You know how it is, if you're not with us in our lunacy 100% you must be one of them.
WPD Sergeant tells Uber Driver/Attorney that recording him is illegal
- Thread starter 11B CIB
- Start date
- Replies 203
- Views 12,602
Both are disgusting. And yes, posts like his, advocating violence against the police, started a bunch of *Stuff* and influenced a bunch of idiots. There's no difference to some of these people between his post and the ones from groups like BLM calling for the same thing. If you stand for violence against cops, you don't have a leg to stand on to complain against violence coming from them.
And if you're going to complain about what they "might have done", go ahead and join the liberals complaining about what gun owners "might do".
It's not really a war on drugs. It is a war to grow police beuracracies and certain industries. Drugs are just the excuse. The powers that be don't really care about need individual people and their health or drug addiction. Here's an example how this works from another angle.
Years ago the environmentalists bemoaned the demise of the rare Spotted Owl. Remember that one? Logging had to stop, forests needed to be preserved and we had to save the owl! There were articles and studies how this cute birdy needed his pristine wooded habitat to survive. Poor little thing. Great sympathetic figure that owl was. The Green wackos raised a lot of money and a lot of hell over that owl. Turns out there were a heck of a lot more Spotted owls than most people knew. As a matter of fact the cute little buggers were building nests in big neon signs and places you'd never guess.
But that little bird sure helped raise a lot of money and keep their cause in the news.
Two problems. If someone jacks up the PO they get some serious jail time. Who wants to sign up for that duty? And I like dogs. Can't blame them for how they are used.
Last edited:
I agree violence against the PD is not the answer. I'd prefer to defund about 90% of what they do. The size of some PD's and their funding is insane.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
There is actually a very large difference. The BLM advocated harm and death to all police. This post advocated harm to the one officer who was violating his rights. That is a big difference.
I guess the question becomes when is it Ok to use violence in defense of your liberty? Would you react violently to Joe Schmo holding you against your will? Is it simply the presence of a uniform and/or a badge that makes violence against an individual acting criminally against your person distasteful?
Officers have an immense amount of power through their badge. That power does not mean they can act illegally. The presence of a badge should not negate my ability to protect myself and my liberty when a criminal holding me at gunpoint.
T
The Green Heron
Guest
Build that wicker man.
Dude, "posts like his" ? Get a grip.
Our side, their side...What horse $#@+.
You are on liberty's side or not.
Peace officers are CIVILIANS. They are not the Kings men.
Yeah, I was wondering about that, too.
Of course, the other factors are interesting.
From what I gathered, they had arrested a passenger in the car, but I think they were saying that he wasn't in the car at the time. Would make an interesting test case.
Also, the lawyer, said something along the lines of, "fine, you won't find anything," so maybe that can be seen as consent for the search, even if he had to wait past a reasonable time?
I think that this cuts right to the crux of the question. When police act illegally, either singly, or as a group, what form and degree of resistance is justified? What should be the response when they do become the violent thug at gun point? It's all good and well to say "take it to court" but one that is terribly expensive to where it is not an option for large swaths of the public and two, a lot of people are losing faith in the courts faster than they are the police.
For those who follow it, recall that one of the key aspects of being in a 4th turning is the breakdown of the civic institutions.
As opposed to the ease and economy of assaulting a police officer?
The idea of "assaulting an officer" so badly offends you, that you don't care what he did as long as the public worships their AUTHOR-I-TAY!
OP
Nothing illegal was found and Driver and passenger were released from detainment
The Uber driver who is also an attorney filmed an interaction after being stopped and his passenger was told to exit the vehicle because he got in the car near a "drug house". The cops didn't like being filmed, so they lied saying there is a new law against it, threatened him with being thrown in jail if he didn't stop, and tried to forcibly remove him from his vehicle. They then harassed him with a search of his vehicle and person even though the dog didn't appear to give any sort of reaction other than sniff at the car, which of course came up with nothing.
What's even worse is that multiple cops from different jurisdictions apparently stood around watching and endorsed the action.
And some question why people who value their liberty are turning against the police.
Well I shared this with a local pd higher up that had not seen it yet. He basically stated that if it had been one of his officers, the officer would be immediately dismissed and, likely the victim that was harassed and lied to By the officer would get Substantial pay day from the agencies the officers represented if the issue was pushed.
That's just not good enough! He should be beaten and the dog killed! Right guys???
RedneckFur
Smith & Wesson is a religion of peace.
Given how easy it is to train a dog to make false "hits" or interpret something the dog does as a "hit" when you really want to search someone, I think that drug K9's need to be a thing of the past. Sure, they have some legitimate use, but they're far too easy to use as an excuse to violate someone's rights.
I promise to you that everyone here respects officers who are doing their duty legally, and taking the steps to protect our civil rights. Unlike some gun forums, not many here worship those who wear a star on their chest. Yeah, cops wanna go home at the end of shift. Just like every other working man in this country. Big whoop.
I promise to you that everyone here respects officers who are doing their duty legally, and taking the steps to protect our civil rights. Unlike some gun forums, not many here worship those who wear a star on their chest. Yeah, cops wanna go home at the end of shift. Just like every other working man in this country. Big whoop.
No, and maybe. We do, after all, shoot lamed racehorses, it's the humane thing. A dog that can't be trusted to do it's job. There are a lot of chinese restaurants in Wilmington.
I'm with redneckfur on this. K9's are used as a tool to get around the 4th Amendment. That's evil, plain and simple. On top of that, dogs are given the same protections as human officers. I'm all for doing away with K9's. And if that means General Tso's drops a dollar for the next few months, all the better.
/me waits for someone to take this literally.
No, and maybe. We do, after all, shoot lamed racehorses, it's the humane thing. A dog that can't be trusted to do it's job. There are a lot of chinese restaurants in Wilmington.
I'm with redneckfur on this. K9's are used as a tool to get around the 4th Amendment. That's evil, plain and simple. On top of that, dogs are given the same protections as human officers. I'm all for doing away with K9's. And if that means General Tso's drops a dollar for the next few months, all the better.
/me waits for someone to take this literally.
You do know that they use dogs for more than just sniffing for contraband, right?
I can get pretty dark, but I really don't want to harm or ingest the K9. Can't we just let them go live on a farm or something? Eating them seems wrong to me.
A bombastic response deserves an equally bombastic response, that is my Modest Proposal.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Ive haven't tried dog meat but i would at least once. Native americans ate it and so did some mountain men. BBQed sounds good. Cops needing an ass whoopin well there is quite a few that do. I guess good ol fashioned ass kickings are frowned upon in these modern times.
FatboyFlash
Senior Member
They just needed to hug it out.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
No no no. You can't use violence against someone illegally detaining you while simultaneously violating your 4th amendment with a dog, cause we all know it's "searches and seizures except by using a dogs nose" right there in the SCOTUS. I mean, there were carriages being pulled over left and right by the hounds back during the days of the founding fathers....oh wait. No, they shot them back then.
And I mean the 4th is so outdated. With Amazon Echo and whatnot, I don't even have to peep in your window anymore!
And I mean the 4th is so outdated. With Amazon Echo and whatnot, I don't even have to peep in your window anymore!
Found it. Rodriguez vs United States.
1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mis- sion,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become unlawful if it is prolonged be- yond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issu- ing a warning ticket, id., at 407.
1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mis- sion,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become
Not sure whats up with the strike through text at the end. It's not supposed to be there. And any edit to say that had the strike too.
I don't think that works with court rulings(afterall, that particular strikethrough would negate the ruling). More likely, something wonky is happening with his ability to paste things, and that's cropping up, unrelated to the case, that seems to be what chiefjason is saying..
It wasn't a traffic violation, so the ruling doesn't strictly apply. However, it seems that the detention was based solely on his fare getting out near a house of ill repute, so it might still have bearing.
Yup, strikethough for me as well. I'm guessing when you paste from a pdf?
Last edited:
Negative. It is very common to see court rulings with items stuck through in similar manner.
See my edit above. Seems to be a forum issue.
Here's the link, try pasting that quote, and watch what happens after "become."
Got it. They said "become(s)," but used brackets. That activated the strikethrough BBCode. Something to remember in the future when quoting.
Last edited:
It is still very common to have parts of rulings and statue with parts struck through and underlined as jrgreen pointed out. Whether it's a forum issue or not in statute it happens.
Very well, you know more about this than I. I've seen strikethrough quite commonly in legislative acts. Can't ever remember seeing it in a Supreme Court majority ruling, since they are the final word, but if you say so.
Regardless, was a BBCode error, from
You may be correct with the superior court ruling. I was speaking more of the corrections in the statute. Where the rulings over turn parts of a statute but not the entirety of a statute.
Have time to kill?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
The Justices of SCOTUS cannot agree on the latitude provided an officer during a traffic stop. It is little wonder varying views are represented here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
The Justices of SCOTUS cannot agree on the latitude provided an officer during a traffic stop. It is little wonder varying views are represented here.
Tim
Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
2015, Rodriguez v. United States, 13-9972
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
With regard to filming, the SCOTUS has not weighed in as far as I know, but the 1st, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit/Appeals Courts have all held that filming police is protected by the 1st.
The 3rd and 4th Circuits have said that filming is protected, but an officer still has qualified immunity for denying/arresting for doing it.
Not as easy as you may think. It is more complex than just training the dog to "alert" by just a command. A dog that is actually alerting on an item it is pretty obvious. A dog is trained to alert by either pawing at it or sitting and pointing at the area with his nose. They only have one way to alert and its either sit and point or paw at it. Probably today most all dogs are trained to "passive" alert (sit) over the pawing alert. Pawing alert can cause problems with liability and if their is any type of explosive.
Also keep in mind a dog can "alert" on a car and nothing is there. Why? Maybe the drugs are there and the officers can not find them. Maybe their was recently drugs there and the residual smell is still present. Or it could be a piece of crap officer saying the dog alerted when it did not.
Most despotic regimes do not rise to and maintain power because of the sole dictator, or even a small handful of evil men hellbent on the misery of the populace. They rise to power and become legitimized by the hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people who do the bidding of the rulers....those who mindlessly lock their fellow Citizens in cages, those who man the gates and the checkpoints, those who use violence under the color of law to violate the Rights of their neighbors.
It's these men and women, the "normal, good" people who starve and work other humans to death. Who bury them in mass graves or keep the furnaces hot.
All because the great mass of humanity does what it's told, where the individual doesn't think for themselves or stand on principle, or question deeply the moral or ethical ramifications of "just doing one's job."
I have no doubt that many police officers are good men and women. That said, I also hold no illusions about their willingness to do immoral and unethical things when they're told to do so.
Most would, in fact "come and take them" if given the order, regardless of the NRA sticker on the back of their car.
Most would kick in your door in the middle of the night, kill your dog and assault you, your spouse and your children on the slimmest of evidence.....especially if you resist in any way.
Later they'll celebrate taking out another one of the "bad guys," without a tinge of guilt on their conscience.
In the aftermath, the excuse would be it's just a job, they may not agree with it but that's your problem, to be solved by the courts and the politicians. If they burn away your toddler's face in the raid with a flashbang, then they are not at fault, because the paper said there might be a plant that the Crown has decreed cannot be owned by subjects on the premises.
So the story goes, if you even question this behavior, you hate all police.
This is the way all Free societies descend into oppression- not from the lone evil dictator, but from the untold thousands who carry out his bidding.
Great power is so easily abused that it takes exceptional character to go an entire career without shifting over to the dark side sometimes. The problem is that once you jump into that once, then the next time is easier. Telling that annoying lawyer a lie about recording him was an easy little lie, and I've done that myself to get my teenager to shut up. But having done that, I guess it would be a shorter jump to an illegal search/fishing expedition.
We should support them, respect them, give them the tools and training they need to do their job, and make sure they know you have their back, but watch them like a hawk. If they make an error due to carelessness or lack of training, then help them not make that mistake again. And when you find one that's deliberately abusing the public trust, help him find a new career.
We should support them, respect them, give them the tools and training they need to do their job, and make sure they know you have their back, but watch them like a hawk. If they make an error due to carelessness or lack of training, then help them not make that mistake again. And when you find one that's deliberately abusing the public trust, help him find a new career.