http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfd4dr97_0c3cf2vfjUnder Terry vs. Ohio, only a quick surface search is permitted. As you can see from the story above, I was not only given a rough external search, but my pockets were cleaned out and my effects seized, the most valuable to my (immediate) liberties being my wallet and voice recorder.
I think you misunderstand Terry v Ohio. The case is about the once gray area between consentual encounter and arrest. Terry argued that police have no right to search unless they have probable cause to arrest. The state argued that a "stop and frisk" was not at all a seizure or search of the person. The court rebuked both sides.Only comment I have is on the following.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfd4dr97_0c3cf2vfjUnder Terry vs. Ohio, only a quick surface search is permitted. As you can see from the story above, I was not only given a rough external search, but my pockets were cleaned out and my effects seized, the most valuable to my (immediate) liberties being my wallet and voice recorder.
I believe the courts have (as you intimated in your writings) that what is allowed under Terry vs. Ohio is not a "search" per se, but a "frisk". What the officers did was a "search", which violates Terry.
This would have been a good case had I not been so flustered. Between my 4-7-09 detainment and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing I was a little fed up and said some things I shouldn't have (like the F-bomb)Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!
You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.
It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.
Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention. :question:
Sounds like he can't resist a handsome guy with a gun....and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing...
What? You're the citizen. You're in the right. "F***" is a normal word that everyone hears and uses a hundred times, a day. How in the f- are we supposed to f-ing talk if we can't f-ing us "f-"? If you have an audio recording of a cop violating your civil rights under color of law, get a lawyer, and take the cop to federal court.Sons of Liberty wrote:This would have been a good case had I not been so flustered. Between my 4-7-09 detainment and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing I was a little fed up and said some things I shouldn't have (like the F-bomb)Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!
You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.
It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.
Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention. :question:
I am not proud of it and it should have never happened and I let a perfectly good opportunity slip away because of it. If I were to play the audio recording in front of a jury, I would have a tainted jury and I would lose.
There will be others. The perfect storm is just around the corner.
pullnshoot25 wrote:What? You're the citizen. You're in the right. "F***" is a normal word that everyone hears and uses a hundred times, a day. How in the f- are we supposed to f-ing talk if we can't f-ing us "f-"? If you have an audio recording of a cop violating your civil rights under color of law, get a lawyer, and take the cop to federal court.Sons of Liberty wrote:This would have been a good case had I not been so flustered. Between my 4-7-09 detainment and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing I was a little fed up and said some things I shouldn't have (like the F-bomb)Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!
You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.
It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.
Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention. :question:
I am not proud of it and it should have never happened and I let a perfectly good opportunity slip away because of it. If I were to play the audio recording in front of a jury, I would have a tainted jury and I would lose.
There will be others. The perfect storm is just around the corner.
Why are you not proud of using the f- word? I don't get this, at all.
Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
+1!Decoligny wrote:Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.
Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.
You gents are missing the point. Decoligny said twice that his statements were generalizations.smoking357 wrote:+1!Decoligny wrote:Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.
Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.
I think the whole "profanity is a crutch for a weak mind" line was made up by some religious @#$%s trying to impose their dogmatic morality upon the populace.
I'm intelligent. I enjoy profanity. Maybe it's my rebellion against religious indoctrination. Perhaps it's just part of growing up on construction sites (family business) and being around that language since age 5. Perhaps I just think it's an excellent and efficient way to portray emphasis.
Exactly. Profanity is also a useful tool for getting someone's attention quickly. But I find that it is "generally" overused by the majority of people and usually where it adds nothing of substance to the conversation.CA_Libertarian wrote:You gents are missing the point. Decoligny said twice that his statements were generalizations.smoking357 wrote:+1!Decoligny wrote:Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.
Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.
I think the whole "profanity is a crutch for a weak mind" line was made up by some religious @#$%s trying to impose their dogmatic morality upon the populace.
I'm intelligent. I enjoy profanity. Maybe it's my rebellion against religious indoctrination. Perhaps it's just part of growing up on construction sites (family business) and being around that language since age 5. Perhaps I just think it's an excellent and efficient way to portray emphasis.
While profanity may indeed be useful for emphasis (CA_Libertarian) or for precise descriptions (smoking357), in a majority of cases profanity is used incorrectly as filler words for the inarticulate or as an expression of strong emotion where a rational response would have yielded better results.