Jump to content
s8n

Locked Box in Locked Trunk

Recommended Posts

and that is NOT the damned way you are coming across HERE.....you're coming across like the Snot-nosed rookie who Knows it all. if you notice i make CLEAR the fact that I dont Rag-bag everyone I see, or that I dont bother with a Consent request unless i already HAVE what I need for the warrant...you have yet to do so. Hell after reading your Posts and going SOLELY by that I Wouldnt want to work with you. For the record on 8 August i will complete my 24th year. I've worked patrol most of that time, but i have also worked with other agencies on the Local, County, State, Inter-state, and Federal levels. Pk-90 Is either close to or has retired, I havent talked shop with him in a while..between us we have a buttload of Police experience. Now im not saying you ARE one of the Gung-ho, "Everyone who isnt a cop is a Sheep" types..but frankly thats the impression you're giving folks. If that offends you.... Tough... Im gonna call it like i see it, and that isnt always pretty. Now either straighten up and tone it down, or go someplace where you dont have to interact with civilians until you learn HOW to.

 

 

I am not saying I search every person out there.. Not sure where you got the idea that I am the guy that has the us vs. them attitude.. That couldnt be further from the truth.. I was simply commenting on the whole consent to search.. I am not saying that on every stop I ask to search.. There has to be that raised suspicion to search the vehicle.. I don't go on fishing expeditions.. I am just saying.. If you have nothing to hide then you have no reason not to consent.. But as you stated when we ask to search we normally have what we need for the warrant.. And as I stated.. I have yet to come across a guy with a "I know my rights attitude" that didn't leave in cuffs...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've had guns drawn on me in a traffic stop at least six times for no reason other than what I drive or how i was dressed. I've been asked to consent to a search at least five times. After the first time, I refused to consent.

 

have never been arrested much less convicted, I have no prior records. I don't drink or do drugs. So there has never been paraphernalia in plain sight. I've only been pulled over for more than 20 over once. I don't go fishing around for documentation, I put both hands on the wheel until the officer can see what I'm doing. I also try to be polite.

type to harass you because you said no, they aren't one of the good ones anyway.

 

After a lot of thought and a bit of research, I came up with my simple canned reply to a request to search. It's "I don't know. What's your reasonably articulable suspiscion?" most traffic stops have audio recording, and I have yet to find one cop who wanted to go on record about that up front. It precludes them changing their story to cover their a**, and most consent searches are either total fishing, or to get nail the search 100% without the ability for their RAS to be questioned in court.

 

I just wanted to note how no one responded to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just saying.. If you have nothing to hide then you have no reason not to consent..

 

 

I beg to differ.. "can I search your vehicle" could mean two vastly different things depending on the LEO... it could mean "I smell what I think to be marijuana.. let me take a quick look through your car and if I find nothing you will be on your way" OR it could mean.. "I am officer hard a** and I plan to search every nook and cranny of your vehicle.. and then a half an hour from now when I find nothing.. I plan on calling for a dog because I refuse to be wrong..." so in one scenario sure it is a polite casual exchange that ends in a few moments when the LEO doesn't find anything of substance.. OR you could have that one dick who has something to prove, that results in some never ending expedition on the side of the parkway in the middle of the winter.... a bad search performed by a bad officer could really pan out to be very inconvenient..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to note how no one responded to this.

 

 

it is a personal account of something that is impossible to discuss without more detail.. I would like to hear about the court case associated with the incident.. I know that if I was treated as if I had committed a felony.. had guns drawn on me (6 times) all because of "how I looked" I would most certainly seek legal council.. reach out to the media.. file complaint with the department.. and so on.. but without details it is just a story (not saying that it is not a true story..)..

 

I was a young guy that drove a Honda at one point.. I have tattoos and all.. I have been pulled over simply because of the "car I drove" but the part I am leaving out about that is said car had no front license plate.. roll cage.. no windshield wipers.. and other things that made it into one giant cop magnet...so I accepted that I would get pulled over at times (which ended up really only being a few)... if I didn't want that attention I could have easily drove a "normal" car and tried a little harder to not look like I just got out of jail..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where you got the idea that I am the guy that has the us vs. them attitude.. That couldnt be further from the truth.. I

 

It may not have been what you intended to say but if you re-read your posts and responses you may see that you have been putting the feeling that, that is your position.

 

Reflecting back on the thread it may be that as you have been responding you have a specific situation in mind and not an "In General" thought process being reflected here. You might want to take the time, re-read your initial post and answers and see if that may be the case, be honest and not just the "I stand by my comments", after all you are in a forum that has probably the largest percentage of law abiding citizens who's main passion is our guns and our rights.

 

Harry

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a personal account of something that is impossible to discuss without more detail.. I would like to hear about the court case associated with the incident.. I know that if I was treated as if I had committed a felony.. had guns drawn on me (6 times) all because of "how I looked" I would most certainly seek legal council.. reach out to the media.. file complaint with the department.. and so on.. but without details it is just a story (not saying that it is not a true story..)..

 

 

Point taken about personal experience, however it brings "profiling" into the equation and why a person would not want to simply consent to search. I don't have any personal experience with racial profiling, but then again I'm not black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken about personal experience, however it brings "profiling" into the equation and why a person would not want to simply consent to search. I don't have any personal experience with racial profiling, but then again I'm not black.

 

 

"Racial profiling" was a way for the media to get its ratings up. I was pulled over several times for "looking suspicious". I had long hair, a 4x4 truck with a roll bar and lights on the top. We had a LEO say "Your long haired friend looking out the back window seemed suspicious to me..." At the time we were not doing anything wrong and were too stupid to understand "our rights".

 

My grandfather and two uncles were Philadelphia cops. I never asked if they profiled, but it seems like the crime was pretty obvious before they started asking questions. I think the attitude at hand is tacoguy believes he has the right and we don't... kind of "above us" mentality.... "I know what is right and wrong and you don't, so sit down and shut up"? If I am wrong I apologize, but that is the way I am taking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken about personal experience, however it brings "profiling" into the equation and why a person would not want to simply consent to search. I don't have any personal experience with racial profiling, but then again I'm not black.

 

 

I am going to post this once.. and for those who disagree I will respectfully agree to disagree.. do NOT want to argue or fight as I am sure many of you will disagree..

 

I have been singled out for "looking strange" and "bothered" by LEO at a younger age... but then again I walked around looking like a weirdo...

 

as far as "profiling" it is IMO a valuable tool.. NO ONE should be unfairly persecuted based on physical appearance... but with that said if you are LEO and you have "X" number of officers.. I would much rather have them focus most of their attention on individuals who are more likely to be criminals.. and what I mean by that is... if a cop stops a car with a 60 year old woman driving... I would say that it is logical to assume she is less of a threat than a similar stop which involves a lowered car.. tinted windows.. loud music... and 4 or 5 males dressed like they just walked off of a gangster rap video... that is NOT because old grandmoms are always innocent.. and it is certainly not because every young male who listens to rap is a "gang banger".. but the reason is logic.. if you have "x" amount of resources it is far more useful to focus their effort on people who are MORE LIKELY to be involved in crime..

 

like I said.. agree to disagree.. no offense intended..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Profiling has its place of course. But in my time I had 78 soldiers rotate through my squad and a good many of them were not white. Their personal experiences were sometimes part of my reports.

 

You can say it is media hype. Others call it personal experience. I had to make a report to my comander when a cop pulled over two of my soldiers simply because a white guy in a black man's car looked suspicious to him.

 

It was wrong of him to stop them for that, and it would have been even more wrong if he kept them any later for refusing to consent to a search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Profiling has its place of course. But in my time I had 78 soldiers rotate through my squad and a good many of them were not white. Their personal experiences were sometimes part of my reports.

 

You can say it is media hype. Others call it personal experience. I had to make a report to my comander when a cop pulled over two of my soldiers simply because a white guy in a black man's car looked suspicious to him.

 

It was wrong of him to stop them for that, and it would have been even more wrong if he kept them any later for refusing to consent to a search.

 

 

I agree that while RACE is NOT a factor in my prejudgment of people.. appearance sure is..

 

as a rule of thumb IMO LEO should NEVER initiate contact based solely on physical appearance (race included)(unless of course they are looking for a specific subject who matches said appearance.....) my comment was more after a clean initiation of contact (traffic stop for example)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken about personal experience, however it brings "profiling" into the equation and why a person would not want to simply consent to search. I don't have any personal experience with racial profiling, but then again I'm not black.

 

THERE is the problem..people ASSUME that profiling only exists whrn the Alleged Actor is black..this is patently bs. Tell you what, you drive into a drung area that is prediominantly black, and you're white and you ARE going to get profiled..I have been waiting outside the Hospital in Brooklyn where my MiL was, and in Patterson down the street from St Joe's hospital. It goes ALL ways..but then to AVOID the Appearance of "Profiling" we go too far in the other direction..for example the "DC Sniper" case..where the Cheif was So afraid to be accused of Profiling he refused to Release the fact that it had been CONFIRMED that the suspects were black, not to just the media, but to other LE agencies as well. Yes racism exists..everywhere, but Profiling can be an effective tool. Let's be realistic, even though this caost the NJSP Supt his Job, what he said is no less true. If you're looking for someone Making/dealing Meth..You're looking for a White guy, probably an OMC member, If you're looking for Coke, you're looking into ties with Columbians, or other South Americans..Heroin in the Burbs? White guys, Heroin in the Cities? Black guys, same with Crack cocaine, Grass?? Depending on where, Jamaicans at the time were big. it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THERE is the problem..people ASSUME that profiling only exists whrn the Alleged Actor is black..this is patently bs.

 

 

I don't assume that at all. I was trying to make a point that I don't see it as much as someone else might. But the discussion stemmed from a man that alleges being stopped 6 times for reasons he believes is only his appearence. Should he be consenting to a search in each case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the discussion stemmed from a man that alleges being stopped 6 times for reasons he believes is only his appearence. Should he be consenting to a search in each case?

 

 

NO.. but if he is genuinely innocent and of good character he should probably lawyer up and file a complaint..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't assume that at all. I was trying to make a point that I don't see it as much as someone else might. But the discussion stemmed from a man that alleges being stopped 6 times for reasons he believes is only his appearence. Should he be consenting to a search in each case?

 

I wasnt speaking of you specifically I mean in general..all of the Hoopla over the "Racial Profiling" with NJSP never took into account that it was in fact..effective. Take a look at the "Drug Corridor" stats before and after the so-called Scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...