Lock in three...two...
To make matters worse, Eckertís attorneys say their client was sent a $6,000 bill for the medical procedures he underwent involuntarily.
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.
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 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.
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 03:25 PM. Reason: For those who might've missed it, my post is heavily inflected with sarcasm. The authoritay here is almost cop like.
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.
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?
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.
"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"
Last edited by davidmcbeth; 11-07-2013 at 05:00 PM.
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.
I really don't expect an answer. However, silence will be telling.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
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)
Last edited by notalawyer; 11-07-2013 at 11:01 PM.
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 ...