Guy Records Cops Allegedly Lying & Illegally Searching His Car Threatening To Take...

[ajskydiver]

Oh I forgot to mention how I had a (kind of... not totally the same) thing happen to me 2 years ago.

Got pulled over by a cop and she didn't tell me why until I asked. She said there was a report of a "yellow motor cycle" that had been stolen recently. I was on a yellow and black bike. That was the only description she gave me at all. No make, no model no other discriminating factors other than the color.

Pretty much the same thing as being pulled over and said I met the description of a "tan guy" who just robbed a bank. I probably had grounds to refuse ID based on her reasonable suspicion not being warranted, but I knew I didn't steal any bike, so I gave her my ID anyway. I was on my way within ten minutes, and not in a cop cruiser.

Nope. When you're operating the motor vehicle, you must provide your license to show that you're entitled to be legally operating the vehicle when stopped. Of course, the license is also a from of identification.

Showing ID and providing a license when driving can be two different things.

The main point is this: if you are not operating a vehicle you do not have to provide a license. You may have to ID yourself (verbally or with some form of ID if you choose to) but not necessarily a license to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[The Merg]

Nope. When you're operating the motor vehicle, you must provide your license to show that you're entitled to be legally operating the vehicle when stopped. Of course, the license is also a from of identification.

Showing ID and providing a license when driving can be two different things.

The main point is this: if you are not operating a vehicle you do not have to provide a license. You may have to ID yourself (verbally or with some form of ID if you choose to) but not necessarily a license to operate a motor vehicle.

Very well said.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

True. Cops do get s lot of training though in what would be considered offensive and defensive driving that the normal person does not get.

How exactly do you train someone to drive through constantly changing traffic while not looking at said constantly changing traffic? Furthermore, if they have so much superior training then the rest of us they should be held to a much higher accountability level then the rest of us, wouldn't you agree? So when a cop hits and kills some guy riding a bike while the cop uses his laptop or phone he should be given double the sentence that a normal, non highly trained, person would receive, right?

The whole idea of the police having immunity is so that they can do their job without fear that every decision they make might be second guessed and land them in court. Should police be wary of the decisions that they make? Absolutely. But, if a situation is a life or death situation and the officer has to take action, that second-guessing can mean they or someone else ends up dead. Also, the courts can take the immunity away.

How is that any different than you or I using a lawfully owned gun to protect ourselves or our families? Why do I have to actually think about the life and death decisions that I make, that have the same impact on the surrounding innocent people, but cops get a pass?

To be perfectly honest with you, considering all of the innocent people getting shot of late cops should be second guessing and making damn good and sure that they absolutely must pull that trigger right damn now before they start shooting. The biggest argument I hear is it is for "officer safety" and you know what, officer safety should not be placed above civilian safety. They signed up and chose that job knowing full well what the risks would be, if they don't like it they are more than welcome to quit.

Many states have Good Samaritan laws for the same reason so that if someone acts in good faith try to help someone, but hurts them in the process, they cannot be charged or sued. For example, someone performs CPR and they break the person's ribs and puncture their lung (not an unlikely situation), should the "victim" be able to sue the person that saved them for the additional injuries?

If I shot them without actual cause or reason, yes they should be able to sue. I have never given cops grief over trying to save someones life and failing, that just happens sometimes. I DO give them grief over taking someones life when it isn't necessary to take said life. There is a monumental difference between cracking someones ribs while doing CPR and shooting some poor bastard in the back while he is on the phone with his wife and a danger to absolutely no one.

And you state the cop's life won't change a bit. Yes, they might not go to jail, but do you really think they don't go to sleep every night and wake up every day thinking about what they did?

- Merg

Cry me a river, the loved ones of the dead guy have to go to sleep every night knowing that by every definition their loved one was murdered and yet the JUST-US system let the killer go free based solely on the killers occupation. Who do you really think has it worse, at least families could have some closure if justice was done but the absolute worst part is most of them retain their jobs and their guns. If I did what some of those jackboots did I still have to wake up every day thinking about what I did. How many years do you suppose the judge will take off my sentence for that, 3 or 4 maybe on a 20 year ride?

The bottom line is very simple and clear, the people sworn to uphold the law and "serve and protect" have now become above the law. If you can't see how that is a complete recipe for disaster, and is currently proving as such, then I don't really know how else to explain it to you.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not saying that you won't get hurt by resisting an illegal arrest, but just that the resisting is not unlawful. If the cop thinks they have the right to arrest you and you resist, they are going to use force to get you into custody even if the arrest was illegal.

- Merg

And when they shoot me for said unlawful arrest I will be dead and at the absolute worst they might lose their jobs, I know the horror!! Boy I would be much better off being the dead guy than the guy that just lost his job by making me dead!

All sarcasm aside, the above is much more the rule than the exception so like I said, fuck that shit. Luckily I can afford a lawyer to fix their fuckup as long as I don't get dead in the process of them fucking up. If I could afford the lawyer my attitude would probably be very different, funny how we "sillyvans", as they call us, have to pay one way or the other. You think I'm going to actually get my legal fees back in anything even resembling a reasonable amount of time? Do you think the cop will be paying my legal fees for HIS unlawful actions? What about my own unlawful actions, do you suppose that I, as a civilian, am civilly and criminally responsible for them?

I just want them to be treated like us, no more and no less. That is obviously asking a fuckload out of people that are supposedly devoting their lives to serving the public. That alone makes a rationale, unbiased and intelligent person to take pause or at the very least it should.

 

[The Merg]

Here is the definition of qualified immunity:

Qualified immunity: an overview

“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan (07-751). Specifically, it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.
Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.
Recently, in Pearson v. Callahan (07-751), the Supreme Court held that courts considering officials’ qualified immunity claims do not need to consider whether or not the officials actually violated a plaintiff’s right if it is clear that the right was not clearly established.

It's something that SCOTUS has routinely upheld and most recently was confirmed again by unanimous decision. People may not like it or approve of it, but it's apparently here to stay. The courts have decided that it is something that needs to be implemented. You can't blame the cops for something that the court system has decided is valid. Also, qualified immunity is only protection from civil liability. It does not provide protection from criminal liability.

By the definition, it still allows officers to be held responsible if they act irresponsibly. If someone feels that is being done, they can always take the officer to court and the court will determine if qualified immunity is valid or not. You can't blame the cops if the court rules that they are covered by qualified immunity.

As usual the Internet is littered with how people screw up and do things wrong. How often can you go to review sites and they are stock full of negative reviews? That's because people love to voice their opinion when something is bad or goes wrong. For all those bad incidents, there are probably 1,000's of positive contacts that people have with the police that go unnoticed and undocumented. Because you know that person that videos the stop where the officer only gives them a warning and says "Have a nice day" is not going to be posted on the web, but the video
where the officer gives him a ticket and he starts to argue with the officer is going to be posted on the web to show how awful cops are.

Are there cops that are not trained enough? Yes. Are there cops that are just bad at their job? Yes. Are there cops that are probably racist? Yes. But to label all cops as jackboot thugs is just as bad as and stereotypical. With regard to the whole argument that good cops aren't good because they protect the bad ones, that's B.S. Cops do what they can to get rid of the bad ones. Sometimes it turns into the game of passing the trash, because the bad ones haven't done something that keeps them from being a cop. A lot of times things are done quietly. Why? Because when people here that a cop has done something wrong, what do people do? They assume that all the cops on the department must be doing things wrong too and criticize any punishment that the cop receives as not being enough. Even when cops do things that would normally be praised, they get questioned. Just look at the thread about the car seat? How many posts are in there questioning if the cop only did this because she's a hot blonde or that he wouldn't have done this if she was black?

Does this make me a jackboot thug loving person? If you think so, sure, but truthfully, I could care less. I have my opinion and you have yours. I've been around cops enough to know that the bad 5% create 95% of the problems. If cops could truly get rid of that 5%, I'm sure they would. If you don't think so, I doubt there's anything I could say to change your mind and vice versa.

One thing you won't find me doing here is cursing, talking down, or insulting people about their views. I'll listen to someone else's opinion and point of view and give mine. If others want to yell and scream at me, they can have at it.

BTW, if a cop assaults/injures someone outside the scope of their powers or kills someone outside the scope of their powers, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

</rant>

- Merg

 

[dmcowen674]

The bottom line is very simple and clear, the people sworn to uphold the law and "serve and protect" have now become above the law.

If you can't see how that is a complete recipe for disaster, and is currently proving as such, then I don't really know how else to explain it to you.

Just put the idiot on ignore, not worth it.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

The bottom line is very simple and clear, the people sworn to uphold the law and "serve and protect" have now become above the law. If you can't see how that is a complete recipe for disaster, and is currently proving as such, then I don't really know how else to explain it to you.

You are NEVER going to convince a cop that they shouldn't be above the law. That's the best part of their job.