".  I'm sure Australia has its own troubles.

Quote from: Raza  on January 16, 2009, 06:17:17 PM
Yeah, but you can't just open up all the prison gates and say "play nice".  I'm sure Australia has its own troubles.

Lots of them.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2009, 01:53:19 AM
This thread makes me glad I didn't go to law school.

:hesaid:

Quote from: TurboDan on January 16, 2009, 01:53:19 AM
This thread makes me glad I didn't go to law school.

This thread makes me wish I never tried to give an internet crash course on search and seizure...

Quote from: bing_oh on January 16, 2009, 10:28:29 PM
This thread makes me wish I never tried to give an internet crash course on search and seizure...

Search my car. You won't find a donut anywhere.

Quote from: sparkplug on January 18, 2009, 11:39:33 AM
Search my car. You won't find a donut anywhere.

You won't find any donuts anywhere near me. I will have eaten them all. :lol:

Sparkplug, I was really disappointed when I saw your post. I mean, you go out of your way to PM me asking for a response, and then I find it's just a donut comment. Dude, donut comments are pitiful. You can do better. I'll be waiting...eating a cream cheese filled powder sugar donut.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 09:23:04 PM
Sparkplug, I was really disappointed when I saw your post. I mean, you go out of your way to PM me asking for a response, and then I find it's just a donut comment. Dude, donut comments are pitiful. You can do better. I'll be waiting...eating a cream cheese filled powder sugar donut.

:lol:
You ought to switch to bagels.  That's what the cops in my town claim to have done.  I doubt they're even eating those.  They have a kick-ass gym in the headquarters, and the department really encourages the cops to stay in good shape.  I haven't seen any cops here with the stereotypical gut that comes from eating all those donuts.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 09:25:31 PM
:lol:
You ought to switch to bagels.  That's what the cops in my town claim to have done.  I doubt they're even eating those.  They have a kick-ass gym in the headquarters, and the department really encourages the cops to stay in good shape.  I haven't seen any cops here with the stereotypical gut that comes from eating all those donuts.

It has to do with the vests. You can't find bullet proof vests with enlarged stomachs.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 09:25:31 PM
:lol:
You ought to switch to bagels.  That's what the cops in my town claim to have done.  I doubt they're even eating those.  They have a kick-ass gym in the headquarters, and the department really encourages the cops to stay in good shape.  I haven't seen any cops here with the stereotypical gut that comes from eating all those donuts.

Haha, they still go for the donuts around here, though in Jersey, diners are often hotspots for the boys in blue.  My favorite thing ever was when I worked at the newspaper and someone on the police scanner would alert officers that someone in the department would be making a "Delta Delta" run if anyone needed anything.  :lol:

And yeah, come to think of it, I don't see many of the stereotypical "donut guts" around here either.  What's funny to me sometimes, though, is that I'll see one of our local officers in a "non cop" situation and he'll look a lot smaller than he does in his uniform.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 18, 2009, 10:04:41 PM
Haha, they still go for the donuts around here, though in Jersey, diners are often hotspots for the boys in blue.  My favorite thing ever was when I worked at the newspaper and someone on the police scanner would alert officers that someone in the department would be making a "Delta Delta" run if anyone needed anything.  :lol:

And yeah, come to think of it, I don't see many of the stereotypical "donut guts" around here either.  What's funny to me sometimes, though, is that I'll see one of our local officers in a "non cop" situation and he'll look a lot smaller than he does in his uniform.

Perception, my friend.  The uniform lends authority, which makes a person seem bigger.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 10:07:52 PM
Perception, my friend.  The uniform lends authority, which makes a person seem bigger.

There's also quite a bit of padding and extra girth that goes along with the uniform. That goes double in the winter when I've got my layers on. The vest makes me look quite a bit stockier that I am and the duty belt gives both the appearance of girth and changes my posture (imagine how you have to walk when you can't put your arms straight down to your sides). Not to mention that I always wear boots on duty, so I'm even slightly taller on duty (which makes me downright intimidating to alot of people, given that I'm around 6'1 normally).

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 10:23:47 PM
There's also quite a bit of padding and extra girth that goes along with the uniform. That goes double in the winter when I've got my layers on. The vest makes me look quite a bit stockier that I am and the duty belt gives both the appearance of girth and changes my posture (imagine how you have to walk when you can't put your arms straight down to your sides). Not to mention that I always wear boots on duty, so I'm even slightly taller on duty (which makes me downright intimidating to alot of people, given that I'm around 6'1 normally).

Clearly, your answer is better than mine.  I didn't really think mine through.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 10:31:23 PM
Clearly, your answer is better than mine.  I didn't really think mine through.

Nah, I prefer the idea that I just look freakin intimidating (and damn sexy!) in blue polyester. :lol:

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 10:37:14 PM
Nah, I prefer the idea that I just look freakin intimidating (and damn sexy!) in blue polyester. :lol:

It's the stripe on the pants leg that adds the intimidation factor.  There's something about looking in the rear view mirror, seeing the door of the car behind you open, and when the leg comes out, there's a stripe on the pants.  When you see that, you know you're fucked.... :lol:

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 10:40:00 PM
It's the stripe on the pants leg that adds the intimidation factor.  There's something about looking in the rear view mirror, seeing the door of the car behind you open, and when the leg comes out, there's a stripe on the pants.  When you see that, you know you're fucked.... :lol:

Especially if that leg is getting out the driver's side door of a Charger.  They look wayyyy more intimidating than CVs.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 18, 2009, 10:45:54 PM
Especially if that leg is getting out the driver's side door of a Charger.  They look wayyyy more intimidating than CVs.

Definitely.

Not too long ago, I was late for something, and I was driving at about 50 mph in a 35 mph zone on a main road.  I stopped at a red light and a dark colored Crown Vic pulled up behind me.  It had no police markings, but the door opened, and the leg came out and I saw the stripe.  I thought I was fucked for sure, but he was getting out of the car for another reason, and never even came up to my car.  :devil:

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 10:40:00 PM
It's the stripe on the pants leg that adds the intimidation factor.  There's something about looking in the rear view mirror, seeing the door of the car behind you open, and when the leg comes out, there's a stripe on the pants.  When you see that, you know you're fucked.... :lol:

Shit! We don't have stripes on our uniform pants. Gonna have to talk to the Chief about that tomorrow...

Seriously, there is something to perception and presence. One of the first things that I try to teach new officers on field training is use of "officer presence." It's not about whether you can kick somebody's ass, it's about whether the other guy thinks you can. It's not (just) the uniform that creates the "presence," it's a bunch of verbal and nonverbal clues. And, yea, presence makes an officer seem bigger on some psychological level.

Quote from: TurboDan on January 18, 2009, 10:45:54 PM
Especially if that leg is getting out the driver's side door of a Charger.  They look wayyyy more intimidating than CVs.

Maybe I'll talk to the Chief about that, too...hmmm. :devil:

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 10:50:08 PM
Shit! We don't have stripes on our uniform pants. Gonna have to talk to the Chief about that tomorrow...

Seriously, there is something to perception and presence. One of the first things that I try to teach new officers on field training is use of "officer presence." It's not about whether you can kick somebody's ass, it's about whether the other guy thinks you can. It's not (just) the uniform that creates the "presence," it's a bunch of verbal and nonverbal clues. And, yea, presence makes an officer seem bigger on some psychological level.

No stripes on your uniform pants???!!!!!  Dude, what is the point of being a cop without knowing how that stripe intimidates drivers when you get out of your car?  That's the first part of you that the driver actually sees since your leg is the first part of your body to emerge from the car.  The stripe effect is particularly pronounced if the car you're driving is unmarked.

I'd go to your chief and demand stripes on your uniform pants, immediately!!

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 10:50:08 PM
Seriously, there is something to perception and presence. One of the first things that I try to teach new officers on field training is use of "officer presence." It's not about whether you can kick somebody's ass, it's about whether the other guy thinks you can. It's not (just) the uniform that creates the "presence," it's a bunch of verbal and nonverbal clues. And, yea, presence makes an officer seem bigger on some psychological level.

We have stripes on our class A's - but like tonight everyone is in their BDU's- no stripes.

Tony told me when he trained me and it stuck in my mind is
Appearances are everything- if you pull up in a clean car and have a squared away uniform and look like you know what you're doing- people will believe you know what you are doing. 

He used to point out the state police as the example- "they don't know shit- but because they look like they do people believe they do."
I think that even applied to me when I stopped wearing my uniform when I got promoted- people (police officers and public) stopped respecting me outwardly as a cop- when they were fine with me as a sgt.  Now I wear the uniform and I never have any trouble.  Image.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 10:56:22 PM
No stripes on your uniform pants???!!!!!  Dude, what is the point of being a cop without knowing how that stripe intimidates drivers when you get out of your car?  That's the first part of you that the driver actually sees since your leg is the first part of your body to emerge from the car.  The stripe effect is particularly pronounced if the car you're driving is unmarked.

I'd go to your chief and demand stripes on your uniform pants, immediately!!

Well, I don't have to worry about the unmarked aspect of it...damn Ohio law prohibits us from using unmarkeds if one of our primary duties is traffic enforcement. But, even so, in my 10 years in LE nobody ever told me about the huge stripe intimidation factor. I'll have to get this rectified immediately. Does color matter? Is one stripe more intimidating than another?

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 11:06:08 PM
Well, I don't have to worry about the unmarked aspect of it...damn Ohio law prohibits us from using unmarkeds if one of our primary duties is traffic enforcement. But, even so, in my 10 years in LE nobody ever told me about the huge stripe intimidation factor. I'll have to get this rectified immediately. Does color matter? Is one stripe more intimidating than another?

The stripe should be gold.  It can be white, but gold is better.

Honestly, I don't know how widespread the stripe intimidation factor is.  But I remember my heart skipped a beat when the unmarked car pulled up behind me (I didn't realize it was a cop at that point), and the door opened, the leg emerged, and I saw the stripe.  That was my first indication that I might be in a little bit of trouble.  (Luckily, I wasn't).

If I saw pink stripes, I would get really sacred...

Quote from: NACar on January 18, 2009, 11:11:53 PM
If I saw pink stripes, I would get really sacred...

:lol:
Maybe in San Francisco......

Or that cop on Reno 911...

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 11:13:06 PM
:lol:
Maybe in San Francisco......

Or that cop on Reno 911...

Lt. Dangle? I work with Lt. Dangle. There's also a deputy in the county who looks exactly like Junior. We've been trying to get them to direct traffic together at a major intersection during one of our community events, with "Dangle" wearing short shorts and "Junior" wearing his vest outside of his shirt. No luck yet...:lol:

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 11:26:26 PM
Lt. Dangle? I work with Lt. Dangle. There's also a deputy in the county who looks exactly like Junior. We've been trying to get them to direct traffic together at a major intersection during one of our community events, with "Dangle" wearing short shorts and "Junior" wearing his vest outside of his shirt. No luck yet...:lol:

You're talking about the blond-haired guy who wore the tight shorts, right?  He was pretty funny.  :lol:

I don't think he'd be too intimidating, even with a stripe (though with shorts, a stripe wouldn't even be visible).  If he pulled me, I'd probably fling his ticket book in his face..... :devil:

Dangle reminds me so much a woman Lt. I used to work for- it's eerie how much he's like her.

Quote from: rohan on January 18, 2009, 11:37:26 PM
Dangle reminds me so much a woman Lt. I used to work for- it's eerie how much he's like her.

I guess Dangle is more like a woman than a man.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 18, 2009, 09:23:04 PM
Sparkplug, I was really disappointed when I saw your post. I mean, you go out of your way to PM me asking for a response, and then I find it's just a donut comment. Dude, donut comments are pitiful. You can do better. I'll be waiting...eating a cream cheese filled powder sugar donut.

Ok ok ok ok. No more donuts chokes.

Those gold stripes are actually reflective stripes for officer safety at night, I believe. It'd be good for you to have them just for that. I don't like leo's getting hit by cars even if they're ruthless ticket writers who search vehicles for twinkies.

Quote from: dazzleman on January 18, 2009, 11:08:17 PM
The stripe should be gold.  It can be white, but gold is better.

Honestly, I don't know how widespread the stripe intimidation factor is.  But I remember my heart skipped a beat when the unmarked car pulled up behind me (I didn't realize it was a cop at that point), and the door opened, the leg emerged, and I saw the stripe.  That was my first indication that I might be in a little bit of trouble.  (Luckily, I wasn't).

Our uniforms are navy blue and the pants have a black stripe which is not very visible. :huh:  We used to have blue piping but the black looks better.

Here's a photo of my state police uniforms (taken in my home sweet home incidentally!)  Red stripe down the side is appropriately intimidating!

(http://www.risp.state.ri.us/img/gallery/RoadTrpUniform.jpg)

Quote from: Catman on January 19, 2009, 04:10:03 PM
Our uniforms are navy blue and the pants have a black stripe which is not very visible. :huh:  We used to have blue piping but the black looks better.

I've seen navy blue uniforms with light blue stripes.  The cops in my town have gold stripes with navy blue uniforms, IIRC.  I think the gold looks pretty sharp, as long as I'm not looking at it in the rear view mirror when I'm pulled over..... :lol:

Quote from: J86 on January 19, 2009, 05:03:35 PM
Here's a photo of my state police uniforms (taken in my home sweet home incidentally!)  Red stripe down the side is appropriately intimidating!

(http://www.risp.state.ri.us/img/gallery/RoadTrpUniform.jpg)

All they need is a proper badge. :huh:

Quote from: Catman on January 19, 2009, 08:17:38 PM
All they need is a proper badge. :huh:

It's Rhode Island. They're not big enough to get badges. :devil:

The brown leather gear is interesting. I can't think of many departments with brown as opposed to black.

Quote from: sparkplug on January 19, 2009, 01:07:14 AM
Ok ok ok ok. No more donuts chokes.

Those gold stripes are actually reflective stripes for officer safety at night, I believe. It'd be good for you to have them just for that. I don't like leo's getting hit by cars even if they're ruthless ticket writers who search vehicles for twinkies.

That's not funny, man. Those mass produced cream-filled pastries are some serious shit. I had a buddy who took a swiss cake roll in the chest. Thank God his vest was rated for Little Debbie products! If it had been a ho-ho or ding dong, he might not have been as lucky.

I confiscate Twinkies whenever I find them. It's a safety issue...there's no reason for the general public to have access to that caliber of snack food.

Quote from: bing_oh on January 20, 2009, 01:35:46 AM
It's Rhode Island. They're not big enough to get badges. :devil:

The brown leather gear is interesting. I can't think of many departments with brown as opposed to black.

US Park Service uses that dark brown (forget the official color).

Quote from: bing_oh on January 20, 2009, 01:35:46 AM
It's Rhode Island. They're not big enough to get badges. :devil:

The brown leather gear is interesting. I can't think of many departments with brown as opposed to black.

'ey!  All I can say is, the gray w/ red stripe and that sweet hat have plenty of intimidation factor when stepping out of the CV (or the goddamn unmarked Intrepids that they use to terrorize commuters on I-95!)

Quote from: bing_oh on January 20, 2009, 04:24:44 AM
That's not funny, man. Those mass produced cream-filled pastries are some serious shit. I had a buddy who took a swiss cake roll in the chest. Thank God his vest was rated for Little Debbie products! If it had been a ho-ho or ding dong, he might not have been as lucky.

I confiscate Twinkies whenever I find them. It's a safety issue...there's no reason for the general public to have access to that caliber of snack food.

That would explain my 'fig newton' incident.

Quote from: J86 on January 19, 2009, 05:03:35 PM
Here's a photo of my state police uniforms (taken in my home sweet home incidentally!)  Red stripe down the side is appropriately intimidating!

(http://www.risp.state.ri.us/img/gallery/RoadTrpUniform.jpg)

What those uniforms say to me is "you are now probably dealing with a crazy person, don't do anything to provoke him."

That and "I could have picked the OTHER color today..."

well I can see you all aren't equally intimidated. :lol:

How can you call those uniforms when each person is wearing a different outfit? Hardly a uniform appearance!

 

Quote from: bing_oh on January 20, 2009, 01:35:46 AM
It's Rhode Island. They're not big enough to get badges. :devil:

The brown leather gear is interesting. I can't think of many departments with brown as opposed to black.

I can think of at least four sheriff departments here that still use the Clarino High-Gloss brown, and have matching shoes to go with it.

Quote from: J86 on January 19, 2009, 05:03:35 PM
Here's a photo of my state police uniforms (taken in my home sweet home incidentally!)  Red stripe down the side is appropriately intimidating!

(http://www.risp.state.ri.us/img/gallery/RoadTrpUniform.jpg)

Honestly, the red stripe just looks comical to me.  Sorry, just to me they look more like bell-hops than police officers.

Quote from: hounddog on January 21, 2009, 10:41:16 PM
I can think of at least four sheriff departments here that still use the Clarino High-Gloss brown, and have matching shoes to go with it.

There's not a single department I can think of in midwest Ohio that uses brown (not to say that they don't exist, but I sure can't think of any). Pretty much everybody is black, with many departments dropping leather all together for nylon. Not to say there's anything wrong with the brown...with the right uniform, it'd look pretty classy.

Personally, the cherries on the top of the cruiser intimidate me more than the dude's duds, you fashion pansies. :evildude:

The duds are only an issue with unmarked cars.