Barstow cops are fucked!

[Slyhunter]

Fuck you, you racist fucking pricks!





Fuck Barstow cops!

This country is becoming Nazi Germany.

Why aren't you posting in this thread?
Obama s Baltimore Taking shape Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The cop was investigating a potential crime.

Ok, what was the crime?

When people go ape shit in public the cops usually want to get to the bottom of it.
Reckless driving in a school parking lot,attempted assault come to mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Cop has the right to ASK your name. Unless you are under arrest you DON'T HAVE TO give your name.

Nope.
Wrong again.
The police have the right to ask your name, and ask for ID if they reasonably believe you are connected to a possible crime, and they are in the process of investigating that specific alleged crime. Failure to comply then gives them the right to detain you until they get your identification.

Probable cause.......

 

[Mad Scientist]

When people go ape shit in public the cops usually want to get to the bottom of it. Reckless driving in a school parking lot,attempted assault come to mind.

So who wrote a Complaint that there was "Reckless Driving" or "Attempted Assault"? No one.

Cops can only act on Actual Lawful Complaints and Breaches of the Law.

What I saw was a woman resisting an Unlawful Arrest.

The Cop said "You're under arrest for obstruction" which is interesting because THERE WAS NO LAW BROKEN AND NO REASON TO ARREST THEREFORE NO OBSTRUCTION WAS COMMITED!

 

[Mad Scientist]

If I was in the Black girls shoes I'd have cooperated and let the Cop arrest me because I know he's stepping in it big time.

"Officer, I know this is being recorded so I want you to take me to a Magistrate RIGHT NOW!"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When people go ape shit in public the cops usually want to get to the bottom of it. Reckless driving in a school parking lot,attempted assault come to mind.

So who wrote a Complaint that there was "Reckless Driving" or "Attempted Assault"? No one.

Cops can only act on Actual Lawful Complaints and Breaches of the Law.

What I saw was a woman resisting an Unlawful Arrest.

The Cop said "You're under arrest for obstruction" which is interesting because THERE WAS NO LAW BROKEN AND NO REASON TO ARREST THEREFORE NO OBSTRUCTION WAS COMMITED!

You might want to go back and watch the video again.

 

[Ringel05]

When people go ape shit in public the cops usually want to get to the bottom of it. Reckless driving in a school parking lot,attempted assault come to mind.

So who wrote a Complaint that there was "Reckless Driving" or "Attempted Assault"? No one.

Cops can only act on Actual Lawful Complaints and Breaches of the Law.

What I saw was a woman resisting an Unlawful Arrest.

The Cop said "You're under arrest for obstruction" which is interesting because THERE WAS NO LAW BROKEN AND NO REASON TO ARREST THEREFORE NO OBSTRUCTION WAS COMMITED!

You have a strange idea of what cops can and cannot do... Guess if a cop saw someone beating the hell out of you they would just stand by until you could file a lawful complaint
Oh and last I checked attempted assault with a deadly weapon (a vehicle) and reckless driving (reckless endangerment in this instance) were both breaches of law..........

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If I was in the Black girls shoes I'd have cooperated and let the Cop arrest me because I know he's stepping in it big time.

"Officer, I know this is being recorded so I want you to take me to a Magistrate RIGHT NOW!"

She wouldnt have been arrested had she given her name.
Unless of course the cops found out about her warrants when they ran her name through the system.
This is just another example of blacks acting badly.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You might want to go back and watch the video again.

I've watched the video twice.

I asked you what was the crime and you can't answer, and you never will.

But you prolly know all about Tom Brady's balls.

I'm out.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You might want to go back and watch the video again.

I've watched the video twice.

I asked you what was the crime and you can't answer, and you never will.

But you prolly know all about Tom Brady's balls.

I'm out.

I did answer,and so did Ringel.
And why you felt the need to bring up tom brady's balls is a mystery....or maybe a fetish.

 

[Ringel05]

The Cop has the right to ASK your name. Unless you are under arrest you DON'T HAVE TO give your name.

Ignorance of the law (in your case here) is not an excuse. The officer was investigating a verbal complaint, in that instance the persons involved are required by law to comply with police requests/demands.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Cop has the right to ASK your name. Unless you are under arrest you DON'T HAVE TO give your name.

Nope.
Wrong again.
The police have the right to ask your name, and ask for ID if they reasonably believe you are connected to a possible crime, and they are in the process of investigating that specific alleged crime. Failure to comply then gives them the right to detain you until they get your identification.

The Cop.
In the Video.
SAID.
There was No Damage.
He could see No Damage.
Therefore.
There was NO CRIME.
So.
The Cop can ASK for I.D.
But.
Cannot Arrest for Non Compliance.

Nope.
Fail again.
It is called probable cause, there was a clear altercation between the two women that he needed to sort out to find out if there WAS a crime. Doesn't matter what he says in the video, what matters is a judge's decision if the officer was in the act of an investigation or not. Clearly he was.

 

[EverCurious]

The be all and end all is: "You do not have to show ID (federal law) unless you are exercising a right given by a state requiring ID. It is not against the law to NOT carry ID, again unless you are exercising a right given by a state."

Driving is a right so therefore the officer had the right to ask for her name, and actually to require her to produce her drivers license and proof of insurance as well.

Probable cause in depth:

Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to Stop and Frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.

The requirement of probable cause for a Search and Seizure can be found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states;

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 searched.

~ Search of Person would include asking their name, asking for ID, etc.
~ The witness agreed when the officer asked if she was driving recklessly, which would be a crime [especially in a school parking lot.] This actually means that his request for her name would qualify under probable cause (detention rules) because there was suspicion a crime supported by an affirmation from the witness.

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt.

~ One may refuse to provide their name /only/ under a "consensual" request, /not/ under a "detention" request such as in this case.
~ IF one wishes to argue the 4th amendment then you had BEST understand case law related to it and the difference between these two

(Consensual Application of Probable Cause) At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts" that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business; however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"

(Detention Application of Probable Cause) A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer. However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.

The Case Law Precedence:
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

~ Again, in this case, she was exercising a right [driving] and was therefore legally obligated to provide her name [her drivers license & proof of insurance.] In addition she was suspected of driving recklessly and subject to detention.

Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question. In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada "stop and identify" law did not violate the United States Constitution.

~ AKA it is /not/ a civil rights violation for an officer to ask for someone's name.

I suspect the woman doesn't have a drivers license, or perhaps has no insurance, or something along those lines (rather than warrants,) which is why she went into panic mode when the officer asked, then pressed, for her name. Now she's going to have obstruction /and/ resisting arrest charges [in addition to any other violations they may or may not find.]

The stupidest part is that if she had simply told the officer her name when he asked, instead of trying to rely on /false/ beliefs regarding her civil rights, he very likely wouldn't have detained her at all, might not have even ran her name through the system at all - he figured it was road rage and probably would have calmed everyone down and moved on with his day with zero arrests or paperwork. Her refusal to provide that simple information, increased the probable cause that she was committing some kind of crime, and likely lead to her arrest when combined with the witnesses affirmation she was driving recklessly...

In addition, police department policy may obligate the officer to get her name, because a "request for help" was made by the other chick when she called it in. Failing to "show an attempt to resolve that request for help could open the police department up to lawsuits.

Idiots

 

[charwin95]

The Cop has the right to ASK your name. Unless you are under arrest you DON'T HAVE TO give your name.

Nope.
Wrong again.
The police have the right to ask your name, and ask for ID if they reasonably believe you are connected to a possible crime, and they are in the process of investigating that specific alleged crime. Failure to comply then gives them the right to detain you until they get your identification.

No. You are wrong unless you are racist. Pregnant African American called the cop. She didn't commit any crime. Why would she give her identity? I do have a lot of respect for cops but this is clear police brutality. Period.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The Cop has the right to ASK your name. Unless you are under arrest you DON'T HAVE TO give your name.

Nope.
Wrong again.
The police have the right to ask your name, and ask for ID if they reasonably believe you are connected to a possible crime, and they are in the process of investigating that specific alleged crime. Failure to comply then gives them the right to detain you until they get your identification.

No. You are wrong unless you are racist. Pregnant African American called the cop. She didn't commit any crime. Why would she give her identity? I do have a lot of respect for cops but this is clear police brutality. Period.

You might want to watch the vid again.
The white women called the cops,and the black chick refused to cooperate in the investigation.

 

[MikeK]

Americans aren't Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Americans have Rights whether THEY KNOW what they are or YOU know what they are. And it looks like you don't.

I suspect you, like me, are well over fifty years old. Because our orientation where police authority is concerned can easily get us into trouble by believing we have rights and protections which no longer exist. Little by little our protections against police intrusion into our privacy and interference with our freedom of movement have been eroded.

For example, I watch the tv "ride-along" reality documentary, COPS, as much as I can. I am frequently amazed to see a cop pull someone over, ask for ID, then ask where they are going and where have they been, if they have anything illegal in the car or on their person, then ask them to get out of the car, pat them down and ask if they can search the car.

Very often the subject of this kind of aggressive intrusion appears to be less than a sterling citizen but the fact remains if they can lawfully do that to him they can do it to me. Which means this America is different from the one I grew up in -- and I don't like the direction it is moving in.

 

[MikeK]

No. You are wrong unless you are racist. Pregnant African American called the cop. She didn't commit any crime. Why would she give her identity? I do have a lot of respect for cops but this is clear police brutality. Period.

Inasmuch as that Black woman was one subject in an ongoing investigation into an assault allegation the cop was authorized to demand that she identify herself. But I don't believe it was necessary, or sensible, to put her belly down on the pavement to apply handcuffs.

There were two male cops there, so in my opinion if those two men were incapable of cuffing that woman without putting her belly-down on the pavement they don't belong on the job!

 

[Zander]

Lesson = Don't test the limits of police power on the streets. Cooperate and be civil. Obey the officers commands. Otherwise you will be arrested and possible be hurt or killed. The video below should be mandatory viewing for all Americans, especially minorities!

You have power and rights, but you lose them when you act the fool.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No. You are wrong unless you are racist. Pregnant African American called the cop. She didn't commit any crime. Why would she give her identity? I do have a lot of respect for cops but this is clear police brutality. Period.

Inasmuch as that Black woman was one subject in an ongoing investigation into an assault allegation the cop was authorized to demand that she identify herself. But I don't believe it was necessary, or sensible, to put her belly down on the pavement to apply handcuffs.

There were two male cops there, so in my opinion if those two men were incapable of cuffing that woman without putting her belly-down on the pavement they don't belong on the job!

She was not a small female. And she was angry, thus adrenaline flowing.
You take a woman that size who is fighting back, you will have to use some pretty brute strength to get her under control.
I agree taking her down on her stomach was less than advisable, acting like a maniac and generally being a complete ass is just plain stupid.
Her fault 100% this happened.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Terry vs. Ohio. The cops can place you into investigative detention to investigate any possible crime. Reckless driving? Punching a window? Disturbing schools? All possible. Cop even said he didnt think there was a crime.

BUT...his job is to find out.

And by Terry vs Ohio...he can. And you must comply. They can use force to get compliance.

You cant just say the cop isnt investigating what I was just involved in and walk away.

When will people realize this???

Reason? Logic? Facts? All lost on cop haters.