Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

sudden valley gunner · Aug 3, 2013

PALO said:
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".

eye95 · Aug 4, 2013

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>

color of law · Aug 4, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

eye95 · Aug 4, 2013

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>

color of law · Aug 4, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

Citizen · Aug 4, 2013

eye95 said:
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?

Well, there you have it, folks. Eye doesn't care that the citizen was abused unless the citizen did something more than post the video.

He doesn't care about all the previous people abused by this cop, if any. He doesn't care about the citizens this cop might abuse in the future.

He's basically turning the 1A right to petition government for redress of grievances into an obligation, as though to say, "You must make a formal complaint for it to matter to me. If you want my support, you'd better make a formal complaint."

Apparently, it doesn't matter to Eye that the citizen in the video might have the idea, right or wrong, that cops get away with stuff and that formal complaints get ignored or buried.

Apparently, Eye hasn't considered that posting a video, giving it a few days to go viral and gather public support before making a formal complaint, can add pressure to any formal complaint.

Apparently, Eye hasn't realized that maybe posting the video is citizen's formal complaint.

No, no. You have to follow Eye's rigid thinking, or its only one step better than never having occurred at all: it happened, but he doesn't care.

+1 to Color of Law's comments highlighting Eye's poor thinking.

Citizen · Aug 4, 2013

And, I would like to point out that while Eye is criticizing the videographer for not doing enough about the cop, Eye himself hasn't offered us any advice on how to handle such a cop during the encounter.

So, applying Eye's own standard: I don't care whether he thinks the videographer is not doing enough. Unless he can offer workable advice to address such a cop during an encounter, he's just bellyaching about the detainee.

eye95 · Aug 4, 2013

color of law said:
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.

Where did I say had such a "duty." *I* said *I* don't care about his problem unless he is willing to do something about it. So far, he either has not or isn't sharing his corrective action. Either way *I* don't care what happened to him until he does something about it and shares it along with the video.

Feel free to be indignant about this event. I will reserve my indignation for folks who do more than complain, but take action. As of now, I see only complaint, no action.

Your continued contrariness is duly noted.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 · Aug 4, 2013

Citizen said:
Well, there you have it, folks. Eye doesn't care that the citizen was abused unless the citizen did something more than post the video...

Absolutely true. Folks who have been abused and fight it have gotten my help. Folks who don't fight it don't even get my outrage, indignation, nor sympathy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

color of law · Aug 4, 2013

eye95 said:
Where did I say had such a "duty." *I* said *I* don't care about his problem unless he is willing to do something about it. So far, he either has not or isn't sharing his corrective action. Either way *I* don't care what happened to him until he does something about it and shares it along with the video.

Feel free to be indignant about this event. I will reserve my indignation for folks who do more than complain, but take action. As of now, I see only complaint, no action.

Your continued contrariness is duly noted.

Drivel!!!! Again, showing your lack of reading comprehension.

Moving on.

Citizen · Aug 4, 2013

eye95 said:
Absolutely true. Folks who have been abused and fight it have gotten my help. Folks who don't fight it don't even get my outrage, indignation, nor sympathy.

Six million Jews.

A million Armenians.

A million Ukrainian peasants.

A few million Chinese.

A million Cambodians.

But, Eye doesn't care. Government can trample your rights all it wants--he doesn't care unless you do something about it.

That's right. That's the way. Blame the victim rather than the perpetrator--critize the victim for not doing anything about it before blaming the perpetrator.

Hey, Eye! Do you have any workable suggestions for handling such a cop during such an encounter?

Freedom1Man · Aug 4, 2013

Citizen said:
[strike]Six[/strike] One (max) million Jews.

A million Armenians.

A million Ukrainian peasants.

A few million Chinese.

A million Cambodians.

But, Eye doesn't care. Government can trample your rights all it wants--he doesn't care unless you do something about it.

That's right. That's the way. Blame the victim rather than the perpetrator--critize the victim for not doing anything about it before blaming the perpetrator.

Hey, Eye! Do you have any workable suggestions for handling such a cop during such an encounter?

At least get your numbers closer to correct

Franciszek Piper, director of the historical committee of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum, said yesterday that, according to recent research, at least 1.3 million people were deported to the camp, of whom about 223,000 survived.

The 1.1 million victims included 960,000 Jews, between 70,000 and 75,000 Poles, nearly all of the 23,000 Gypsies sent to the camp and 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war.

http://rense.com/general62/aauc.htm

http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/holy-holohoax-my-government-wouldnt-lie-to-me/

JustaShooter · Aug 4, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
At least get your numbers closer to correct

Franciszek Piper, director of the historical committee of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum, said yesterday that, according to recent research, at least 1.3 million people were deported to the camp, of whom about 223,000 survived.

The 1.1 million victims included 960,000 Jews, between 70,000 and 75,000 Poles, nearly all of the 23,000 Gypsies sent to the camp and 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war.

http://rense.com/general62/aauc.htm

http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/holy-holohoax-my-government-wouldnt-lie-to-me/

That's just Auschwitz, all reputable sources I've seen put the total for all Nazi death camps at closer to 6 million, as originally posted by Citizen.

Citizen · Aug 4, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
At least get your numbers closer to correct

Didn't know my numbers were off. Thanks for the update.

Citizen · Aug 4, 2013

JustaShooter said:
That's just Auschwitz, all reputable sources I've seen put the total for all Nazi death camps at closer to 6 million, as originally posted by Citizen.

Good point about it just being stats for Auschwitz. I missed that.

Got me to wondering, though. Where did the 6M stat come from? Records? Estimate? Number of people who did not vote the next time around?*

*A fella researching Civil War casualty stats used a method similar to that. He hunted up people who were in public records shortly before the war, and then disappeared from public records afterward.

davidmcbeth · Aug 4, 2013

PALO said:
Few things more amusing than an internet tuff gai.

Thanks!

eye95 · Aug 4, 2013

Citizen said:
Six million Jews.

A million Armenians.

A million Ukrainian peasants.

A few million Chinese.

A million Cambodians.

But, Eye doesn't care. Government can trample your rights all it wants--he doesn't care unless you do something about it.

That's right. That's the way. Blame the victim rather than the perpetrator--critize the victim for not doing anything about it before blaming the perpetrator.

Hey, Eye! Do you have any workable suggestions for handling such a cop during such an encounter?

That Chinese guy who stood in front of a tank? He has my respect. The Jews who quietly went to their deaths? Not so much. If you bitch and won't act (or worse, if you don't even bitch), meh.

As far as what to do during such an encounter? Everything this guy did--plus filing a complaint or charges or something, then posting a video.

But, again, before it gets lost in folks making it about me: My point is that, until and unless this guy takes action against that cop, I don't care that his rights were violated. Folks who do not stand up for them deserve to lose them. If and when he takes action, I'll decide whether and how I will help. It just seems to me that posting the video was what really mattered to this guy, not fixing the problem.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

rushcreek2 · Aug 4, 2013

This officer's conduct, and abusive language deserves at the very least a hair trim during her 2 week suspension - followed up by registration in some community college law enforcement academy program. She apparently slipped through the cracks.

OC for ME · Aug 5, 2013

Citizen said:
<snip> 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".

The citizen rarely gets to define what is and what is not consensual. AZ citizen must clearly state that the cop, in this case thug copette, was in a physical position that prevented the citizen from leaving. Verbal delays and physical proximity work together to instigate a unlawful detainment. These unlawful detainment techniques are a regular and usually successful device used by cops everywhere.

PALO said:
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.

BS.

In the op's video the "clean break" you reference did not occur. The citizen could not physically depart after the "clean break" without obviously endangering the thug copette. This tactic of physical proximity to the "not free to leave" citizen prevents, or substantially mitigates, a citizen's attempt to leave is abhorrent. Let us not sugar coat the desire of a cop to "roll the dice" on a prosecutor, judge, and/or their union thug commrades to get them out of a legal jam the knowingly placed themselves into.

When a cop says "you are free to go/leave" that cop needs to walk away as well.

OC for ME · Aug 5, 2013

OC for ME said:
The citizen rarely gets to define what is and what is not consensual. [strike]AZ[/strike] A citizen must clearly state that the cop, in this case thug copette, was in a physical position that prevented the citizen from leaving. Verbal delays and physical proximity work together to instigate a unlawful detainment. These unlawful detainment techniques are a regular and usually successful device used by cops everywhere.

BS.

In the op's video the "clean break" you reference did not occur. The citizen could not physically depart after the "clean break" without obviously endangering the thug copette. This tactic of physical proximity to the "not free to leave" citizen prevents, or substantially mitigates, a citizen's attempt to leave is abhorrent. Let us not sugar coat the desire of a cop to "roll the dice" on a prosecutor, judge, and/or their union thug commrades to get them out of a legal jam the knowingly placed themselves into.

When a cop says "you are free to go/leave" that cop needs to walk away as well.

Sorry.

Police Tactic Of Which to Be Aware When OCing

Regular Member

Well-known member

Accomplished Advocate

Well-known member

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member