Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fda_1375442766

    Notice that she releases the detainees, but then pins them in place by asking more questions. When the driver asked again whether he was free to go, she gets nasty including a threat to order them out of the vehicle and search the car.

    I've read a number of appellate case summaries on www.fourthamendment.com where a cop did something along these lines--the extra questions. This is not a new tactic; and based on my reading, I would say its fairly common.

    Ordinarily, we could say that when the cop says you're free to go, then get outa there. But, in this case it doesn't seem like that tactic would have worked.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471
    Kinda bullcrap. A lot. She said I'm free to go, I'm going. I have no desire to speak with a cop more than I am required to by law. This extra line of questioning should be strictly optional, and there's no reason for them to detain me for not answering their question.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    From her words on the video it also appears that it might have been a suspicionless stop.
    "Why did you pull me over?"
    "Because we have a lot of problems with fraud rental cars in here and I saw you guys all split up when I pulled in."

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    ....another isolated incident....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    ....another isolated incident....
    Always is!
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by jfrey123 View Post
    Kinda bullcrap. A lot. She said I'm free to go, I'm going. I have no desire to speak with a cop more than I am required to by law. This extra line of questioning should be strictly optional, and there's no reason for them to detain me for not answering their question.
    Here's my take on this tactic, based on what I've been able to glean from case summaries at FourthAmendment(dot)com.

    Cops seem to be somewhat restrained to investigating and asking questions reasonably related to the stop. And, they seem to be required to not unreasonably prolong a stop.

    So, it seems the police tactic is to finish the business of the traffic stop--write a ticket, warning, whatever. Then tell the person he is free to go, but then ask a few questions or ask to search the car because "we've had a lot of problems with (insert invented problem here)". The whole point seems to be to make a clear legal line for consent so the defense attorney cannot claim the consent was coerced or something. "He was free to leave, and was told so, but chose to stay consensually".

    Also, remember the second video from FlexYourRights? The first cop in that video requests to search the car because, "we've had a lot of problems with...". Same premise as the cop in the OP clip. "We've had a lot of problems with..."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    As soon as you are free to leave, put it in gear and GTFO. Bonus points for rolling the window up in her face.

    This is how it's done:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkKk5VAy59w

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Here's my take on this tactic, based on what I've been able to glean from case summaries at FourthAmendment(dot)com.

    Cops seem to be somewhat restrained to investigating and asking questions reasonably related to the stop. And, they seem to be required to not unreasonably prolong a stop.

    So, it seems the police tactic is to finish the business of the traffic stop--write a ticket, warning, whatever. Then tell the person he is free to go, but then ask a few questions or ask to search the car because "we've had a lot of problems with (insert invented problem here)". The whole point seems to be to make a clear legal line for consent so the defense attorney cannot claim the consent was coerced or something. "He was free to leave, and was told so, but chose to stay consensually".

    Also, remember the second video from FlexYourRights? The first cop in that video requests to search the car because, "we've had a lot of problems with...". Same premise as the cop in the OP clip. "We've had a lot of problems with..."
    Generally speaking, this is correct analysis, with the understanding that the case law varies state to state. In many states, the "clean break" principle applies, for instance. That's what you are referencing up above.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fda_1375442766

    Notice that she releases the detainees, but then pins them in place by asking more questions. When the driver asked again whether he was free to go, she gets nasty including a threat to order them out of the vehicle and search the car.

    I've read a number of appellate case summaries on www.fourthamendment.com where a cop did something along these lines--the extra questions. This is not a new tactic; and based on my reading, I would say its fairly common.

    Ordinarily, we could say that when the cop says you're free to go, then get outa there. But, in this case it doesn't seem like that tactic would have worked.
    Now I have a question I have wondered for some time. This vile mouthed female LEO had no problem using foul language to a few of her bosses. Suppose the guy in the car told her to go f--k herself. Do you think she would go ballistic? Then why the hell do they get upset and in a huff when citizens get go after them when they are using such language at us? Seems they need to learn some respect.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 08-02-2013 at 04:34 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    After she said I was free to go, I would have kept my mouth shut -- let her rant and rave. If she ordered me out of the vehicle I would not have complied. If she would have tried to search the vehicle, I would have resisted.

    Missy would be the one needing to go to a facility then - the hospital.

    Clearly such activity would not be legal of the cop & one has the right to resist unlawful actions.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    After she said I was free to go, I would have kept my mouth shut -- let her rant and rave. If she ordered me out of the vehicle I would not have complied. If she would have tried to search the vehicle, I would have resisted.

    Missy would be the one needing to go to a facility then - the hospital.

    Clearly such activity would not be legal of the cop & one has the right to resist unlawful actions.
    Few things more amusing than an internet tuff gai.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    "Am I free to leave? No? I have nothing further to say without benefit of counsel."

    Repeat as necessary.

    If she doesn't like that she can eat her gun.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    After she said I was free to go, I would have kept my mouth shut -- let her rant and rave. If she ordered me out of the vehicle I would not have complied. If she would have tried to search the vehicle, I would have resisted.

    Missy would be the one needing to go to a facility then - the hospital.

    Clearly such activity would not be legal of the cop & one has the right to resist unlawful actions.
    Not all states recognize that right.

    For example, in VA we are not allowed to physically resist an illegal detention. Commonwealth vs Christian is the case. The court said, among other things, that the right to resist an unlawful arrest was based on the idea that in olden times, an arrest was extremely serious, but that detentions do not include the kind of dangers that went along with being arrested in the middle ages. So, the court saw no reason to extend the right to resist unlawful arrest to unlawful detention.


    As a side-note, think thru on that court's logic for a moment. Along comes SCOTUS, inventing a new police power out of thin air in Terry v Ohio--detaining someone on reasonable suspicion. Then, a later court says that because the right to resist illegal detentions did not exist previously, the court won't recognize it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Not all states recognize that right.

    For example, in VA we are not allowed to physically resist an illegal detention. Commonwealth vs Christian is the case. The court said, among other things, that the right to resist an unlawful arrest was based on the idea that in olden times, an arrest was extremely serious, but that detentions do not include the kind of dangers that went along with being arrested in the middle ages. So, the court saw no reason to extend the right to resist unlawful arrest to unlawful detention.


    As a side-note, think thru on that court's logic for a moment. Along comes SCOTUS, inventing a new police power out of thin air in Terry v Ohio--detaining someone on reasonable suspicion. Then, a later court says that because the right to resist illegal detentions did not exist previously, the court won't recognize it.
    Scotus needed to invent a standard by which people can be detained because the constitution doesn't establish one, it's only requires them to be "reasonable" just like searches.

    Lots of stuff that limits the state (vs. authorizes the state as in terry) is similarly created out of thin air

    You might as well get all hot and bothered over Miranda rights. Because the constitution nowhere requires LEO's to read the rights to people upon custodial arrest. The scotus invented it, just like terry , even moreso because terry's question was begged by the vague 4th. Miranda was not begged

    Or get upset at the exclusionary rule whereby evidence is suppressed if obtained unlawfully. That is nowhere mentioned in the constitution

    Or the right to an attorney (gideon v. wainright iirc) where the state pays for lawyers for the indigent. A right nowhere mentioned in the constitution.

    I don't see people getting all peeved that the constitution created these practices out of thin air. It works both ways. Sometimes their penumbras and emanations are absurdly stretched (as in roe v. wade and I happen to be pro choice), and sometimes it's more subtle

    But even the concept of judicial review itself, whereby the scotus is the final "decider" and gets to overturn bad law is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. It too was plucked from thin air.

    That's the rule of law we live under. On the whole, we enjoy a broader swath of recognized rights than any nation I am aware of, especially as regards RKBA and speech rights.

    And for those of us lucky enough to have chosen to live in states like WA that restrict the state FAR more than under the federal constitution, we enjoy even more protection from state intrusion (more limited curtilate searches, no search incident to arrest of MV, no DUI checkpoints, no trash search at the curb, etc. etc. etc. etc)

    It's awesome to live in such a state.

    But all this whinging about terry, and it being unconstitutional is silly. All the 4th says is a seizure must be reasonable. The framers could have set the standard for a stop in the 4th amendment. They chose not to, so the SCOTUS filled in the blanks. RAS is a standard similar to that seen in most civilized nations and it allows investigation of inchoate crimes, suspicious activity, etc. at a reasonable threshold and for a brief detention.

    Most common sense people think, for example, if I see a guy slim jimming his way into a car in a dark parking lot, I should seize the individual and investigate. Well, at least according to the judge on my case of that nature, that activity gave me merely RAS to do so. Most people find that "reasonable" thus consistent with the 4th.

    Ditto for the seizure of getaway cars, which is also usually a RAS level of evidence.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Scotus needed to invent a standard by which people can be detained because the constitution doesn't establish one, it's only requires them to be "reasonable" just like searches.
    More evasion. Not only did SCOTUS invent the standard, it invented the power. Out of thin air.

    I guess you missed my post where I cogently explained--using SCOTUS's own words--how SCOTUS did that.*

    Earlier you condescendingly told me I should read Terry v Ohio. I let that pass, because I figured you'd get the point when you saw my analysis of how SCOTUS invented Terry out of thin air. So, now its time for me to show off a little.

    You need to read the dissent in Terry v Ohio. Pay particular attention to the point where the dissenting justice calls out his colleagues for handing cops more power than magistrates have. This is another clear indication that SCOTUS invented the detention power of Terry out of thin air. It didn't exist prior.


    * Post #34 http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...63#post1967163
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-02-2013 at 11:34 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    More evasion. Not only did SCOTUS invent the standard, it invented the power. Out of thin air.

    I guess you missed my post where I cogently explained--using SCOTUS's own words--how SCOTUS did that.*

    Earlier you condescendingly told me I should read Terry v Ohio. I let that pass, because I figured you'd get the point when you saw my analysis of how SCOTUS invented Terry out of thin air. So, now its time for me to show off a little.

    You need to read the dissent in Terry v Ohio. Pay particular attention to the point where the dissenting justice calls out his colleagues for handing cops more power than magistrates have. This is another clear indication that SCOTUS invented the detention power of Terry out of thin air. It didn't exist prior.


    * Post #34 http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...63#post1967163

    I've read the dissent in Terry v. Ohio. I've read every major court decision. That's how I roll. In fact, I've quoted the dissent. it's quite eloquent.

    Regardless, the 4th amendment says searches and seizures must be reasonable. It does not ADDRESS different grades of seizures. And our courts stepped in and filled in the gaps. There's lots of smart as hell scholars that can offer beautiful prose to agree with Terry v. Ohio and lots that oppose it. Again, I've read plenty.

    This isn't an issue of me not understanding the issue. We both understand the issue, we merely disagree.

    Intelligent, informed well meaning people can , will disagree. I have no problem with that. I am more than aware that you disagree with the constitutionality of terry stops. Groovy. I don't. I think they are eminently reasonable form of seizure and that's the metric required for ANY seizure per the 4th amendment. LEO's can also seize without even indicia of a crime whatsoever e.g. community caretaking doctrine. Again, the question to ask is - is it reasonable? That' the metric they gave us, and it's the metric that MY seizures are judged by.

    You can keep repeating yourself, but trust me - I KNOW you disagree with the logic of terry. I respect that (adults can respect differing opinions).

    I certainly think Terry has more constitutional validity than Miranda, which was purely invented. Great. As a LEO, I operate under the law we have, not the law we wish we had. In many respects I think cops have too many search and seizure powers. In a few areas i think we have too little. Again, groovy.

    I overwhelmingly believe in rule of law, which is why I FOLLOW Miranda. I don't have to agree with it; I just have to comply with it.

    Either way, I 100% understand your argument. I just don't agree with it. Reasonableness is the requisite metric and imo terry meets it
    Last edited by PALO; 08-02-2013 at 11:42 PM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I've read the dissent in Terry v. Ohio. I've read every major court decision. That's how I roll. In fact, I've quoted the dissent. it's quite eloquent.

    Regardless, the 4th amendment says searches and seizures must be reasonable. It does not ADDRESS different grades of seizures. And our courts stepped in and filled in the gaps. There's lots of smart as hell scholars that can offer beautiful prose to agree with Terry v. Ohio and lots that oppose it. Again, I've read plenty.

    This isn't an issue of me not understanding the issue. We both understand the issue, we merely disagree.

    Intelligent, informed well meaning people can , will disagree. I have no problem with that. I am more than aware that you disagree with the constitutionality of terry stops. Groovy. I don't. I think they are eminently reasonable form of seizure and that's the metric required for ANY seizure per the 4th amendment. LEO's can also seize without even indicia of a crime whatsoever e.g. community caretaking doctrine. Again, the question to ask is - is it reasonable? That' the metric they gave us, and it's the metric that MY seizures are judged by.

    You can keep repeating yourself, but trust me - I KNOW you disagree with the logic of terry. I respect that (adults can respect differing opinions).

    I certainly think Terry has more constitutional validity than Miranda, which was purely invented. Great. As a LEO, I operate under the law we have, not the law we wish we had. In many respects I think cops have too many search and seizure powers. In a few areas i think we have too little. Again, groovy.

    I overwhelmingly believe in rule of law, which is why I FOLLOW Miranda. I don't have to agree with it; I just have to comply with it.

    Either way, I 100% understand your argument. I just don't agree with it. Reasonableness is the requisite metric and imo terry meets it
    What a bunch of evasive FUD. Your MO seems to be to bury readers under a snowstorm of chaff.

    You've either got an articulate refutation of my analysis of Terry, or you don't. If you do, lets hear it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273

    Just to clear confusion 4th amendment

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I really hate it when folks intentionally misquote the constitution.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  19. #19
    Regular Member shaun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Fountain CO
    Posts
    58

    Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I really hate it when folks intentionally misquote the constitution.
    I wholeheartedly agree. See it way too often on both sides.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I really hate it when folks intentionally misquote the constitution.
    ...but but you see Waking Wolf there is "different grades" for seizure.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I've read the dissent in Terry v. Ohio. I've read every major court decision. That's how I roll. In fact, I've quoted the dissent. it's quite eloquent.

    Regardless, the 4th amendment says searches and seizures must be reasonable. It does not ADDRESS different grades of seizures. And our courts stepped in and filled in the gaps. There's lots of smart as hell scholars that can offer beautiful prose to agree with Terry v. Ohio and lots that oppose it. Again, I've read plenty.

    This isn't an issue of me not understanding the issue. We both understand the issue, we merely disagree.

    Intelligent, informed well meaning people can , will disagree. I have no problem with that. I am more than aware that you disagree with the constitutionality of terry stops. Groovy. I don't. I think they are eminently reasonable form of seizure and that's the metric required for ANY seizure per the 4th amendment. LEO's can also seize without even indicia of a crime whatsoever e.g. community caretaking doctrine. Again, the question to ask is - is it reasonable? That' the metric they gave us, and it's the metric that MY seizures are judged by.

    You can keep repeating yourself, but trust me - I KNOW you disagree with the logic of terry. I respect that (adults can respect differing opinions).

    I certainly think Terry has more constitutional validity than Miranda, which was purely invented. Great. As a LEO, I operate under the law we have, not the law we wish we had. In many respects I think cops have too many search and seizure powers. In a few areas i think we have too little. Again, groovy.

    I overwhelmingly believe in rule of law, which is why I FOLLOW Miranda. I don't have to agree with it; I just have to comply with it.

    Either way, I 100% understand your argument. I just don't agree with it. Reasonableness is the requisite metric and imo terry meets it
    What an apologist for the degradation of civil power and the increase of the police state. There is no gaps in the 4th, you just don't like the restrictions it has and the courts graciously concede to the police state way to often, what's next "its a living breathing document"?

    There is no such thing as too little powers for cops, and thank you for admitting you operate under the law we have, not the law we wish we had. This is a horrible excuse I see public employees use it goes right along with "just following orders".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

    My question is what did the victim do about this unjustifiable harassment? Did he complain to IA? Was action taken against this cop for her abuse of her authority?

    If the victim did nothing about the abuse other than bellyaching about it and posting a video, then I don't care that he was abused. If he officially complained, then let's see that too.

    If this cop pulled that crap with me, I would be pushing every button I could to get action against her taken--to the point where it would simply be easier for them to do something about her than not.

    So, what happened after this illegal stop?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My question is what did the victim do about this unjustifiable harassment? Did he complain to IA? Was action taken against this cop for her abuse of her authority?

    If the victim did nothing about the abuse other than bellyaching about it and posting a video, then I don't care that he was abused. If he officially complained, then let's see that too.

    If this cop pulled that crap with me, I would be pushing every button I could to get action against her taken--to the point where it would simply be easier for them to do something about her than not.

    So, what happened after this illegal stop?
    If you paid attention to details you would have discovered that this just happened Friday. So, your question about "what did the victim do about this unjustifiable harassment?" appears to be premature.

    Instead of speculating, how about we wait and is if anything transpires in the next few weeks.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

    The guy had time to post the video, but couldn't find time to file a complaint? BS.

    If he hasn't filed a complaint, I don't care until he does. That's my point, and it remains so, despite your overwhelming (and possibly clinical) need to try to push buttons.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The guy had time to post the video, but couldn't find time to file a complaint? BS.

    If he hasn't filed a complaint, I don't care until he does. That's my point, and it remains so, despite your overwhelming (and possibly clinical) need to try to push buttons.
    Again, you jumped to a conclusion because you did not do your do diligence. When did the guy who posted the video have a duty to inform you that he filed a complaint, "but couldn't find time to file a complaint?". Condescending speculation on your part as usual.

    Moving on.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •