With that being said, if an individual fights the police, they need to have the shit kicked out of them. If you are illegally arrested or harassed, you should hit the officer and the department where it hurts; in court. [/quote]
First of all, fuck you if you think it is YOUR place to dispense justice. IT’S NOT.
No, when an individual fights the police, the following questions need to be asked:
How did he come to start fighting the police?
How did the officer’s training fail to prevent the situation from escalating?
Do MANY people tend to “fight” this particular officer (or group of officers)?
Was he really fighting the police or protecting himself?
Cops are dirty. They LOVE fucking with you when they have it in their mind that you’re “one of the bad guys”. Never mind that they haven’t caught you doing anything wrong. They KNOW it “in their gut” that this guy’s a piece of shit. So they justify their behavior.
My cousin is a lot younger than me (I used to change his diapers). He was a very bright boy and very idealistic. He was friendly, smiled all the time and really wanted to make a difference. He joined the force about five years ago or so. Now he’s pretty much a dick. He doesn’t show up at many family reunions anymore (cuz he chases the overtime). When I do see him, he doesn’t have the same smile that he used to. He is withdrawn, selfish, moody, etc… It’s like the job is stealing his soul. He has told me PLENTY of stories about he and his fellow officers regularly violate the rights of the good citizens of Baltimore. Again, it’s nothing like the videos we’ve seen, but he tells the stories with such pride and ghusto about how he “kicked this one guys ass and wrote it up that he was going my gun”. Or how he cleaned out the local drug dealer’s pockets (didn’t make an arrest) and used the cash to take his then girlfriend out to dinner. That’s NORMAL to him (and to most other cops that I’m friends with). He’s my cousin and I’ll always love him, but I certainly don’t LIKE who has become.
[/quote]
Cops are dirty. They LOVE fucking with you when they have it in their mind that you’re “one of the bad guys”. Never mind that they haven’t caught you doing anything wrong. They KNOW it “in their gut” that this guy’s a piece of shit. So they justify their behavior.
-I wrote a long and detailed response to you, but decided to delete it. I made a mistake by even getting involved in this conversation. This thread is simply a place for everyone to make blanket statements about how all LEO’s are pieces of dirty trash. That’s fine. I tried to respond to people’s posts so to perhaps give them an idea of why LEO’s do what they do. You don’t want to hear it. That’s also fine. I hope your cousin goes to work for another agency; Baltimore is known to have many crooked cops.
My cousin is a lot younger than me (I used to change his diapers). He was a very bright boy and very idealistic. He was friendly, smiled all the time and really wanted to make a difference. He joined the force about five years ago or so. Now he’s pretty much a dick. He doesn’t show up at many family reunions anymore (cuz he chases the overtime). When I do see him, he doesn’t have the same smile that he used to.
He is withdrawn, selfish, moody, etc… It’s like the job is stealing his soul.
[/quote]
AC, honest question for you; not trying to agree or disagree with anyone.
Do you think that the very nature of the job almost “forces” men (and women) to become this way?
By that I mean: Is dealing, day in and day out, with the worst parts of our society, with always being at risk of being a target, with often being physically attacked, etc. simply too much for the average person to experience without becoming “a dick?”
[/quote]
I’m going to jump in here b/c I was actually thinking of this last night.
In the big city, maybe. In our larger cities, they deal with some shit every single day. But that’s just our larger cities and that’s just a fraction of our police. In the suburbs? Fuck no. No excuse. None. State Police? Most of them are patrolling the highways, writing tickets. And they guys that see the real shit? The guys on tasks force or undercover and such? They SIGN UP for that shit. They WANT it.
I think a bigger question is why, as a group, they have higher divorce rate? Is the job THAT hard that as a group they all come home and have dysfunctional relationships with their wives? I don’t think so. Most of them work shifts with some overtime for court. So, their schedule is not such that they are NEVER home like some occupations.
I think the job attracts a certain type - AC calls it a blue collar mentality. I’m not sure how I want to label it, except to say that given the responsibility and trust required, it should be a WHITE COLLAR job with WHITE COLLAR QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND ACCOUNTABILITY. And give them white collar pay. But…
Institute a strict code of honor - you see a crime or violation, you are REQUIRED to report your fellow officer or YOU Lose your job.
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
Well FUCK I guess I’m already an asshole just because I want to be a cop lol[/quote]
Id rather be a firefighter and…ya know…actually help people.
I did read that. Cops are given the right to investigate suspicious activity. If they see a glass pipe and a bag of green stuff in a locked car for example, they can bust a window, confirm pot and make an arrest. If they see a potentially drunk driver they can investigate.
If, on the other hand, they see a car with no visible suspicious evidence but want to search it any ways, they have to get a warrant. This of course leaves a lot of grey area for a cop to use personal judgement but that is the nature of the human beast, which must be regulated.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Where do you get your information. You need PROBABLE CAUSE for a search warrant. Please tell me you’re trolling. You cannot possibly be this ill-informed yet at the same time offering opinions that are completely wrong. [/quote]
"Exigent Circumstance - An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts"
Probable Cause - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Probable” in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word “probable” here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.
"U.S. police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.[citation needed] In that case, police may search the passenger compartment, trunk, and any containers inside the vehicle capable of holding the suspected article. By comparison, under Australian law, police can exhaustively search any vehicle on a public road, and any electronic devices therein (mobile phone, computer), without the responsible persons’ permission, for evidence of criminal acts, with or without proof or suspicion of any kind.
Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect’s outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion - a Terry ‘stop and frisk.’"
You are wrong. Police determine probable cause, not you. You don’t know what they see, hear or think and like it or not, the responsibility to determine probable cause has been vested in them, not you. That being said, once a cop establishes probable case, he can, in exigent circumstances, search a person, car or even a home with out a warrant.
That is not to say the few shitheads who abuse power and civil rights should be given a pass, but accusing all cops of being the dirty few is unfair.
I did read that. Cops are given the right to investigate suspicious activity. If they see a glass pipe and a bag of green stuff in a locked car for example, they can bust a window, confirm pot and make an arrest. If they see a potentially drunk driver they can investigate.
If, on the other hand, they see a car with no visible suspicious evidence but want to search it any ways, they have to get a warrant. This of course leaves a lot of grey area for a cop to use personal judgement but that is the nature of the human beast, which must be regulated.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Where do you get your information. You need PROBABLE CAUSE for a search warrant. Please tell me you’re trolling. You cannot possibly be this ill-informed yet at the same time offering opinions that are completely wrong. [/quote]
"Exigent Circumstance - An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts"
Probable Cause - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Probable” in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word “probable” here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.
"U.S. police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.[citation needed] In that case, police may search the passenger compartment, trunk, and any containers inside the vehicle capable of holding the suspected article. By comparison, under Australian law, police can exhaustively search any vehicle on a public road, and any electronic devices therein (mobile phone, computer), without the responsible persons’ permission, for evidence of criminal acts, with or without proof or suspicion of any kind.
Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect’s outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion - a Terry ‘stop and frisk.’"
You are wrong. Police determine probable cause, not you. You don’t know what they see, hear or think and like it or not, the responsibility to determine probable cause has been vested in them, not you. That being said, once a cop establishes probable case, he can, in exigent circumstances, search a person, car or even a home with out a warrant.
That is not to say the few shitheads who abuse power and civil rights should be given a pass, but accusing all cops of being the dirty few is unfair.
[/quote]
No, if anything the courts decide what is probable cause, not the cops.
And no where in there does it say “and the cops can boldface lie about reasons for stops.”
The fact that the cop was lying about his probable cause is proof he didn’t feel his real reasons justified the clause.
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^you’re not going to get anywhere with thebodyguard using those types of well thought out correct responses that are based on actual law and facts.
Save your breath and find another thread cause it doesn’t matter what you wrote out or if you’re 100% spot on correct.
Just a heads up since you’re new here.[/quote]
Since when is Wiki considered facts? Those “facts” are on pretty shaky grounds concerning probable cause.
I did read that. Cops are given the right to investigate suspicious activity. If they see a glass pipe and a bag of green stuff in a locked car for example, they can bust a window, confirm pot and make an arrest. If they see a potentially drunk driver they can investigate.
If, on the other hand, they see a car with no visible suspicious evidence but want to search it any ways, they have to get a warrant. This of course leaves a lot of grey area for a cop to use personal judgement but that is the nature of the human beast, which must be regulated.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Where do you get your information. You need PROBABLE CAUSE for a search warrant. Please tell me you’re trolling. You cannot possibly be this ill-informed yet at the same time offering opinions that are completely wrong. [/quote]
"Exigent Circumstance - An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts"
Probable Cause - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Probable” in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word “probable” here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.
"U.S. police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.[citation needed] In that case, police may search the passenger compartment, trunk, and any containers inside the vehicle capable of holding the suspected article. By comparison, under Australian law, police can exhaustively search any vehicle on a public road, and any electronic devices therein (mobile phone, computer), without the responsible persons’ permission, for evidence of criminal acts, with or without proof or suspicion of any kind.
Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect’s outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion - a Terry ‘stop and frisk.’"
You are wrong. Police determine probable cause, not you. You don’t know what they see, hear or think and like it or not, the responsibility to determine probable cause has been vested in them, not you. That being said, once a cop establishes probable case, he can, in exigent circumstances, search a person, car or even a home with out a warrant.
That is not to say the few shitheads who abuse power and civil rights should be given a pass, but accusing all cops of being the dirty few is unfair.
[/quote]
No, if anything the courts decide what is probable cause, not the cops.
And no where in there does it say “and the cops can boldface lie about reasons for stops.”
The fact that the cop was lying about his probable cause is proof he didn’t feel his real reasons justified the clause.[/quote]
The cop wasn’t lying. Prove it.
Courts do utilize probable cause, so do police. It’s pretty cut and dry.
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^you’re not going to get anywhere with thebodyguard using those types of well thought out correct responses that are based on actual law and facts.
Save your breath and find another thread cause it doesn’t matter what you wrote out or if you’re 100% spot on correct.
Just a heads up since you’re new here.[/quote]
Since when is Wiki considered facts? Those “facts” are on pretty shaky grounds concerning probable cause.[/quote]
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^you’re not going to get anywhere with thebodyguard using those types of well thought out correct responses that are based on actual law and facts.
Save your breath and find another thread cause it doesn’t matter what you wrote out or if you’re 100% spot on correct.
Just a heads up since you’re new here.[/quote]
Since when is Wiki considered facts? Those “facts” are on pretty shaky grounds concerning probable cause.[/quote]
lol
didnt edit that post fast enough I guess. hahahaha
Wiki isnt considered fact… but if you look up the reference points at the bottom of the page they refer, where quoted, to court cases and Law books/sites that reference court cases.
^ Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987)
^ United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)
^ Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)
and
A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a “man of reasonable caution” to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992)
aaaaaaaanyway. I would rather not be part of this thread anymore and thats why I attempted to edit my previous post so that it would not draw me back in.
I literally despise these types of threads because they do nothing but bring out the worst in people. Look at this thread. A ton of people saying “F YOU!” to every LEO out there when a lot (if not most) are probably good people. We also have people in here who are throwing out racists remarks here and there, calling eachother the most vile and hurtful things that they can think of… for what?
I dont choose to be around people like that IRL and I dont want to be around it here either. Just reading that nonesene bums me out. People shouldnt treat eachother that way and we should have/show a little common courtesy/decency to one another.
this will be my last post in this thread. You (or anyone) can respond to this however you’d like but I will not be back in here to respond so if you have a legitimate question or something like that it will not be addressed on my end.
Courts do utilize probable cause, so do police. It’s pretty cut and dry.
[/quote]
Uh, I was speaking as to the right or wrong of the situation.
I wasn’t the one saying that leaving the restaurant that late was the probable cause. You just asked me to prove YOUR claim.
But are you now contending that it’s okay to outright lie and say whatever they want as long as the person doesnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t prove it a lie?
Thinking like that is part of the reason the police as a whole are such a fucked up institution.
[/quote]
I never implied lying is ok. You, maybe inadvertantly, implied the cop was lying, with out proof. Where is your probable cause?
If I misread your point my apologies, but that is how it came across.
[/quote]
The guy left a disturbance free restaurant that the cop claimed he had a disturbance call at.
I didn’t imply it. I simply noted it.
And according to your claim the cop was also lying.
I don’t have to prove anything.[/quote]
The guy didn’t see a disturbance. He is not omnipresent. This really should have ended the conversation last night, but we took it to a hypothetical discussion to debate probable cause, search warrants et cetera. I never implied the guy lied. Not intentionally.
He acted within in rights, one way or another. It’s cut and dry. You don’t have to like it but it is what it is. And that is it.
Courts do utilize probable cause, so do police. It’s pretty cut and dry.
[/quote]
Uh, I was speaking as to the right or wrong of the situation.
I wasn’t the one saying that leaving the restaurant that late was the probable cause. You just asked me to prove YOUR claim.
But are you now contending that it’s okay to outright lie and say whatever they want as long as the person doesnÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t prove it a lie?
Thinking like that is part of the reason the police as a whole are such a fucked up institution.
[/quote]
I never implied lying is ok. You, maybe inadvertantly, implied the cop was lying, with out proof. Where is your probable cause?
If I misread your point my apologies, but that is how it came across.
[/quote]
The guy left a disturbance free restaurant that the cop claimed he had a disturbance call at.
I didn’t imply it. I simply noted it.
And according to your claim the cop was also lying.
I don’t have to prove anything.[/quote]
The guy didn’t see a disturbance. He is not omnipresent. This really should have ended the conversation last night, but we took it to a hypothetical discussion to debate probable cause, search warrants et cetera. I never implied the guy lied. Not intentionally.
He acted within in rights, one way or another. It’s cut and dry. You don’t have to like it but it is what it is. And that is it.
[/quote]
No, the ability to detain and search someone is not even a right. It is a privilege.
And we both know the cop was lying his ass off. For example, why not stop them immediately in the driveway? Why take the time to follow someone, pull them over, ask a bunch of questions, est. when there could be someone in distress at the restaurant?
I did read that. Cops are given the right to investigate suspicious activity. If they see a glass pipe and a bag of green stuff in a locked car for example, they can bust a window, confirm pot and make an arrest. If they see a potentially drunk driver they can investigate.
If, on the other hand, they see a car with no visible suspicious evidence but want to search it any ways, they have to get a warrant. This of course leaves a lot of grey area for a cop to use personal judgement but that is the nature of the human beast, which must be regulated.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Where do you get your information. You need PROBABLE CAUSE for a search warrant. Please tell me you’re trolling. You cannot possibly be this ill-informed yet at the same time offering opinions that are completely wrong. [/quote]
"Exigent Circumstance - An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts"
Probable Cause - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Probable” in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word “probable” here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.
"U.S. police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.[citation needed] In that case, police may search the passenger compartment, trunk, and any containers inside the vehicle capable of holding the suspected article. By comparison, under Australian law, police can exhaustively search any vehicle on a public road, and any electronic devices therein (mobile phone, computer), without the responsible persons’ permission, for evidence of criminal acts, with or without proof or suspicion of any kind.
Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect’s outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion - a Terry ‘stop and frisk.’"
You are wrong. Police determine probable cause, not you. You don’t know what they see, hear or think and like it or not, the responsibility to determine probable cause has been vested in them, not you. That being said, once a cop establishes probable case, he can, in exigent circumstances, search a person, car or even a home with out a warrant.
That is not to say the few shitheads who abuse power and civil rights should be given a pass, but accusing all cops of being the dirty few is unfair.
[/quote]
You don’t have a fucking clue about any of the references you posted above when compared against your earlier postings. None. Your Holiday Inn Express and Wiki privileges are revoked.
Instead of moving the goal post, why don’t we dissect your earlier clueless comments?
Let’s talk about leaving an open-for-business establishment as “suspicious”.
And let’s talk about police being able to get a search warrant because they “think” something is in there.
I can picture it now; on the application to the judge for the search warrant, under probable cause they list “because we think something is in the car”. LMFAO.
[quote]gregron wrote:
I literally despise these types of threads because they do nothing but bring out the worst in people. Look at this thread. A ton of people saying “F YOU!” to every LEO out there when a lot (if not most) are probably good people. We also have people in here who are throwing out racists remarks here and there, calling eachother the most vile and hurtful things that they can think of… for what?
I dont choose to be around people like that IRL and I dont want to be around it here either. Just reading that nonesene bums me out. People shouldnt treat eachother that way and we should have/show a little common courtesy/decency to one another.
this will be my last post in this thread. You (or anyone) can respond to this however you’d like but I will not be back in here to respond so if you have a legitimate question or something like that it will not be addressed on my end.
With that being said, if an individual fights the police, they need to have the shit kicked out of them. If you are illegally arrested or harassed, you should hit the officer and the department where it hurts; in court. [/quote]
First of all, fuck you if you think it is YOUR place to dispense justice. IT’S NOT.
No, when an individual fights the police, the following questions need to be asked:
How did he come to start fighting the police?
How did the officer’s training fail to prevent the situation from escalating?
Do MANY people tend to “fight” this particular officer (or group of officers)?
Was he really fighting the police or protecting himself?
Cops are dirty. They LOVE fucking with you when they have it in their mind that you’re “one of the bad guys”. Never mind that they haven’t caught you doing anything wrong. They KNOW it “in their gut” that this guy’s a piece of shit. So they justify their behavior.
My cousin is a lot younger than me (I used to change his diapers). He was a very bright boy and very idealistic. He was friendly, smiled all the time and really wanted to make a difference. He joined the force about five years ago or so. Now he’s pretty much a dick. He doesn’t show up at many family reunions anymore (cuz he chases the overtime). When I do see him, he doesn’t have the same smile that he used to. He is withdrawn, selfish, moody, etc… It’s like the job is stealing his soul. He has told me PLENTY of stories about he and his fellow officers regularly violate the rights of the good citizens of Baltimore. Again, it’s nothing like the videos we’ve seen, but he tells the stories with such pride and ghusto about how he “kicked this one guys ass and wrote it up that he was going my gun”. Or how he cleaned out the local drug dealer’s pockets (didn’t make an arrest) and used the cash to take his then girlfriend out to dinner. That’s NORMAL to him (and to most other cops that I’m friends with). He’s my cousin and I’ll always love him, but I certainly don’t LIKE who has become.
[/quote]
Cops are dirty. They LOVE fucking with you when they have it in their mind that you’re “one of the bad guys”. Never mind that they haven’t caught you doing anything wrong. They KNOW it “in their gut” that this guy’s a piece of shit. So they justify their behavior.
-I wrote a long and detailed response to you, but decided to delete it. I made a mistake by even getting involved in this conversation. This thread is simply a place for everyone to make blanket statements about how all LEO’s are pieces of dirty trash. That’s fine. I tried to respond to people’s posts so to perhaps give them an idea of why LEO’s do what they do. You don’t want to hear it. That’s also fine. I hope your cousin goes to work for another agency; Baltimore is known to have many crooked cops.[/quote]
I think I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t think ALL LEO’s are dirty. I just wish you’d respond to the original quote in this, “With that being said, if an individual fights the police, they need to have the shit kicked out of them.” Because THAT is the seed of it all. I would really like you to explain WHY you feel that if an individual fights the police he NEEDS to have the shit kicked out of him. I mean, there’s NEVER a reason for a grown man to defend himself from getting attacked by a GROUP of men wearing blue, right? And in many cases, they have him down and he moves (because they hit him, people tend to move when they get hit) “oh shit he’s still ‘resisting’ let’s hit him some more”. That’s how it goes, right? Submit or get your ass kicked by a group of “tough guys”. Reach into your pocket for your wallet to show them the ID they are shouting at you for and get shot. That’s never happened, though. Right? Oh wait…
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Police determine probable cause, not you.
[/quote]
No. FACTS determine probable cause. When police “determine probable cause” (e.g. “wing it”) cases get thrown out of court. Probable cause is seeing a roach in the ashtray. Probable cause is not a tingly feeling the cop gets from under his tiny nut suck up to his neck hairs.
I’ve dealt with hundreds of probable cause issues for the record while defending insurance claims against municipalities. You can quote and plagiarize as many references as you like, but the fact remains that manner in which you apply them (your previous posts and some of your newer comments) are wrong. Period.
