Evidently laws dont apply if someone feels "uncomfortable" -AKA hiker Arrested in TX

[CCHGN]

Please do not buy into the fallacy that I am completely ignorant of case law. My statement about case law was in rebuttal to CCHGN stating that I need to post case law in reference to FL ss 790.25.....

Whoa, wait a minute, you're taking stuff out of context and twisting words. I clearly explained what I said and why I said about statute and case law. Right off the bat, I didn't say you needed to post case law, I said you needed to include it (in your language). I explained that your statement( you may open carry in Florida as listed below- citing FS790.25) was not true. The true statement would be : You can carry as per FS790.25, AS I INTERPRET IT, UNLESS A JUDGE HAS INTREPRETED IT( including case law). We all know many laws can be ( and are) interpeted in many different ways. Many laws are ill written and too vague and have to be defined and refined in case law and amendment. IMO, That's why the inclusion of case law is so important.

 

[TURTLE]

I couldn't even watch the whole video. That guy is an idiot!

 

[bayonet_53]

Serious but hypothetical question for you Bayonet and I'm not trying to score some debate points or intending to ask a gotcha questions here? You've stated how strictly you would apply your interpretation of the 2nd and 4th amendments to the situation at hand. What if this "agitated" individual you didn't feel you had the authority to even stop and id went on to murder several innocents with the weapon that was an unusual and out of place display from the norm but technically not a violation of state laws.

Fletch I am not trying to outwit anyone either; nor do I see anyone asking questions or posing arguments as "gotcha moments." It is not my interpretation of the 2nd and 4th Amendment it is a literal application. It is not about what I feel; it is about having a lawful reason to violate someone's civil rights. We do not know how Grisham was acting before the officers stopped and detained him. Grisham's explanation was that he was out on a hike with his son documenting a requirement for his son to become an Eagle Scout. Does that sound like an agitated man to you? Even if his sole purpose was to get into a confrontation with LEO with the intent to create a situation where he could bring about a civil rights lawsuit the fact of the matter is that he was not in violation of the law. The officers played right into his hands. Grisham did not become agitated until after he was deprived of his right to leave. To deprive him of his right and detain him must be based on reasonable suspicion. The reason given by the officer for the detention was so that the officer could verify that Grisham could legally have the gun and that he was allowed to be out there. Therefore, the officer had to have reasonable suspicion to believe that Grisham was not legally allowed to possess the firearm. What is unusual about an AR? Is it not a modern sporting rifle? Are varmint species not hunted with it? You should see some of the sweet hog rifles that I run into that are based on an AR platform. You may even own one yourself. I cannot violate someone's civil rights unless I have reasonable suspicion based on credible information. I cannot stop and detain a person on the context that they may commit a crime in the future unless I have reasonable suspicion to back that up. Agitation is not reasonable suspicion. It is a far leap to go from someone is mad to they are going to kill innocent people. If that was the case then I would have to stop and detain every person that mean mugs me as I drive by in my patrol truck or vessel.

Just for a moment lets get away from the firearm and focus on the 4th Amendment. I defer to my earlier reference of a man of Hispanic descent. Do I have a lawful reason based on reasonable suspicion to stop and detain that person to verify if they are in the US lawfully? What if they are just standing on the sidewalk and look agitated? Better yet what if I get a call that there may be an illegal alien at a public place that appears to be agitated. Does that mean that they are more than likely going to commit a violent crime? Silly right? Is it a violation of the law to be agitated? Why can I not stop and detain this person? Because I do not have reasonable suspicion based on credible information, nor did I personally witness a violation of the law. I can attempt to engage this person in a consensual encounter where the person if free to completely ignore me or walk away for that matter.

As an officer of the law you swear an oath to uphold the constitution and to serve and protect. How would you deal with the lost lives that a simple id'ing of the individual could have prevented? Would the comfort of knowing you upheld your interpretation of the 2nd and 4th amendments let you sleep at night without 2nd guessing your convictions or application of the law. Would you feel any responsibility in the deaths? Would your thoughts change on this if it was a loved one who was murdered by this individual? Or would you simply accept that your interpretation of the constitution is more important to preserving the freedoms we enjoy and that the lives lost, while tragic, are the cost of freedom and protection from a tyrannical government?

What you are proposing is that I then operate outside of the law. I presume individuals to be guilty and I use my position and authority to violate individual civil rights for the good of the whole based on the rules that I set. If anyone doesn't agree with me then I charge them with obstruction and hall them off to the gulag. I am not trying to be smart, but is that a fair assessment? Does every complaint that I receive equate to a violation of the law, and is the complained against automatically guilty? If I get a complaint that a person is cleaning an undersized red at a cleaning table, and when I arrive it is clearly a black drum do I need to take any sort of enforcement action? No, because there is not a violation. The Jews in Germany were blamed for all of the Germans problems. They were rounded up for no reason, presumed guilty and fed into ovens and gas chambers. If we began to erode our Constitution to the point that we become a police state in which for the greater good and safety we take away rights and detain people without reasonable suspicion that is a scenario that would cause me to lose sleep.

Do you think there is a slight possibility that your interpretation of the 2nd and 4th amendments may be flawed considering that you are in a minority of peace officers who do believe that the officers were acting within the confines of the law? If not, do you the think the majority of peace officers around the nation who believe the stop was legal and constitutional are out of control agents of the state and a danger to freedom and civil rights? Would society as a whole be better off without them?

It is not about me. It is not my interpretation; it is a literal application. What evidence is there that I am in the minority? Could it be that other officers that support the TX officers are cut from the same cloth, and have no qualms with violating a persons civil rights based on abusing their authority due to the ignorance of the person being violated? Meaning most citizens do not have a clue to their rights under the Constitution, and it is easy for an officer to violate them through intimidation and forced coercion. Like wildrider666 posted earlier, I can demand papers and ID's from anyone for no reason. Most people will comply out of fear...fear of going to jail. Even innocent people seem guilty around officers because even a consensual encounter can be a intimidating experience. When I conduct a fisheries inspection I cannot tell you the amount of people that get shaking hands, act incredibly nervous, and drop licenses and that is when they are 100% legal. When you speed past a cop and you see him pull in behind you do you get nervous? Does your heart rate increase as the officer gets closer to you? Do you drop your speed and check your rearview mirror repeatedly? If the officer decides to pull you over, to the officer it may appear that you have done something other than just speeding. In your nervous state should the officer pull you from your car, and began to search your vehicle? If there are officers that believe in violating civil rights then I believe that they should find another career field, or they need to be better trained on the Constitution. What does "better off without them mean" are you asking if I believe that they should be killed? If so I think you are better than that. If not please clarify what you are asking.

If the legal system of Texas finds no fault with the officers actions and convicts him of obstruction of an officer will you accept that or contend that the prosecutors, judge, and jury all subverted the Constitution and this man's rights were violated?

Of course I will accept it; that does not mean I have to agree with it. I do not agree with the current administration, but I accept the vote of the people and the electoral college. There are also appellant courts and civil courts. So we will see how it plays out. I am confident that the citizens of Texas will make the right determination. Will you be able to accept the outcome if it is not to your liking?

Btw, I was in the Marine Corps for 8yrs

From one Vet to another I thank you for your Service!

 

[bayonet_53]

Here is an excellent example how to deal with a person that is obviously trying to get a LEO to commit a 2nd and 4th Amendment violation. Note that the officer operates solely on Reasonable Suspicion that is based on credible information that he would be able to articulate in a court of law. He informs the man that he is detained and not free to leave. He only holds the man so long as to verify or deny his reasonable suspicion. He didn't stop the man and grab for his firearm. He remained calm, composed, and respectful. He kept control of the situation and did not allow the man to dictate the interaction.

 

[bayonet_53]

What about the person in this video. Should he have been detained? Should the officers in this video be terminated for cause? Will the officers have blood on their hands if he commits a murder later on?

 

[CCHGN]

Here is an excellent example how to deal with a person that is obviously trying to get a LEO to commit a 2nd and 4th Amendment violation. Note that the officer operates solely on Reasonable Suspicion that is based on credible information that he would be able to articulate in a court of law. He informs the man that he is detained and not free to leave. He only holds the man so long as to verify or deny his reasonable suspicion. He didn't stop the man and grab for his firearm. He remained calm, composed, and respectful. He kept control of the situation and did not allow the man to dictate the interaction.

well, the problem there is, the OP guy said that they would NOT take his weapon. He would not comply at all and he was yelling and berating and talking over the cops. This guy simply complied. Had the OP guy done what this guy did, he'd've been on his way. too.

 

[CCHGN]

What about the person in this video. Should he have been detained? Should the officers in this video be terminated for cause? Will the officers have blood on their hands if he commits a murder later on?

IMO, that just proves that if you look long enough, you'll find anything on youtube. To answer your questions, yes, yes and yes......

The reality is, in Miami, Ft Lauderdale, Daytona, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Atlanta, NOLA, Pensacola, Pittsburg, Philly, Boston, NYC, Dallas, El Paso, Las Vegas, L.A., San Fran, et al, cops don't act like that. At the first sign of non compliance, they go into felony mode.

 

[Fletch]

Re: Evidently laws dont apply if someone feels "uncomfortable"

Fletch I am not trying to outwit anyone either; nor do I see anyone asking questions or posing arguments as "gotcha moments." It is not my interpretation of the 2nd and 4th Amendment it is a literal application. It is not about what I feel; it is about having a lawful reason to violate someone's civil rights. We do not know how Grisham was acting before the officers stopped and detained him. Grisham's explanation was that he was out on a hike with his son documenting a requirement for his son to become an Eagle Scout. Does that sound like an agitated man to you? Even if his sole purpose was to get into a confrontation with LEO with the intent to create a situation where he could bring about a civil rights lawsuit the fact of the matter is that he was not in violation of the law. The officers played right into his hands. Grisham did not become agitated until after he was deprived of his right to leave. To deprive him of his right and detain him must be based on reasonable suspicion. The reason given by the officer for the detention was so that the officer could verify that Grisham could legally have the gun and that he was allowed to be out there. Therefore, the officer had to have reasonable suspicion to believe that Grisham was not legally allowed to possess the firearm. What is unusual about an AR? Is it not a modern sporting rifle? Are varmint species not hunted with it? You should see some of the sweet hog rifles that I run into that are based on an AR platform. You may even own one yourself. I cannot violate someone's civil rights unless I have reasonable suspicion based on credible information. I cannot stop and detain a person on the context that they may commit a crime in the future unless I have reasonable suspicion to back that up. Agitation is not reasonable suspicion. It is a far leap to go from someone is mad to they are going to kill innocent people. If that was the case then I would have to stop and detain every person that mean mugs me as I drive by in my patrol truck or vessel.

Just for a moment lets get away from the firearm and focus on the 4th Amendment. I defer to my earlier reference of a man of Hispanic descent. Do I have a lawful reason based on reasonable suspicion to stop and detain that person to verify if they are in the US lawfully? What if they are just standing on the sidewalk and look agitated? Better yet what if I get a call that there may be an illegal alien at a public place that appears to be agitated. Does that mean that they are more than likely going to commit a violent crime? Silly right? Is it a violation of the law to be agitated? Why can I not stop and detain this person? Because I do not have reasonable suspicion based on credible information, nor did I personally witness a violation of the law. I can attempt to engage this person in a consensual encounter where the person if free to completely ignore me or walk away for that matter.



What you are proposing is that I then operate outside of the law. I presume individuals to be guilty and I use my position and authority to violate individual civil rights for the good of the whole based on the rules that I set. If anyone doesn't agree with me then I charge them with obstruction and hall them off to the gulag. I am not trying to be smart, but is that a fair assessment? Does every complaint that I receive equate to a violation of the law, and is the complained against automatically guilty? If I get a complaint that a person is cleaning an undersized red at a cleaning table, and when I arrive it is clearly a black drum do I need to take any sort of enforcement action? No, because there is not a violation. The Jews in Germany were blamed for all of the Germans problems. They were rounded up for no reason, presumed guilty and fed into ovens and gas chambers. If we began to erode our Constitution to the point that we become a police state in which for the greater good and safety we take away rights and detain people without reasonable suspicion that is a scenario that would cause me to lose sleep.



It is not about me. It is not my interpretation; it is a literal application. What evidence is there that I am in the minority? Could it be that other officers that support the TX officers are cut from the same cloth, and have no qualms with violating a persons civil rights based on abusing their authority due to the ignorance of the person being violated? Meaning most citizens do not have a clue to their rights under the Constitution, and it is easy for an officer to violate them through intimidation and forced coercion. Like wildrider666 posted earlier, I can demand papers and ID's from anyone for no reason. Most people will comply out of fear...fear of going to jail. Even innocent people seem guilty around officers because even a consensual encounter can be a intimidating experience. When I conduct a fisheries inspection I cannot tell you the amount of people that get shaking hands, act incredibly nervous, and drop licenses and that is when they are 100% legal. When you speed past a cop and you see him pull in behind you do you get nervous? Does your heart rate increase as the officer gets closer to you? Do you drop your speed and check your rearview mirror repeatedly? If the officer decides to pull you over, to the officer it may appear that you have done something other than just speeding. In your nervous state should the officer pull you from your car, and began to search your vehicle? If there are officers that believe in violating civil rights then I believe that they should find another career field, or they need to be better trained on the Constitution. What does "better off without them mean" are you asking if I believe that they should be killed? If so I think you are better than that. If not please clarify what you are asking.



Of course I will accept it; that does not mean I have to agree with it. I do not agree with the current administration, but I accept the vote of the people and the electoral college. There are also appellant courts and civil courts. So we will see how it plays out. I am confident that the citizens of Texas will make the right determination. Will you be able to accept the outcome if it is not to your liking?



From one Vet to another I thank you for your Service!

You say it's a literal interpretation and not yours but it doesn't work like that. Many people who study the law see it differently. Of course I didn't suggest anyone should be killed. From what I've seen more cops support the officer's actions than who think civil rights were violated. I was asking since you see them as trampling civil rights do you think we would be better off if they were relieved of their duties. We are preety much just going in circles at this point. I will be watching the outcome with interest that's for sure.

I think you may have confused me with another member in on this debate. I never served in the armed forces but do thank you both for your service! I have a lot of admiration for the USMC. Tip of the spear and first to the fight.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bayonet_53]

I don't feel one way or the other about you, you're the one taking this personal. You place yourself upon high, it's that elitist attitude that turns alot of folks off about LEO....newsflash: civilians "take up the incredible burden of carrying a firearm to keep myself and my fellow man safe" too, we go into society and see the worst too. Remember, many times, we face the worst before y'all ever show up.
Btw, I was in the Marine Corps for 8yrs, went overseas and saw tragity. After Viet Nam, they put folks in boats and pushed them into the China Sea. One of my first jobs was to retreive those folks. Almost every boat had human bones in them( folks were eating the dead). IN 1979 Olongapo, PI, under martial law, I've seen kids shot down in the street by armed police for stealing. Folks there were so poor, they'd slit your throat or rent you their 10 yr old daughter( or son) for $10.. What I'm wondering is why you feel the need to even bring this up?

CCHGN I know that I said I was done engaging you, but I got to thinking that I was acting bull-headed and close-minded. I also assumed to know your past, and that was ignorant of me to do so. I said that I have thick skin and my feelings would not be hurt, but if I am coming across as an Elitist and representing LEO in a bad way then that cuts straight to the bone. I allowed my passion for the Constitution to overrule my modesty. I sincerely apologize.

See, it's not about him violating any law....Well, the reality is, yes they can and they do

I understand that you disagree with my argument, but I am looking for factual information to disprove it. Above, you stated that LEO's can stop anyone for any reason. I find that to be untrue. If you can find verifiable information that allows me to stop anyone I want for any reason then I ask that you post it. If you are referencing a consensual encounter with a LEO in where the person is free leave at any time without showing any sort of ID or answering any questions than I would agree with that statement. If at anytime during a consensual encounter the person in no longer free to leave then a detention has taken place. The detention must be based on reasonable suspicion that is backed by credible information that a officer will be able to articulate in a court of law. The detention can be verbal "you are not free to leave, or I am detaining you for xyz," or the detention can be physical by either temporarily placing the person in cuffs or in a squad car. If you have someone detained it can only be so long as necessary to either confirm or deny your reasonable suspicion. There is a very fine line of when a detention becomes an arrest. If you detain someone for a prolonged period it can become an arrest.

Yes, I've answered it several times, you just refuse to accept it. The call(s) opened an investigation. The caller(s) said he was acting in a threatening manner. Just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean you can dismiss it. You still have to treat it as a threat. You may not decide what is too threatening or not.They approached him with the intent to check his ID and see if he's legal and find out why he's carrying on like he is. He forced his own detention.

We do not know what the complainants stated in the call. I have assumed that the call was "a man and son with a rifle walking down the road." I came to this assumption based on how the contact officer first dealt with Grisham. If the calls had been "there is a man with a rifle and he is pointing and aiming at people," then the initial contact with Grisham would have been substantially different. There probably would have been no video or the video would have been focused on the ground with audio of the officers conducting a high risk stop. An Investigation is not reasonable suspicion. Where is the credible information? Did the officers exercise due diligence and make return calls to the complainants to verify? The idea of a threat was not stated until after the detention took place. The detention was based on the officer stating that he needed to verify that Grisham could a) lawfully posses the gun; and b) that he could lawfully be out there. Since that is the grounds for the detention then the officer must be able to testify in a court of law what his reasonable suspicion was that Grisham was unlawfully possessing the firearm and was not lawfully allowed on a public road. Anything that occurred after the detention is null because the reason for the detention was a 4th Amendment violation. This is the same reason why a bona fide murderer can have the charges thrown out when police force a confession or violate the Miranda warning advising the accused of their rights. If I based my detentions or arrests solely on complaints then what precludes anyone from making a false claim as retribution. Yes a false report is a violation in itself, but what about the person I am going to detain or arrest or get into an altercation with. That is why there is a requirement for credible information to support reasonable suspicion.

You still have to treat it as a threat. You may not decide what is too threatening or not.They approached him with the intent to check his ID and see if he's legal and find out why he's carrying on like he is. He forced his own detention.

Your stance is that the officers were responding to a threat, and that they only intended to check his ID to make sure he is legal. If that is the case what if he complied with the officers, and they verified that he can legally have the firearm. Is he now free to go? What about the threat aspect? Can you lawfully make him carry the firearm in a different manner so that it will no longer alarm citizens? Is the way he is carrying it unlawful? To be able to arrest someone there must be an arrestable offense with a corresponding law.

 

[bayonet_53]

well, the problem there is, the OP guy said that they would NOT take his weapon. He would not comply at all and he was yelling and berating and talking over the cops. This guy simply complied. Had the OP guy done what this guy did, he'd've been on his way. too.

I was trying to convey the difference between an officer having Reasonable Suspicion and the TX officers that did not.

 

[bayonet_53]

You say it's a literal interpretation and not yours but it doesn't work like that. Many people who study the law see it differently. Of course I didn't suggest anyone should be killed. From what I've seen more cops support the officer's actions than who think civil rights were violated. I was asking since you see them as trampling civil rights do you think we would be better off if they were relieved of their duties. We are preety much just going in circles at this point. I will be watching the outcome with interest that's for sure.

I think you may have confused me with another member in on this debate. I never served in the armed forces but do thank you both for your service! I have a lot of admiration for the USMC. Tip of the spear and first to the fight.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

I am saying that it is a Literal Application not Interpretation. I think that officers that are willing to violate the Constitution should find another line of work. The thank you was aimed at CCHGN.

 

[bayonet_53]

IMO, that just proves that if you look long enough, you'll find anything on youtube. To answer your questions, yes, yes and yes......

The reality is, in Miami, Ft Lauderdale, Daytona, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Atlanta, NOLA, Pensacola, Pittsburg, Philly, Boston, NYC, Dallas, El Paso, Las Vegas, L.A., San Fran, et al, cops don't act like that. At the first sign of non compliance, they go into felony mode.

Exactly! does that preclude the original video? Is it then possible that the TX officers operated outside the law, or is the TX video beyond reproach?

Put it to the test. Call your local/municipal/state/fed Law Enforcement departments. Ask them if it is lawful for a officer to stop anyone for anything as they please; if they can detain someone solely based on a complaint; (specific to FL) ask if you can open carry while engaged in or going to or from fishing, hunting, or camping, and then follow that up with if you are engaged in those activities can you be lawfully detained to verify that you can possess the firearm (you may have to tell them the statute); ask what requirements must be met to lawfully detain someone--or arrest someone; ask them if their department is going to represent an officer facing a civil rights violation in court if the officer willingly violated someone's civil rights. Stating that "The reality is" does not make it reality. Could you post some credible information that supports your claim?

 

[CCHGN]

I was trying to convey the difference between an officer having Reasonable Suspicion and the TX officers that did not.

Reasonable suspicion comes in many forms.....Btw, the first thing the cop said was that the kid was freaking people out....The dude in Texas was dressed in combat gear, how was the kid dressed?.....also, it could be simply a matter that most cops just ain't gonna let a individual walk down the street with a long gun without checking them out. Most feel it's their duty.

 

[CCHGN]

Put it to the test. Call your local/municipal/state/fed Law Enforcement departments. Ask them if it is lawful for a officer to stop anyone for anything as they please;. Could you post some credible information that supports your claim?

Sure, We all know what they'd say on a recorded line...... let's see, I have personally been pulled over for: failing to use a signal when switching lanes( my word against his- I do a two blink signal sometimes), My license plate has 2 lights and one light was out( really?); Running a red light( I swear it was yellow); tint too dark( turns out it was not); music too loud( really?); my vehicle matched the description; I matched a description; car exhaust too loud( I have headers).....in other words, if they want to stop you, they will find something.


Here's a good example.....cops just want to check folks out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rih1ogXCxAs

 

[CCHGN]

Here's another example of cops in another state handling it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkUj7CdOpTI


I know for a fact that no matter what Nevada's gun laws are, in Las Vegas, you can't carry a gun OC, concealed without a permit and all guns must be registered.

 

[bayonet_53]

Reasonable suspicion comes in many forms.....Btw, the first thing the cop said was that the kid was freaking people out....The dude in Texas was dressed in combat gear, how was the kid dressed?.....also, it could be simply a matter that most cops just ain't gonna let a individual walk down the street with a long gun without checking them out. Most feel it's their duty.

Correct, reasonable suspicion comes in many forms, but you must first have it based on credible information before you violate someone's civil rights.

Is "threat" reasonable suspicion and "freaking people out" is not? Again the idea of a threat was not part of the detention it was brought up after the detention. On the topic of complaints the officer stated that "they had many calls" not "many calls of a man acting in a threatening way." I did not see combat gear. The video showed a Multicam Boonie hat with a red bandana, black shirt, and a hydration pack. How many of our homeless dress completely in battle dress uniform? I see a lot in BDU's. Is a person's clothing grounds for a detention? Also what about all the Airmen I see around Tyndall AFB, they are dressed in ABU's (Airman Battle Uniform). IF they are off post should I assume that an actual Airman had been mugged and a criminal was going to use the uniform to gain access to an installation? Plausible? So to prevent this should I detain all military members until I can determine they are actually in the military? I guess it does not matter; I can stop anyone I please anyhow, for anything? Right? I disagree I do not think most cops feel it is their duty to commit civil rights violations. In a open carry state mere possession is not reasonable suspicion based on credible information? Innocence is presumed not guilt. Guilt is for a prosecutor to prove and a judge and jury to determine and it inpart must be based on evidence and convincing argument. A person walking down the road in a open carry state in lawful possession of a firearm is not a violation. In FL I am not going to assume the man fishing from the pier with a firearm holstered in the open on his hip is a criminal. I am certainly not going to detain him just to see. If I do then I have violated the law.

If Grisham was a threat then he would have been arrested immediately. He was first charged with Resisting and it was later downgraded to obstructing a peace officer. Why are there not any firearm charges? I say it is because there was not a firearm violation. Which means that Grisham was in lawful possession of a firearm. If he was using the firearm in a threatening manner than he would not have been in lawful possession. So, the reason for the stop and detention was unlawful. He was carrying a legal firearm in a public place that is allowed by the Texas Penal Code.

 

[Snow Bird]

In Iowa they do a courtisy stop>know thats spelled wrong< just to check your lights and such. Had a friend stopped for tread depth on a back tire when he was at highway speed. I was stopped and given a soberity test buy a city policeman one time and I haden't taken a drink in 8 years. Seems I was setting at a table with his x girlfriend. There was also 5 other people at the same table. There was no reason for the stop but it did happen. With all due respect to those who are in law inforcement, It seems to me that most ALOT ov police officers aren't overly concerned with our rights in these times or law suites. Many times there response is we will let the Judge figure it out. Case in point, A friend of mine was rideing with a drunk driver that was stopped and arrested. He was also drunk and was arrested when he had to get out of the car to walk home. Guess what he was arrested for. Public intoxation. The judge threw it out but there was time off form work and an arrest record. I respect any officer that has the constuiton formost in his mind when at work but my feelings are that they are few and far in between. I won't even comment on weather the arrest was god or not but it does reflect on the way things are done in many parts of the country.

 

[bayonet_53]

Sure, We all know what they'd say on a recorded line...... let's see, I have personally been pulled over for: failing to use a signal when switching lanes( my word against his- I do a two blink signal sometimes), My license plate has 2 lights and one light was out( really?); Running a red light( I swear it was yellow); tint too dark( turns out it was not); music too loud( really?); my vehicle matched the description; I matched a description; car exhaust too loud( I have headers).....in other words, if they want to stop you, they will find something.


Here's a good example.....cops just want to check folks out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rih1ogXCxAs

The video you posted shows a consensual encounter as I have outlined earlier. The officer first wanted ID's; the persons videotaping refused. At any point during their conversation the persons video recording could have walked away. So what did the officer accomplish? The officer was attempting to use his authority and position during a consensual encounter to get compliance. The persons videoing knew their rights. I in no way endorse the way the guys with the video's are acting. I think it is disgraceful to put LEO's in that position especially when there is real crime happening, but what they are doing is not illegal.

I think this video only corroborates my points.

 

[CCHGN]

Here's another from santa Ana, Ca, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lONBoO3m0tQ


Hmm , apparently all OC guns have to be empty, no ammo,,,what good is that?

I see a trend that cops say that folks call, so they have to check. Good examples of reasonable suspicion.

 

[bayonet_53]

In Iowa they do a courtisy stop>know thats spelled wrong< just to check your lights and such. Had a friend stopped for tread depth on a back tire when he was at highway speed. I was stopped and given a soberity test buy a city policeman one time and I haden't taken a drink in 8 years. Seems I was setting at a table with his x girlfriend. There was also 5 other people at the same table. There was no reason for the stop but it did happen. With all due respect to those who are in law inforcement, It seems to me that most ALOT ov police officers aren't overly concerned with our rights in these times or law suites. Many times there response is we will let the Judge figure it out. Case in point, A friend of mine was rideing with a drunk driver that was stopped and arrested. He was also drunk and was arrested when he had to get out of the car to walk home. Guess what he was arrested for. Public intoxation. The judge threw it out but there was time off form work and an arrest record. I respect any officer that has the constuiton formost in his mind when at work but my feelings are that they are few and far in between. I won't even comment on weather the arrest was god or not but it does reflect on the way things are done in many parts of the country.

Your post sums up my whole reason on why I even began posting in this thread. If as an LEO we do not repudiate our own and police our own, and allow the violation of civil rights by not speaking out are we not complicit? An officer that violates the constitution knows that probably 99% of the time they can get over on a citizen with out any repercussions. It is when that bad officer runs into an educated citizen that they will be found out. By that time that bad officer has painted themselves into a corner; either release the person and pray that they do not bring a civil rights lawsuit or fabricate an arrest.