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He is withdrawn, selfish, moody, etc… It’s like the job is stealing his soul.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 DO believe that in SOME jurisdictions, Baltimore being one of them, they are fighting an uphill battle against crime. For every drug dealer they take off the street, two take his place. So in that regard it has to be demoralizing. That being said, it’s still not an excuse. People are responsible for their state of mind. And for cops outside of the city or major crime area, they have NO excuse for being dicks.
And by the way, had he been arrested for some reason, it would have been quite easy to determine if there was a disturbance call - they keep 911 and police call logs. No disturbance? The stop and any evidence from this stop goes bye bye and case is thrown out.
I don’t have an opinion on the claim that the disturbance was a fabricated pretext to stop, I’m just clarifying the legal issues.
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??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?
[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.
Take it easy everyone.[/quote]
Oh save us the drama.
First, don’t gloss over the “reasonable” part of your citation above. Because that’s key. Reasonable does not equal “because I think so”. “Reasonable” has to be based upon something factual. Aaaaaaannnnyway (see what I did there) That said…
Both AC and I (and others) have made it clear that it is the INSTITUTION we despise. Fuck, we both admitted to knowing and having friendships with cops. That someone came along and injected race is a hijack and has nothing to do with the thread. And how the hell does this “bring out the worst” in everyone anymore than the stupid shit that occurs every minute on PWI? Dude, gimme a break.
Finally, guys with weird mustaches do not make good martyrs. You know we don’t care whether you stay or leave. What’s next? A “gregron out” thread?
Who the fuck posts to say they aren’t going to post?
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]
…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.
Again, the police have been vested with the authority to determine probable cause (in an investigation, keep your context cap on), based on perceived danger or guilt, not you.
Nobody is moving a goal post. You are ignoring cut and dry law. Debunk it. I don’t give a shit about your opinion on me.
Follow the links to the court cases and laws used to build the wiki page I quoted. Before you dismiss the post because it links wikipedia, debunk the factuality of the wikipage. Sometimes false info. is posted on wiki, often times you find accurate info. As Gregron mentioned, this page references actual law and court rulings.
You can’t debunk it because it is accurate and backed by legitimate rulings and laws. Until you can, you have nothing to say. I don’t care about your emotions any more than I do your opinion of me. And I don’t like Holiday Inn. For the price, La Quinta is my preference.
And, for what it’s worth, cops who abuse power and people are shitheads, but blaming them all for the actions of a few is an ignorant, knee jerk, emotional way to react to a handful of bad guys. Don’t be such a pussy.
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. [/quote]
A lot if not most are probably good people is the problem. I’m sure they are are good people. I am friends and family with cops who are “good people”. But if they EVER in their career witness or hear rumor of another officer violating someone’s rights and they FAIL TO INVESTIGATE OR REPORT IT OR OTHERWISE ACT, then that makes them COMPLICIT and part of a never ending insidious cover up. Those “good people” can do bad things (or fail to act). I think that is what we have a problem with.
[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.[/quote]
A lawyer! Fuck! I can’t believe anything you say! You are a roach in an ashtray! And insurance law is not criminal law.
I wouldn’t trust a podiatrist to give me open heart surgery any more than I would trust you to interpret criminal law.
Peace out pussy! Most cops are good, well intentioned people, you can’t debunk the laws or court interpretations referenced in my wiki page and I don’t care to play semantics with you.
[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.[/quote]
A lawyer! Fuck! I can’t believe anything you say! You are a roach in an ashtray! And insurance law is not criminal law.
I wouldn’t trust a podiatrist to give me open heart surgery any more than I would trust you to interpret criminal law.
Peace out pussy! Most cops are good, well intentioned people, you can’t debunk the laws or court interpretations referenced in my wiki page and I don’t care to play semantics with you.
LOL. That has to be the funniest statement I’ve read so far in this thread.
It’s always the people who probably haven’t had the shit kicked out of them, been arrested unnecessarily or generally mistreated by a cop abusing their power who seem to hold this opinion.
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]
…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.
Again, the police have been vested with the authority to determine probable cause (in an investigation, keep your context cap on), based on perceived danger or guilt, not you.
Nobody is moving a goal post. You are ignoring cut and dry law. Debunk it. I don’t give a shit about your opinion on me.
Follow the links to the court cases and laws used to build the wiki page I quoted. Before you dismiss the post because it links wikipedia, debunk the factuality of the wikipage. Sometimes false info. is posted on wiki, often times you find accurate info. As Gregron mentioned, this page references actual law and court rulings.
You can’t debunk it because it is accurate and backed by legitimate rulings and laws. Until you can, you have nothing to say. I don’t care about your emotions any more than I do your opinion of me. And I don’t like Holiday Inn. For the price, La Quinta is my preference.
And, for what it’s worth, cops who abuse power and people are shitheads, but blaming them all for the actions of a few is an ignorant, knee jerk, emotional way to react to a handful of bad guys. Don’t be such a pussy.
[/quote]
I already debunked your earlier posts. We’re not debunking references that you do not understand or know how to apply. As I stated, I have 20 years of litigation experience with this stuff. Let me know when you want to return to your earlier (and incorrect) posts.
[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.[/quote]
A lawyer! Fuck! I can’t believe anything you say! You are a roach in an ashtray! And insurance law is not criminal law.
I wouldn’t trust a podiatrist to give me open heart surgery any more than I would trust you to interpret criminal law.
Peace out pussy! Most cops are good, well intentioned people, you can’t debunk the laws or court interpretations referenced in my wiki page and I don’t care to play semantics with you.
[/quote]
LOL reading comprehension fail. While defending (as director of claims - not the lawyer, I’m the one that actually makes the decisions) civil rights and wrongful arrest insurance claims (for various municipalities), the criminal standard and facts is part of the civil case giving rise to civil liability.
In those types of cases, the two are inextricably woven together. You cannot make intelligent decisions on a civil suit, unless you understand the underlying facts and legal standards that gave rise to the claim in the first place.
You sir, are out of your depth. You can read all the wiki you want, but you don’t know how to apply it as already demonstrated in your prior posts about the Applebees incident.
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. [/quote]
A lot if not most are probably good people is the problem. I’m sure they are are good people. I am friends and family with cops who are “good people”. But if they EVER in their career witness or hear rumor of another officer violating someone’s rights and they FAIL TO INVESTIGATE OR REPORT IT OR OTHERWISE ACT, then that makes them COMPLICIT and part of a never ending insidious cover up. Those “good people” can do bad things (or fail to act). I think that is what we have a problem with.
[/quote]
AC the above requires a level of intelligence, reasoning and critical thought that some here seem to be lacking.
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. [/quote]
A lot if not most are probably good people is the problem. I’m sure they are are good people. I am friends and family with cops who are “good people”. But if they EVER in their career witness or hear rumor of another officer violating someone’s rights and they FAIL TO INVESTIGATE OR REPORT IT OR OTHERWISE ACT, then that makes them COMPLICIT and part of a never ending insidious cover up. Those “good people” can do bad things (or fail to act). I think that is what we have a problem with.
[/quote]
AC the above requires a level of intelligence, reasoning and critical thought that some here seem to be lacking.[/quote]
I know, right! I mean, here’s the difference:
Scenario #1: THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE IN A POLICE STATION LOCKER ROOM
Bad cop #1: “we sure fucked that nigger up didn’t we? I bet HE’LL think twice before he comes into THAT neighborhood again!”
Bad cop #2: “Yeah man, we GOT his ass! You split his dome WIDE OPEN! HA!! Now THAT’S why I joined the force!”
Bad cop #1: “you think he’ll show his face around there again?”
Bad cop #2: “HELL NO! We taught that muther fucker a LESSON! If he shows his face around there again, we’ll just have to break his fingers!”
<<<Bad cop #1 and #2 high five each other and chest bump>>>
“good cop” #1 in the next isle over thinks to him self, “Those guys and their shenanigans are just ridiculous. Well, I made it through another day alive, time to go home to my wife and kids”.
Scenario #2: THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE DURING A “ROUTINE” TRAFFIC STOP
Driver: “good evening officer, was I speeding?”
“good cop” #1: “No, I just pulled you over because <>, this will only take a minute”
<<good cop checks everything and it appears fine, so he walks back to the car to give the driver his license and make a bullshit excuse about why he stopped him and send them on their way, when he faintly overhears the following>>
Driver getting frantic with the passenger: “… it’s FINE, he’s coming back blah blah blah, Just SHUT UP and ACT NORMAL!”
The cop hears this, and his instincts honed by years on the force tell him something’s not right, so he un-holsters his weapon, orders the two out of the car and finds the drugs in the trunk.
BOTH scenarios gave him probable cause to act and uphold the law, yet he CHOOSES NOT TO ACT against his fellow officers.
THAT’S THE FUCKING PROBLEM. HE IS NO LONGER A “GOOD COP” BY MY OR BG’S DEFINITION. If the rest of you see nothing wrong with this then THAT’S part of the problem too.
ID you need to ask IH, but this guys is a former poster on here from a few years ago. IH identified him, but I have no idea who he is. Maybe he will share.
I guess people around here need to create fake profiles because they lack the testicular fortitude to say something under their REAL profile. (i.e., you won’t say it to his FACE)
What was so controversial about THAT? I mean seriously?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I guess people around here need to create fake profiles because they lack the testicular fortitude to say something under their REAL profile. (i.e., you won’t say it to his FACE)
What was so controversial about THAT? I mean seriously?
Fucking coward.[/quote]
YEAH!!!
(Iron Dwarf stops and thinks for a minute… the fact that he himself posts under a fake name, as do Angry Chicken, TheBodyGuard, ImHungry and scores of other T-Nation members who have real lives outside these forums).
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I guess people around here need to create fake profiles because they lack the testicular fortitude to say something under their REAL profile. (i.e., you won’t say it to his FACE)
What was so controversial about THAT? I mean seriously?
Fucking coward.[/quote]
man you take shit seriously… lol.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I guess people around here need to create fake profiles because they lack the testicular fortitude to say something under their REAL profile. (i.e., you won’t say it to his FACE)
What was so controversial about THAT? I mean seriously?
Fucking coward.[/quote]
YEAH!!!
(Iron Dwarf stops and thinks for a minute… the fact that he himself posts under a fake name, as do Angry Chicken, TheBodyGuard, ImHungry and scores of other T-Nation members who have real lives outside these forums).
lol[/quote]
Hahahahahahaaha I dont this is actually my initials.
