Legal or Not?

[SteveInNJ 0]

Maybe it's just me but I'm tired of having to go out of my way to constantly allow civil servants to violate my rights. I've been on the LE side and I can say with certainty that there are a lot of good cops out there. BUT... there are some that feel the general public has to do whatever a LEO tells them too and if they don't like it charges get written up.

 

Here's a tip for everyone out there.... If a cop can't hold his anger back when some wise ass kid talks back he shouldn't be a cop. Forget violating laws... What happened to violating the publics trust? If I stepped out of line like that my LT woulda had my ass.

[illy 1]

IMO these videos are essentially scripted reality TV at this point. You have a guy who is somewhat antagonistic and a LEO who just feels like he's being screwed with and responds accordingly. (In this situation I'll agree somewhat excessively)

 

In this case just like in the "open carry" and "citizenship checkpoint" videos I think you could make the same point by prefacing your interaction with the LEO with one sentence. Something like "I'm a constitutional or civil liberties activist and will only comply within my legal requirement". Then when you refuse to answer there is a known basis why. The LEOs will get the point and you're not stuck there for 30 minutes repeating "Am I being detained?" like a douche.

 

LEOs aren't robots so when they feel they're getting screwed with the attitude should be expected. I look at cops just like I do anyone else in a service industry, I'm courteous to my waiter so he doesn't spit in my food, I don't unnecessarily screw with LEOs because I can't afford a lawyer on retainer.

 

So is your argument that we have to proactively assert our rights for police to know that we have them? Or so that they will respect those rights?

 

Because neither should be required.

 

I agree w/ your point about being polite w/ service workers and LE equally. But if that waiter was a d!ck to you, I don't think you'd be so deferential. 

[ChadShaft 0]

How is not wanting rights violated "playing a fool"?

[Nickel1911 0]

If we ignore the fact that it is illegal to stop citizens and demand to see their papers without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, this is still wrong. It's wrong because the police were not there to protect us from drunk drivers as they pretended to be. They never asked if he was drinking nor did they have any reason to suspect he was. He was pulled out of his car, detained, and illegally searched because the officer didn't like being told no. This is an officer that is confused and forgets that he is supposed to enforce the law and believes that he is the law. The best part is that he even admitted to the other officer that he knew the kid was only exercising his rights while detaining him illegally and searching his car illegally.

 

There have been a few topics here where there was cop bashing. This is not one of them. This cop is bad. That does not mean that his eagerness to violate someones civil rights to prove a point is the norm among police officers. I'm shocked that every police officer on this forum isn't screaming for this officer's dismissal - especially considering how pro 2A this group is, I would have thought we were all pretty Pro 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 too. This bad cop is the one that gives the rest a bad name.

+1 what he said

[ChadShaft 0]

Your rights are your rights. You can say he was just picking a fight with a cop and you could say the same thing about Rosa Parks. They're your rights and however you chose to exercise them is your right. People have to take a stand before our right are totally forgotten about because it's "the norm".

[Larry1851 0]

This argument has become so circular. How about this?  Both the kid and the cop were idiots.  OK?  IMHO, I feel the kid set this up.  That's my opinion, folks.  The officer, trained to use intimidation, took it further than it needed to go.  BUT DO YOUR RESEARCH!  A stop like this IS PERMITTED under the 4th Amendment so long as they are conducted in a neutral or non-arbitrary manner, their intrusion on the motorist is limited, and they further an important governmental or public purpose.  There is no requirement that an officer have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop.  States have the right to not do it, or do it.  This procedure has been upheld at the federal level.

 

This took place in Tennessee where it can be done.  After looking at the video a few more times two things now come to mind.  1.  The kid should have brushed up on his state law.  2.  The officer should have deferred this to his supervisor, so the sup could have made the decision to proceed or not proceed.

 

And DO NOT ever question my loyalty to this country or the Constitution to me.   

 

Out.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I don't think one person here has questioned the legality of the stop, we have beaten that discussion to death, kinda like this one now. The guy knew the state law pretty well considering his statement. " I am required to stop, i stopped, that is all i am required to do"  I really don't see the relevance if the kid set this up or not, and from the video maybe he had a good reason to do so.. In all seriousness, if we the people don't get on top of things like this, no one will. If they are willing to do this over something so little, it really makes you think what else they might do in a more serious instance...

[bulpup 98]

Jack , you make good points.

 

But I differ in one slight yet pivotal way .

Which is, if we can all agree that keeping your hands where a cop can see them is a good idea so as not to make a cop jumpy, why not roll the window all the way down?

 

Nothing but good sense makes keeping your hands visible a near universal step at a stop. There is no law but it is a good idea to do so. To me, that same logic applies for rolling down a window when asked.

 

It truly seems like a strange thing to dig in on, IMHO.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob B 103]

When he, and the other officer faked the K9 hit and searched the vehicle, they were committing a federal offense.  Title 18, Section 241 and 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.  These are criminal statutes.  Regardless of whether or not the driver was behaving like an a$$, aren't we missing the point that the only people in the video that were breaking the law were the police officers?  And, more importantly, that the other officers on site did nothing to stop them?  ...which suggests that this sort of thing is pervasive, accepted and/or tolerated.  If that is the case, what else other than a peaceful assertion of one's rights would lead to the discovery, publication and subsequent end of such illegal practices?  ...or should we allow them to persist?

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

[RUTGERS95 890]

When he, and the other officer faked the K9 hit and searched the vehicle, they were committing a federal offense.  Title 18, Section 241 and 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.  These are criminal statutes.  Regardless of whether or not the driver was behaving like an a$$, aren't we missing the point that the only people in the video that were breaking the law were the police officers?  And, more importantly, that the other officers on site did nothing to stop them?  ...which suggests that this sort of thing is pervasive, accepted and/or tolerated.  If that is the case, what else other than a peaceful assertion of one's rights would lead to the discovery, publication and subsequent end of such illegal practices?  ...or should we allow them to persist?

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

+1