Fed up

[WalkingWolf]

Good job walking wolf. You had a chance and you pissed it away as usual.

The beat part about this is everyone can see the conversation. You make a claim we can arrest guys for violating rights.

I give clear examples of illegal searches and ask how to arrest foe that.

You huff and puff and bash and....... fail to even remotely answer anything.

I've been respectful and was asking a legitimate question. You used to be a cop right? So it should be easy to provide your own States statue that would allow to arrest for an improper exit order or maybe an illegal search of someone's pockets.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Name the state and I will provide the proper statute. NOT to mention that police officers have to obey the same laws that citizens do. So rape is rape, robbery is robbery, kidnapping is kidnapping, assault is assault. YOU show your lack of competence/ignorance of the law with every post. IT seems IF you are a police officer you are part of the problem and you believe police have a special exception to obeying the law. YOU are not a good police officer, EPIC FAIL!

 

[Primus]

Name the state and I will provide the proper statute. NOT to mention that police officers have to obey the same laws that citizens do. So rape is rape, robbery is robbery, kidnapping is kidnapping, assault is assault. YOU show your lack of competence/ignorance of the law with every post. IT seems IF you are a police officer you are part of the problem and you believe police have a special exception to obeying the law. YOU are not a good police officer, EPIC FAIL!

Ok... MA... I already gave the example. You search someones pockets. Or during a valid traffic stop you issue and exit order and search their car. You don't take anything you never lay your hands on them. You are clearly violating fourth amendment but NOTHING else.

Just an illegal search.

Again... I'm.not disputing it or saying there isny any chapter or section. I'm asking.

As an officer I do know that you need a statute that gives you authority to arrest for someone. The statute specifically says things like penalties and rights of arrest.

So in order for officer A to arrest officer B he would need to literally cite a statute when he fills out the court complaint in booking.

So I'm asking what the officer would put in the court complaint for a bad search.

That's all... this should be easy. I haven't found it but there are many guys smarter then me here.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Note: actively googling the crap out of arresting for illegal search and I've got nothing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

AND when you think some people can't actually be that ignorant. Especially when they claim to be a cop!

 

[Primus]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

AND when you think some people can't actually be that ignorant. Especially when they claim to be a cop!

Umm... it says two or more people. I said ONE guy doing illegal search.

Also.. its federal so we can't enforce it...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Umm... it says two or more people. I said ONE guy doing illegal search.

Also.. its federal so we can't enforce it...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

There is the department head or supervisor allowing the act, unless he is the only one. OR the officer/s not taking action to stop the act complicit in the acts. Duuhhhhhhh!

And lets not forget this section.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

[Primus]

There is the department head or supervisor allowing the act, unless he is the only one. OR the officer/s not taking action to stop the act complicit in the acts. Duuhhhhhhh!

Deparment head allowing the act that he isn't even at the scene for ? C'mon.....

AND again... it's FEDERAL. So even if there were 2 guys conspiring to violate this statue (there isn't in ANY of the examples I gave)... the town cop can't arrest for it....

 

[Primus]

So we are getting closer... 18 USC 242 is for individuals.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242


Here's the penalties part:

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So it starts out as a Misdemeanor if no injury occurs or any weapons or anything aggravating factors.

Again.. Federal... so unless a Federal Marshal or FBI agent is standing at your traffic stop.... then the guy doing the search can't be arrested.

So again... how are we supposed to arrest eachother for illegal searches?

 

[WalkingWolf]

So we are getting closer... 18 USC 242 is for individuals.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242


Here's the penalties part:

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So it starts out as a Misdemeanor if no injury occurs or any weapons or anything aggravating factors.

Again.. Federal... so unless a Federal Marshal or FBI agent is standing at your traffic stop.... then the guy doing the search can't be arrested.

So again... how are we supposed to arrest eachother for illegal searches?

YOU can't be that ignorant? Can YOU? ANYBODY can arrest or detain for federal crimes, we already covered this when YOU did not even know that!

 

[Primus]

YOU can't be that ignorant? Can YOU? ANYBODY can arrest or detain for federal crimes, we already covered this when YOU did not even know that!

Ok so be it.... we did cover it.

I got my answer then 18 242 and 241. Got it. If that's the best you can do then im moving on.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Ok so be it.... we did cover it.

I got my answer then 18 242 and 241. Got it. If that's the best you can do then im moving on.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

It would be less effort to simply strain yourself into developing a shred of integrity and state "I don't break blue".

 

[WalkingWolf]

It would be less effort to simply strain yourself into developing a shred of integrity and state "I don't break blue".

How can he say "I don't break blue"? He has said nothing to give confidence that he is a police officer. His lack of knowledge of procedure and law are astounding, even for a private citizen let alone a cop.

He doesn't even know what a conspiracy is. Professional courtesy is a example of a conspiracy, which he has claimed to have done.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

How can he say "I don't break blue"? He has said nothing to give confidence that he is a police officer. His lack of knowledge of procedure and law are astounding, even for a private citizen let alone a cop.

He doesn't even know what a conspiracy is. Professional courtesy is a example of a conspiracy, which he has claimed to have done.

Thank you for that correction. I certainly don't want to play any part in perpetuating a scam.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

(Snipped)Seriously guys. If you have crap to say about cops, say it somewhere else. But say the good stuff here.

Begging you pardon, but why should I not be free to express my opinion even if it discomfits you?
Am I not free to criticize where, when and whom I feel needs criticism?

 

[georg jetson]

Can you give an example of a right being violated and the subsequent arrestable offense that corresponds?

For example... officer A demands I'd and detains a citizen for no reason. What does officer B arrest and charge then with?

In my state that is Assault AND Battery
§36. Assault defined
Assault is an attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional placing of another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

§33. Battery defined
Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another; or the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another.

Officer A orders passengers and driver from vehicle then searches said vehicle illegally. The traffic stop is valid (tail light out) but the search is not. What does officer B arrest the other officer and charge him with? Do you have a chapter and section handy for me?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Same as above. Once force is used without authority upon another, it is battery. The assault and battery commences once the illegal search begins.

 

[Primus]

Begging you pardon, but why should I not be free to express my opinion even if it discomfits you?
Am I not free to criticize where, when and whom I feel needs criticism?

Falls I think he was trying to keep it on topic. His point may have been this thread is supposes to show positive. You are free to make a negative one and post any criticism you want there. If its done here its off topic.

I may be wrong but I believe that was his point.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[georg jetson]

@ Primus...

I almost forgot:

§46. False imprisonment
False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or detention of another, without his consent and without proper legal authority.

Whoever commits the crime of false imprisonment shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

Even worse:
§46.1. False imprisonment; offender armed with dangerous weapon
A. False imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon is the unlawful intentional confinement or detention of another while the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B. Whoever commits the crime of false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years.
It's shameful you don't recognize these violations of rights as arrestable.

It's shameful you don't recognize these violations of rights as arrestable.

 

[Primus]

@ Primus...

I almost forgot:

§46. False imprisonment
False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or detention of another, without his consent and without proper legal authority.

Whoever commits the crime of false imprisonment shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

Even worse:
§46.1. False imprisonment; offender armed with dangerous weapon
A. False imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon is the unlawful intentional confinement or detention of another while the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B. Whoever commits the crime of false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years.
It's shameful you don't recognize these violations of rights as arrestable.

It's shameful you don't recognize these violations of rights as arrestable.

False imprisonment is an easy one. A state kidnapping charge would be the same.

I was asking about searching someone a property. There are easy ones.... kidnapping, assault, ABDW, special assault, etc. Those are easily found in state statues.

The hard one is something like a illegal search. Or even something like demanding an ID. One of the million minute rights violations that occur.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[georg jetson]

False imprisonment is an easy one. A state kidnapping charge would be the same.

I was asking about searching someone a property. There are easy ones.... kidnapping, assault, ABDW, special assault, etc. Those are easily found in state statues.

The hard one is something like a illegal search. Or even something like demanding an ID. One of the million minute rights violations that occur.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The hard one is something like an illegal search? Do you mean it's hard to understand that an illegal search involves unauthorized force? Do you have trouble understanding that in order to demand an ID without RAS, it involves unauthorized force? Sheeeesh!

 

[Primus]

The hard one is something like an illegal search? Do you mean it's hard to understand that an illegal search involves unauthorized force? Do you have trouble understanding that in order to demand an ID without RAS, it involves unauthorized force? Sheeeesh!

I disagree.

As I said before... your on a valid traffic stop. You order someone out of vehicle. Well say for "officer safety". All legal so far.

Well once they are out you root through their car. You don't touch them you don't talk nothing.

So literally all you have is a search. No force. Maybe a "threat" of force.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk