ANOTHER funny taser video by Succatash

At the end of the clip, the wife is still in the car and the cop searches the vehicle without asking her permission or having a warrant. Is that legal?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Unfortunately, there were multiple cuts in the video footage. Keep in mind that this means we don't have the full story.

Reaction 1 - I didn't know they could arrest you for not signing a citation.

2 - I think the man's failure to comply with the police officer's instructions may be related to his similar surprise at Item 1.

3 - Assuming the arrest was legal, I will say that when an officer is arresting you, you really must comply with his instructions.

4 - If the officer was arresting this citizen, why was he so reticent to read the man his rights... even when asked to do so? If he wasn't arresting this citizen, then what was the deal with ordering him out of the car and tasering him?

5 - Did the Officer have permission to enter the vehicle, or probable cause to do so? If so, why was this omitted?

6 - If the arrest was legal, and if the man did not follow instructions, then some degree of force would have to be applied. If all of these ifs are true, then I suppose a taser is as good a means of force as any.

A lot about this incident smells bad to me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:37 PM

I'm wondering if the footage was cut to meet the 10 minute limit on Youtube?

"I suppose a taser is as good a means of force as any."

That video is a bizarro game of Simon Says. Applying electric shocks seems so... lab rat, puppy training, Simon didn't say - ZAPPP!

That guy was just driving down the road, and got pulled over and zapped and locked up - for daring to act like a free man in a free country. All he was doing was calmy standing up for his rights and he ate shit for that. Unbelievable.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:45 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Succatash, I feel your selection of a very specific section of my quote misrepresents the entire theme of my post. I said this:

"6 - If the arrest was legal, and if the man did not follow instructions, then some degree of force would have to be applied. If all of these ifs are true, then I suppose a taser is as good a means of force as any."

Which means that in a situation where force must be applied, a taser is probably as good a means of applying that force as any. The alternatives being wrestling, punching, baton beatings and shootings.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
At the end of the clip, the wife is still in the car and the cop searches the vehicle without asking her permission or having a warrant. Is that legal?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

.

Yes. A cop has to ask, if no law is clearly broken, for permission to search. Your answer should always be..."I do not consent to any search of my person or property". Say it loud , as most confrontations between police and their masters(us) are filmed or taped.........Hero will have a different take, however he is a cunt that trades his communities Liberties for his paycheck.....Well, it's true........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:51 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I'm wondering if the footage was cut to meet the 10 minute limit on Youtube?"

Hello,

No doubt. However, the selection of what to remove might have benefitted the officer, the citizen, or neither. We can't know. We must acknowledge that we don't have the whole picture.

Albeit, what we have is disturbing.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Succatash, I feel your selection of a very specific section of my quote misrepresents the entire theme of my post. I said this:

"6 - If the arrest was legal, and if the man did not follow instructions, then some degree of force would have to be applied. If all of these ifs are true, then I suppose a taser is as good a means of force as any."

I hear you, but I think your premise may be flawed.

If calling for back up is not considered a degree of force, then he should have called for backup before using force.

And if calling for back up is considered a use of force, then that is better than using a taser. Unless the cop is in danger, of course.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:53 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
At the end of the clip, the wife is still in the car and the cop searches the vehicle without asking her permission or having a warrant. Is that legal?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

.

Yes. A cop has to ask, if no law is clearly broken, for permission to search. Your answer should always be..."I do not consent to any search of my person or property". Say it loud , as most confrontations between police and their masters(us) are filmed or taped.........Hero will have a different take, however he is a cunt that trades his communities Liberties for his paycheck.....Well, it's true........

Kaneman,

Lobbing insults at people is counterproductive to your cause... Unless you don't want people to take you seriously, and merely see you as offensive. In which case, bravo. Keep it up.

Piratenews often suffers from a similar malady. People get caught up in HOW he says things and stop listening to WHAT he's saying.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

-duplicate-

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I hear you, but I think your premise may be flawed.

If calling for back up is not considered a degree of force, then he should have called for backup before using force.

And if calling for back up is considered a use of force, then that is better than using a taser. Unless it's in self defense, of course.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

Hello,

I can agree with you here. When someone resists arrest, I'm certain protocol requires the summoning of backup if backup is not already present. I will happily add this oddity to the oddity of not reading a man his rights when he asks you to. (Even though you claim to be arresting him.)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
At the end of the clip, the wife is still in the car and the cop searches the vehicle without asking her permission or having a warrant. Is that legal?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

.

Yes. A cop has to ask, if no law is clearly broken, for permission to search. Your answer should always be..."I do not consent to any search of my person or property". Say it loud , as most confrontations between police and their masters(us) are filmed or taped.........Hero will have a different take, however he is a cunt that trades his communities Liberties for his paycheck.....Well, it's true........

Kaneman,

Lobbing insults at people is counterproductive to your cause... Unless you don't want people to take you seriously, and merely see you as offensive. In which case, bravo. Keep it up.

Piratenews often suffers from a similar malady. People get caught up in HOW he says things and stop listening to WHAT he's saying.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Thanks for the advise. however, I stand by my post ...don't care if you like my "style" or not. My post is 100 percent true....now go fuck off ...."Statist"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

No, Kaneman.

Being offensive and calling people names is your right, but it doesn't make you right. It also won't get you obeyed where I am concerned.

Calling someone a cunt is poor form.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, Kaneman.

Being offensive and calling people names is your right, but it doesn't make you right. It also won't get you obeyed where I am concerned.

Calling someone a cunt is poor form.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Fuck you...how 'bout that....tool

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:38 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Kaneman, do you insult people because you can do so without reprisal?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:41 PM

Not really....Just get "hot" on certain topics...my apologies

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:43 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Accepted. And I apologize if you feel I was trying to censor you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:57 PM

Firstoff, dead-to-rights this reeks of speedtrap/setup.

The officer in question was CLEARLY camping out a temporary speed limit sign such as used in construction projects, and the vehicle in question was not accellerating at the time, looks to me like the driver saw the sign late or maybe not at all, it being in an unexpected place, and let off the gas, which is what most folk do - if the sign is radically different than the otherwise posted speed, it can indeed cause a substantial problem otherwise.

First thing that jumps out at me is when the guy asks "I just got one question, how fast was I going (indecipherable)"

The police officer responds aggressively, immediately escalating the situation with his tone and word choice.

There's clearly a discrepency between the drivers reading of the speedometer (I acknowledge he might not be honest here) and the officers reading, but based on the behavior of the vehicle as it slowed to a stop - without a significant load the bumper would have lifted noticeably - I am inclined to believe the drivers assessment.

The driver wanted to know WHY he was being issued a ticket, specifically, information the officer should clearly and in no uncertain terms provide without him needing to ask.
He also questions where the supposed 40mph sign IS... and here's the kick.

Where the cruiser WAS, at the beginning of this video, because of the temporary signs low placement, the cruiser itself was blocking the view of the sign somewhat from that angle.

And if the driver wanted to see the sign in question - there's no logical or sane reason not for the officer and the driver to take a little walk and go look at it, I mean it was RIGHT behind them.

The driver clearly wanted verification of the sign BEFORE signing the ticket, which is completely understandable if he had not seen it due to the cruiser being in the way.

When the cop tells him to get out of the car, the driver seemed to assume they were gonna go look at the sign, I mean, he POINTED to it for crying out loud...

And the officer IMMEDIATELY and fully escalates the situation by not only his conduct, but drawing a WEAPON (cause that is what a taser is) and pointing it at the guy - it is at this point that the officer is now wholly in the wrong, and a criminal threatening someone with violence.*

And then he zaps the guy, and for what, because he didn't immediately obey ?
He offered no warning, and zapped the driver from behind when the driver was clearly offering no threat whatsoever and returning to his vehicle - expressing undeniable shock with the officers actions.

And now while cuffing him, the officer tells him "because you did not obey my instructions".
Maybe if the driver had gotten a response BEFORE that, it would not have come to this.

All this guy seemed to want, was one clear look at the 40mph sign - and being that it was a TEMPORARY sign in a place he might not have seen it, that is absolutely an understandable thing.

And when he gets up and goes to comfort his now hysterical wife, the officer aggressively pushes him away, after leaving him down and unattended like that ?

I dunno, just watching this guys attitude sets my teeth on edge, especially when they start mocking the guy for getting tasered.

Then they perform a no-consent search of the vehicle, with neither warrant nor probable cause, followed by outright LYING to his fellow officer/supervisor, claiming the driver jumped around, LYING AGAIN, about issuing a warning prior to tasing.

And, the ugly issue of the taser looking like a firearm once AGAIN rears it's ugly head, as the driver did indeed think he was staring down the barrel of a real firearm initially.

As far as being read ones rights, unfortunately Anthony, the law is kinda... flexible... when it comes to the shitheels enforcing it, which is why folks like Hero have a job other than court jester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

"police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given. Furthermore, if public safety (see New York v. Quarles) warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda warning, and the evidence thus obtained can sometimes still be used against the defendant."

In common useage, this means that unless they mean to question you, they do not have to issue the Miranda warning.

In practice, "What rights, you ain't got no rights, perp!"

As far as not signing a ticket goes...

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14631

Apparently there's a lot of discretion, and confusion, even amongst the police themselves, an area ripe for, and rife with, abuse wherever such is possible.

That's pretty moot because the driver had a reasonable request, to see this alleged sign BEFORE signing the ticket, and the officer was in a position with every reason to allow that and completely hosed it, piss poor training, attitude and control issues, escalating rather than de-escalating.. leaving a downed suspect unattended, and just general incompetence all around.

My call ?

Officer fired, charged with felony assault, false arrest and quite possibly perjury (if he dared utter those same lies under oath), with maximum sentences for each, consecutive.

*The moment he actually DREW the weapon, is where he blew it - and in a fire/no fire drill between two non-LEOs, that's a *fire* decision, just so you know it.

I state that because for the record, the moment a police officer oversteps his bounds, he is legally no longer a LEO at that point, but an armed criminal intent on possibly harming you, under the very letter of the law.

We all know it doesn't REALLY work that way (giving lie to the entire system at that point), but from a legal standpoint that's a "self-defense" shooting, only for some reason inexplicable to me, the law goes out the window and is disregarded utterly when it comes to self-defense against abuse by agents of law enforcement.

Which renders the whole damn concept of law and order invalid, if it does not apply equally to everybody, doesn't it ?

They're not lords, we're not peons, and it's time to fucking ADDRESS that fact.

Who's money do you think is gonna pay out that well-deserved lawsuit, eh ?
Think they'll dock the cops paychecks for it ?
Or ramp up their budget requests and screw it out of us peons, then, yes ?
And then whine that they don't have enough toys...

One huge problem with Tasers is the instant gratification "street justice" effect, even if the cop knows it's a bullshit charge and arrest that'll be thrown out or dropped before it even reaches court, they still have the ego-stroke of knowing they hurt and humiliated the "perp" by causing them pain and suffering, establishing their dominance, etc - on the spot.

That is *remarkably* like the behavior of a mafia or street gang, and utterly nothing like proper law enforcement, a vigilantism that is completely intolerable and makes an absolute mockery of the entire system - Judge Dredd, as it were.

I told ya it was gonna be hell to put a lid on it once they got a taste of that, cause the systematic corruption of the process by the sub-society police have become needs to be addressed FIRST, before you can ever trust them with such a device.

And before more people die from "Excited Delerium" from a LESS lethal, rather than NON lethal, device...

Again, I ask - what's worth potentially killing a person over ?
Some stupid bullshit like this ?

I do not think so.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:52 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
One huge problem with Tasers is the instant gratification "street justice" effect, even if the cop knows it's a bullshit charge and arrest that'll be thrown out or dropped before it even reaches court, they still have the ego-stroke of knowing they hurt and humiliated the "perp" by causing them pain and suffering, establishing their dominance, etc - on the spot.
I told ya it was gonna be hell to put a lid on it once they got a taste of that, cause the systematic corruption of the process by the sub-society police have become needs to be addressed FIRST, before you can ever trust them with such a device.

Irresponsible Taser use has definently made a blip on society's radar. It will be interesting to see what the B.C. commision comes up with.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/21/taser-review.html
I'm just curious Frem, how many traffic stops like the one in the video do you think were carried out across the country that day?
How many stops ended up like this one?
If I were to post a video depicting a 'buy the book' traffic stop would you provide the same kind of in-depth commentary?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Yes. A cop has to ask, if no law is clearly broken, for permission to search. Your answer should always be..."I do not consent to any search of my person or property". Say it loud , as most confrontations between police and their masters(us) are filmed or taped.........Hero will have a different take, however he is a cunt that trades his communities Liberties for his paycheck.....Well, it's true........

Actually my take on your comment is pretty much the same. If you say that line clear and loud then police must have probable cause to search your property. As for your person, the same is true with the limited exception that police can do a stop and frisk search (which is a basic pat down of the outside of your clothing) if they feel the situation warrants it (most judges I know take this to mean they feel some kind of reasonable, articulable suspicion or threat). If they feel a gun or knife of such, then they can search further. If they feel a baggy (possibly containing green vegetable-like matter), its probably going to get pulled out and you'll get cited, but the search probably wont stand up.

I note for the record that if the police conduct a search a find drugs and then its thrown out...I'm ok with it cause clearly their instincts were right. If they do it and find nothing...then nobody gets arrested and its a non-issue. Its like arresting a drunk driver but messing up on the procedural part (like pressing the wrong button of the breathalyzer...these folks are human and they have bad days too). The most important thing is getting the drunk off the street...getting the conviction is a secondary consideration...except for me cause I NEVER lose.

I note for the record that I have both free speech AND a fine goverment paycheck...

And I won my Jury trial on Tuesday...so I'm still undefeated in front of the box (this one was very iffy...I had to do me some damn fine lawyer'n...wore my bright orange tie too).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:03 AM

"I'm just curious Frem, how many traffic stops like the one in the video do you think were carried out across the country that day?"

In the USA ? helluva lot, it's not really any form of law enforcement anymore around here, you see, but rather revenue generation - and police depts are hand in hand with the political system in the effect that more revenue generated that way makes politicians happy and leads to larger budgets and more toys for the boys in blue.

That being the case, corruption of the process is inevitable due to sheer greed.

Most of these stops are conducted without incident, because the way things are set up, it's just about impossible to offer opposition to a cop even when they are blatantly and wholly in the wrong - there's no real provision for it, and chances are you will be hurt, prosecuted or even killed over it, and it ain't worth that risk.

So while most folk view it for the extortion it is, they just bend over and take it.

"How many stops ended up like this one?"

Relatively few, but that's still too damn many.

"If I were to post a video depicting a 'buy the book' traffic stop would you provide the same kind of in-depth commentary?"

Sure, if you like - remember, what I *WANT* is to do their job and do it correctly and efficiently... sure, I'd like to dispose of the whole concept entire but it ain't gonna happen, leastways not anytime soon.

I don't have an issue with pointing out when they did something smart, or right, like in the UC tasering incident, of all the officers the one who got the most right, AND might have been able to solo the situation without it going banco, was the smaller one of the initial pair - go back and watch through it again, that one MIGHT have got him out the door without a problem, were it not for the active interference of the other officers, complicating the situation by adding new factors to it.

And whoever cut the mic on the guy, bang-on the correct thing to do.

Where THIS officer coulda salvaged it, coulda got it right - was first not escalating the situation by being needlessly aggressive and hostile, AND he could have put his hand ON the holstered taser with his other hand out for direction when addressing the situation, if it needed addressing that way (alternatively he could have judged the situation accurately, and walked to the sign, then handed him the ticket to sign) but drawing the weapon was utterly over the top.

So yeah, go for it, if you wish.

As for Hero's comments.

"Actually my take on your comment is pretty much the same. If you say that line clear and loud then police must have probable cause to search your property.."

Bullshit, according to MOST police depts and courts, refusing the search CREATES "probable cause".. it's a catch-22 situation that accomplishes nothing but feel-good so they can SAY they're not shitting on the fourth amendment when they clearly are.

"And I won my Jury trial on Tuesday...so I'm still undefeated in front of the box.."

It's no cause for celebration to win when you're playing with a stacked deck, dude.

Pull the so-called "Random" jury selection software and have it evaluated by a third party technical specialist not on the payroll before you try to sell me that one.

(FYI - Detroit is in *deep* shit for this one right now, the oversight task force examined the software and boy are they pissed)

Do yourself a favor if ever arrested here - "accidently forget" to check the box where they ask your race, you stand a much, MUCH better chance of getting an honest jury that way.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"except for me cause I NEVER lose."

Hello,

I think it's nice that you are good at your job, Hero. I am curious, though...

A defense attorney pretty much has to take any case that falls on his plate, for the most part, right?

And a prosecuting attorney gets to pick and choose, based on early evidence, only the cases he thinks he can win, right? You wouldn't even go into court if the evidence wasn't up to snuff, I imagine.

If that's true (and I acknowledge that my understanding of the process may be shallow) then every time that you enter the courtroom, victory is, for you, a likelihood. And your opponent starts with the proverbial cards stacked against him.

So... it would seem that with victory a foregone conclusion before you enter the arena, an undefeated record is simply an indication that your talents of picking the right fights are well honed.

It would further seem that in any case where 'fancy lawyerin' was involved on your part, you may have misjudged the clarity of guilt on the part of your opponent. Which perhaps should result in no small amount of private embarrassment at taking a case where the evidence was iffy.

Do I misunderstand the process?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And I say again: People are shaped by the tools they use. This is what you get when you give a group pf people batons, tasers, guns, and the power of random arrest: BULLIES WITH GUNS

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Surely you are not advocating the disarming of police?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:09 AM

Siggy, could you clarify that a bit ?

I'm just not mentally connecting the concept here.

I mean, I own a piece, and use it regularly to keep in practice, but yanno - never once have I fired it at a person, or had to, thankfully.

Damned sure I never want to, either.

And I drive a car all day, and happen to somewhat dislike cars as a method of transportation overall in spite of that fact.

I mean, I see the whole near limitless authority with laughable, if any oversight and how that pans out - come on, it's my favorite bitch, you know...

But I don't get where the "People are shaped by the tools they use" fits in here.

I feel a nibble in the back of my mind, but my thought process just isn't gettin a tooth hold on the concept, you get me ?

(EDIT) "Surely you are not advocating the disarming of police?"

Why the hell not ?
It's good enough for us peons, right ?

I think they should have to jump through every last bit of the same hoops we do in order to carry, and be restricted to the exact same limits we are - they are NOT Lords, we are NOT Peons.

That is part and parcel of the problem, having one set of rules for them, and another for us, it splits it into a class issue when it's not and never should have been.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:12 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Bullshit, according to MOST police depts and courts, refusing the search CREATES "probable cause".. it's a catch-22 situation that accomplishes nothing

Then why did YOU advise them to refuse? You did that, it made sense so I agreed. In my experiance as a Prosecutor a refusal has NEVER created probable cause.

I note for the record that Ohio is considering making refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test (like breath or blood) an admission that shift the burdon of proof to the Defendant. I disagree with this, but its the legislature...what can you do?

Quote:

"And I won my Jury trial on Tuesday...so I'm still undefeated in front of the box.."

It's no cause for celebration to win when you're playing with a stacked deck, dude.

Tell that to the Patriots...

And this was no stacked deck. I worked my ass off before and during the trial. I consider it my best work. It was 50/50 either way. DUI accident, two people in the car, both intoxicated and police arrived after they exited the car so the main issue was who was driving. They each said the other was. Seat belt marks were the key, plus some fancified talking at the end by me.

Quote:

Pull the so-called "Random" jury selection software and have it evaluated by a third party technical specialist not on the payroll before you try to sell me that one.

Sure...first I'll find a technical specialist that will do the work for free. Then he will wonder why he's evaluating software that does not exist (since our Jury pools are hand selected from voter registration records, my office is Republican, the office that does that is Democrat and there's no love lost). Our Jury had 6 women, three men, 1 African American (which is right for our demographics). A Pastor, three school teachers, an engineer, a couple homemakers or retired folk and one lady who was laid off. The only two guys I got rid of was the 24 year old fella with three DUIs and the History Prof who asked off so he could interview for a job later that day.

Can't disagree with your comments about Detroit though...I've heard its REAL bad there.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:15 AM

"Then why did YOU advise them to refuse? You did that, it made sense so I agreed."

That was Kane's suggestion, not mine.

Although for the record my exact response to a request for a search is "Get a fuckin warrant and show it to me, or be on your merry.. sir."

And yeah, I had my place searched once, WITH a proper warrant they handed me through the door and let me read prior to entry, to their credit - some local dope dealer told em there were illegal assault rifles in the apartment, for reasons unknown, and when I told em to piss off they did come back with a warrant, by the book, and I let em in... and you know what ?

They then proceeded to rather blatantly trash the place, deliberately causing as much mess and destruction as possible, abandoning even the pretense of looking for weapons - and left emptyhanded.

The landlord, who they never even bothered to ask (who could have let them search without the need for a warrant since he's the owner of the property) had a bit of a tiff and made them pay damages for the furniture they busted up, and then knocked some of it off the next 2 months rent, which was pretty cool of him.

The BCPD considers *any* resistance to even the idea of a search to be probable cause, and if you examine their SOP, it's to ask, and then when refused cite probable cause and do it anyway.

That makes the whole idea a freakin joke, the ONLY reason they went away that night was cause it was just two of em and they pondered the fact that if there WERE assault weapons in the apartment, then the guy behind the door who was taking exception to their desire to search it might have had one in hand at the time.

Was eight of em when they came back, but just cruiser campers, no swat guys, and they sure hell weren't stupid enough to stand all in a line on the narrow steps leading to the only entrance (a double-door L-type) to a second floor apartment neither.

Other than trashin the place, they did it right too, handed in the warrant, let me read the damn thing, and it clearly stated what they were looking for and where it was likely to be, as the law requires, so I opened the door and sat in the kitchen while they had their little temper tantrum and left.

These days they'd prolly just kick in the door and tase you, THEN trash the place on top of it.

It was bad enough before, but it's really out of hand now.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:45 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Sometimes in life, " discretion is the better part of valor." You face many obstacles in life....sometimes you should stand up and fight for what's "right", and fight the fight that needs fighting. You also need to measure that with fight the fights you can win. Being an un-cooperative smart-ass to any law enforcement officer is never one of those situations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:45 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Although for the record my exact response to a request for a search is "Get a fuckin warrant and show it to me, or be on your merry.. sir."

If you say that then it would serve as a refusal to consent and without probable cause or exigent circumstances you will not be searched (or at least anything found will not be admissable).

I note for the record that if you use those exact words I can't guarrantee you wont get your ass kicked for being such a "merry" pansy.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:02 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

www.infowars.net/articles/november2007/211107Tased.htm

This week, FOUR people were tazered to DEATH (murdered by police death squads). Over 300 tasered to death this year in USA.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Reaction 1 - I didn't know they could arrest you for not signing a citation.

2 - I think the man's failure to comply with the police officer's instructions may be related to his similar surprise at Item 1.

3 - Assuming the arrest was legal, I will say that when an officer is arresting you, you really must comply with his instructions.

4 - If the officer was arresting this citizen, why was he so reticent to read the man his rights... even when asked to do so? If he wasn't arresting this citizen, then what was the deal with ordering him out of the car and tasering him?

5 - Did the Officer have permission to enter the vehicle, or probable cause to do so? If so, why was this omitted?

6 - If the arrest was legal, and if the man did not follow instructions, then some degree of force would have to be applied. If all of these ifs are true, then I suppose a taser is as good a means of force as any.

A lot about this incident smells bad to me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Rules of Traffic Court:

1. Read your rights for yourself, BEFORE a traffic stop (arrest) by police state death squads.

2. NEVER ask a dumb cop what your rights are. A cop is not a lawyer, and is REQUIRED to have a low IQ, or else he might figure out all his orders are illegal.

3. Miranda rights are never required, until police are ready to interrogate. Voluntary confessions by stupid sheeple waiver all Miranda and Constitutional rights. The First Amendment includes the right to STFU, and not volunteer as the prosecution's star witness.

4. Traffic cops and traffic courts have no jurisdiction for victimless traffic "crimes", unless the sheeple are dumb enough to voluntarily sign a civil "driver license" contract (internal passport as required by Communist Manifesto), and sign a civil "traffic citation" contract to voluntarily appear in court. Signing these contracts waiver all Constitutional rights. 40-million illegal aliens are not required to have driver licenses nor identification.

5. No person is ever required to obey unlawful orders from police state death squads. Any person is allowed to use deadly force and justifiable homicide against traffic copsters in lawful self defense. Including use of full-auto assault rifles and dynomite, in a 12-hour firefight to arrest the sheriff and all his deputies in the jailhouse.
www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

6. After an arrest, copsters "inventory" a vehicle before or after it's impounded, which bypasses probable cause.

7. No person has any legal rights when they voluntarily waiver them. Silence is consent to rape in every court of law. Every person must file criminal charges against police, prosecutors and judges in traffic court in every case, to enforce THE LAW.

8. Sign all contracts with the addendum: "Under Protest", "Under Duress", "UCC 1-207" and/or your state's statute for UCC in commercial transactions, which denies jurisdiction to traffic courts, without arrest for "failure to sign a voluntary contract to appear in court for a civil lawsuit for alleged breach of civil driver license contract".

Quote:
"I saw two officers as before, who rode up to me, with their pistols in their hands, said God damn you stop, if go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out. Major Mitchel of the 5th Regt clapd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid."
—Colonel Paul Revere, owner of RevereWare¨, sworn affidavit: "Memorandum on Events of April 18, 1775" (declassified Top Secret), while under arrest (and subsequent escape) from Redcoat martial-law traffic police at Minute Man National Historic Park, Paul Revere Capture Site, kicking off the American Revolutionary War (British-American Civil War), at the Battle of Lexington and Concord with justifiable homicide in self defense by shooting and killing over 200 traffic copster slaves of King George III, heriditary dictator of England who attempted "gun control" by an Assault Weapons Ban of defensive 50-caliber muskets and cannon, Paul Revere's Ride, by David Hackett Fischer

HOW TO WIN IN TRAFFIC COURT
www.piratenews.org/how-to-win-in-dragon-court.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng
Hanoi Hannity: "Outsourcing your job is good for me."
"US ports owned by Commie China is good for me."
"Dead and disabled US soldiers are good for me."
"Sir Rupert dines with Hillary every week."
"Ron Paul does not exist in my 'Verse."

"As far as Chinese goes, I resented it."
-Adam Tudyk, The Making of Firefly

FOX, MYSPACE & FIREFLY OWNED BY COMMUNIST CHINA!
www.piratenews.org/pntv-schedule.html

Does that seem right to you?
Firefly Music Video: Tangerine dream - Confrontation, Thief soundtrack
www.megavideo.com/?v=JVT35GR8
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"People are shaped by the tools they use."

On the whole I agree with that though there are notable exceptions - the CHP which carries sidearms and has shotguns in the car, and the RCMP which also carries sidearms. (The British police BTW are not armed.) So there is something else at work - perhaps tradition in the case of the RCMP, and a good CHP training program.

But generally - the cops you get in the US have no business being armed given the attitudes they have.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:03 PM

EXACTLY the point I was making, Hero, thanks for helping out with it.

They can be as hostile and disrespectful to you as they damn well please, yet in response anything but subservient bootlicking may well result in extra-legal criminal violence against you - cheered on and held up as justified by the state and it's agents.

So are we supposed to bend the knee when they pass now, or what ?

And tell me again that our justice system isn't a scam ?

That having two sets of rules doesn't violate the whole goddamn concept of equal rights ?

Walked right into that one, you did - and revealed the true colors one again.

Hold THEM to the same, or greater, standards than WE are held to, and maybe, just maybe, I won't view them as the scummy criminal mafia they are in fact and practice.

Greater power equals greater responsibility - remove that last, and this IS what happens, curse it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:27 PM

LEADB

Hero, two questions from your recent exchange with Frem.

Let's say that Frem happened to be in your district and used his version of "I do not consent to be searched." Two senarios.

1) Officer takes a swing at Frem; and Frem is able to defend himself with a minimum of damage to the officer; and only slight bruising to himself.

2) Officer pummels Frem near unto death; and perhaps beyond.

Assume there are either witnesses or camera footage that shows Frem did not initiate the violence.

Would you prosecute the officer in either or both cases?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:44 PM

He's not gonna answer you, and hand you confirmation and hard evidence of what you already know, Anthony - he's a prosecutor and not completely stupid, so he'll just leave you hang, leave you guessing, rather than making a statement he'll have to stand behind or deny, especially in a public forum.

That bein said..
More on the whole Lords vs Peons attitude issue.

(WARNING, pretty graphic photo, upsetting)
http://www.kidk.com/news/11676076.html

Although Chris Rock's take on it is funny.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 7:19 AM

I'm shocked, the Utah Highway Patrol has cleared the officer, the tasing was justified.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2245753

!!!!

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 7:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Keep up with that attitude Succatash and you WILL be shocked! Until you COMPLY, DAMNIT!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 7:53 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

According to the article, the events leading up to the tasing may NOT have been justified, and the officer will likely be reprimanded in some fashion for it.

Or, in other words, he's being criticized for the severe communication breakdown that caused the taser use to 'seem' necessary.

Or, in better words, they admit that the tasing was the result of officer error, and so the use of force should never have been necessary... hence the tasing was unjustified.

A paraphrase would look something like this:

"The tasing was justified due to the unjustified actions of the officer before the tasing."

It's always interesting to see how the government communicates ideas.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Well, they got a rude shock comin, pun intended, bein that enough folks are pissed off, upset, and afraid enough to want defensive measures against this kind of abuse, and even though after some discussion over whether that's a good idea or not (see also: comments between me and Jack relative to that in another thread) - it's pretty much guaranteed to happen now, the demand will create the supply to fill it.

I just have an earnest concern when some less than competent or downright abusive officer hands out the zap to someone so defended, he's gonna reach for his service weapon and escalate matters to a truly lethal conclusion...

Worst case, and haunting my thoughts, is someone with a tasershield jacket running up against an abusive officer and firing on them in self-defense, then being mowed down by half the dept in a vengeful rage.

Just so you know, for those kinds of reasons, I argued against flooding the market with the stuff - and lost.

I think this problem better addressed at the training and policy level BEFORE it comes to that, but the general perception is that such is a completely lost cause in the face of calcified and fully entrenched criminal behavior.

Dunno what to tell ya beyond that.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 2, 2007 10:26 PM