Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: "Fine" for no blinker $6000 ! Cops and doggy caused previous anal probing

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    "Fine" for no blinker $6000 ! Cops and doggy caused previous anal probing

    To make matters worse, Eckertís attorneys say their client was sent a $6,000 bill for the medical procedures he underwent involuntarily.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ct-police-dog/


    You can get a dog to do whatever you want .... stupid SCOTUS .. like no one there ever owned a dog.

    I guess these types of cases exemplify our need to carry.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Lock in three...two...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Before this gets locked, I would like to ask Grapeshot why he is running protection for BAD cops?????


    skidmark might say "good probe!" on this case, instead of "good shoot" on shooting a 13 y/o with a toy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Before this gets locked, I would like to ask Grapeshot why he is running protection for BAD cops?????


    skidmark might say "good probe!" on this case, instead of "good shoot" on shooting a 13 y/o with a toy.
    I have been banned from at least 30 forums due to "cop bashing".

    I always ask then the same question you ask "why do you support and protect bad cops and why do you censor evidence and proof of bad cops"

    Of course I never get an answer because I get banned and my threads get deleted.

    America has a strong cop worship sentiment. However, things are changing because the truth cant be covered up anymore.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Perhaps John, Mike and Grapeshot need to amend the social lounge rules.

    "No posting in the social lounge is permitted unless it is on topic with OC/RKBA."
    "Members are forbidden from posting anything about cops unless it portrays them in nothing less than a positive light."
    Last edited by PistolPackingMomma; 11-07-2013 at 04:25 PM. Reason: For those who might've missed it, my post is heavily inflected with sarcasm. The authoritay here is almost cop like.

  6. #6
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    We do NOT want to protect bad officers nor have we banned you Onus.

    We try to keep the focus of the forum on OC / RKBA issues.

    However, our rules against LEO bashing do not extend to cases where there is a specific incident of bad conduct and the discussion is limited to those officers and that specific bad conduct.

    Here, we have a news story that is very disturbing and people are welcome to discuss the legal issues involved.

    However ... if it devolves into people making generalized statements about all cops being bad then it crosses the line.

    Make sense?


    John

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    ...nor have we banned you Onus...

    John
    Actually, I think you did. If I am not mistaken (and I doubt that I am), this poster, onus, is CaPatriot, whom you banned.

    Not saying that you (or the 35 other boards) did anything wrong by doing so. Could it be that 36 boards are being unreasonable and onus isn't? Or is it more likely that onus is being unreasonable and 36 boards are not?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Billing the guy for involuntary activities is so wrong on so many moral, ethical, and legal grounds that I am having great difficulty understanding why the bill was sent.

    I'm going to guess that the hospital's and the doctors' billing services just cranked the bill out without bothering to determine who the fiscally responsible party was. And if they made the guy sign a fiscal responsibility agreement while he was under arrest they are about to find out that he was legally incompetent to make such an agreement.

    I do have to say that when these guys decided to, pardon the expression, screw up, they went all they way.

    And no, Jeff.state, this was not a "good probe". Sorry that you did not understand why I made the call I did on the other situation - maybe some day you can spend some time figuring out why, even if you still disagree with me.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    We do NOT want to protect bad officers nor have we banned you Onus.

    We try to keep the focus of the forum on OC / RKBA issues.

    However, our rules against LEO bashing do not extend to cases where there is a specific incident of bad conduct and the discussion is limited to those officers and that specific bad conduct.

    Here, we have a news story that is very disturbing and people are welcome to discuss the legal issues involved.

    However ... if it devolves into people making generalized statements about all cops being bad then it crosses the line.

    Make sense?


    John
    That's exactly how I saw the rules being applied in the past. Thanks for the post. General cop bashing is a no no ...

    Being charged 6K for a blinker .... maybe the guy's wife was in the car "best turn on your blinker Henry" Henry: "don't tell me how to drive" ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 11-07-2013 at 06:00 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Ok, so without being there, I can wager a guess how this went down.

    I'm wiling to bet a pretty decent amount of money that this was a precurser stop. Meaning, they probably already had surveilance on this guy and they waited till he did any traffic violation and executed the search.

    It says "unclear why they think he possessed drugs". They most likely already had this guy as a dealer/user. I know the headlines sound crazy "blinker leads to cavity search", but I bet they aren't telling the whole story. This is a routine thing (not the cavity search). You build intel on the guy, then you wait for him to conduct a traffic infraction and then you stop them. This is all to set up a clear chain of seizure/stop. It's so that if they did find alot of drugs, it won't get thrown out based on unreasonable stop. This is actually a good thing, because it adds an extra layer of legal protection for us.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    . This is actually a good thing, because it adds an extra layer of legal protection for us.
    Protection from what? Prostrate cancer?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Protection from what? Prostrate cancer?
    Was waiting for it.... if they just stopped him and searched him you'd scream civil rights violation and SUE. The .gov takes the extra step to get a LEGAL stop, and your still not happy.

    Again, I wasn't there so I can't attest to what they did.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, I think you did. If I am not mistaken (and I doubt that I am), this poster, onus, is CaPatriot, whom you banned.
    I have never been banned from this forum. Stop being so obsessed with my life.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    We do NOT want to protect bad officers nor have we banned you Onus.
    I never said I was banned from this forum. I said I have been from many other forums.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Was waiting for it.... if they just stopped him and searched him you'd scream civil rights violation and SUE. The .gov takes the extra step to get a LEGAL stop, and your still not happy.

    Again, I wasn't there so I can't attest to what they did.
    Well, I don't know from personal experience that the surface of the sun in hot....but betcha a buck it is.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, I don't know from personal experience that the surface of the sun in hot....but betcha a buck it is.
    That was constructive. Thank you for the drive by drop of some wisdom for us. Glad you could share more info that was on topic of this thread and forum in general. Keep up the good work.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I have never been banned from this forum. Stop being so obsessed with my life.
    I believe you to be the same person as CaPatriot. I believe that CaPatriot was banned from this site. Are you saying that one or both of those statements is false? If one, which one?

    I really don't expect an answer. However, silence will be telling.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Was waiting for it.... if they just stopped him and searched him you'd scream civil rights violation and SUE. The .gov takes the extra step to get a LEGAL stop, and your still not happy.

    Again, I wasn't there so I can't attest to what they did.
    Sure if you don't care about the 4th and due process and all that.

    Pretext stops used to be a bad thing even in judges eyes....as the states grow more and more into a police state the judges don't seem to think so any more.
    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)

  19. #19
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ok, so without being there, I can wager a guess how this went down.

    I'm wiling to bet a pretty decent amount of money that this was a precurser stop. Meaning, they probably already had surveilance on this guy and they waited till he did any traffic violation and executed the search.

    It says "unclear why they think he possessed drugs". They most likely already had this guy as a dealer/user. I know the headlines sound crazy "blinker leads to cavity search", but I bet they aren't telling the whole story. This is a routine thing (not the cavity search). You build intel on the guy, then you wait for him to conduct a traffic infraction and then you stop them. This is all to set up a clear chain of seizure/stop. It's so that if they did find alot of drugs, it won't get thrown out based on unreasonable stop. This is actually a good thing, because it adds an extra layer of legal protection for us.
    OK; what are your thoughts on using a drug sniffing dog that has NO certification to be a drug sniffer?? A friend of mine has cadaver dogs and is constantly doing certification updates.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I believe you to be the same person as CaPatriot. I believe that CaPatriot was banned from this site. Are you saying that one or both of those statements is false? If one, which one?

    I really don't expect an answer. However, silence will be telling.

    I have never been banned from this forum. Since you don't believe me why don't you ask a moderator.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    OK; what are your thoughts on using a drug sniffing dog that has NO certification to be a drug sniffer?? A friend of mine has cadaver dogs and is constantly doing certification updates.
    I think the dog should be certified. Should be standards set and there are. Not sure why this dog isn't. Again I don't work for them, just trying to shed some light on the process.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I have never been banned from this forum. Since you don't believe me why don't you ask a moderator.
    If I recall correctly, in your previous iteration here you bosted that a site (maybe calguns) banned your various usernames dozens or hundreds of times. but they never banned you. Is that what you are talking about here too?
    Last edited by notalawyer; 11-08-2013 at 12:01 AM.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I think the dog should be certified. Should be standards set and there are. Not sure why this dog isn't. Again I don't work for them, just trying to shed some light on the process.
    I don't think dogs should be used at all to create RAS or PC. They are simple animals too easily manipulated to come to a positive result (or whatever result is desired) from their handlers.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't think dogs should be used at all to create RAS or PC. They are simple animals too easily manipulated to come to a positive result (or whatever result is desired) from their handlers.
    Sure, but like any other tool it can be verified and tested. You can train your own dog if you want and prove to yourself it can and does work

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Sure, but like any other tool it can be verified and tested. You can train your own dog if you want and prove to yourself it can and does work
    Its subjective testing .. the dog performs an act (sitting, pawing, etc) and the handler interprets what the dog means. No record is made, no video recording of the actions of the dog and its handler is required.

    Dogs don't understand the implications of there work; how can you certify such an animal...they get treats when they find "drugs"...and are too easily manipulated.

    The % of false positives are too much as well for dogs to be considered good enough in the scientific community ... the legal community is another pile of trash...

    Plus, I cannot train my dog (he be dead).... I trained my cat to use the toilet though ...

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
  •