How Far Into The Future Should Whites Apologize?

[Liability]

WHY is the policeman patting you down??? Without PROBABLE CAUSE, the officer has NO right to search your person... he IS violating your Constitutional rights...

Got it statist???

Here's an education for the Constitutional Einstein...LOL!!!

unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

unreasonable search and seizure legal definition of unreasonable search and seizure. unreasonable search and seizure synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I am not a statist at all. Your continued reiteration of that lie is just additional proof that you are ignorant and/or a deliberate liar.

I do, however, congratulate you for recognizing that the circustances of the search matter.

For example, if the officer had just placed the suspect under arrest for some crime, the pat down search incidenet to the arrest would NOT be dependent on any "evidence" being visible, and yet it would still be a perfectly valid Constitutionally appropriate search.

Or, if the suspect was not under arrest at all at the time of the pat down, but the officer had just gotten a detailed report of "man with gun involved in a shooting" at that immeidate vicinity describing the suspect to a "t," the officer might have to pat the guy down as a matter of his own security in order to briefly question him -- which he would also be allowed to do under Constitutional law analysis.

In NEITHER case was the "evidence" visible -- as you previously said was REQUIRED -- yet in each case there is no Constitutional violation. Supporting the officer's conduct in each case has no bearing on being a "statist" or not, you imbecile.

Your ignorance is massive but very amusing. Keep posting!

Do you COMPREHEND that being stopped is NOT being under arrest? The officer has NO right to search your person without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

IF a person is placed under arrest, the officer HAS the right to search your person...

Liability...no......you are not a statist...you just support the state over the individual at every turn.You make excuses for the state to violate the rights of the individual...but you're not a statist...ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I comprehend that you simply have not the faintest clue of what you are pretending to talk about.

I do not support the state over the individual at every turn, either, you lying imbecile. You have less than no evidence of your latest "justification" for your ongoing lie, you delieberately dishonest buttrash.

I doubt you'd be interested in a variety of case law focused on Constitutional analysis that shows you that you are quite simply wrong. But if you ever pull your head out of your ass and come up for air, moron, I would be happy to provide the Constitutional Law analysis to you. Doubtless you would then simply choose to disagree with the rather clear line of case law precedence. Oddly enough, that's ok. But at least you would then be able to make your grandiose pronouncements in a manner consistent with -- and critical of -- actual Constitutional Law analysis.

The fact is that there are many circumstances recognized by the law which permit police officers to search for evidence which is not "visible," even though the officers lack warrants and the search is not incident to any arrest. It is simply NOT the case that all searches require a warrant or require an arrest. And when done properly, a search which is not incident to an arrest and not made pursuant to any warrant can still be a perfectly valid search in terms of Constitutional law.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am not a statist at all. Your continued reiteration of that lie is just additional proof that you are ignorant and/or a deliberate liar.

I do, however, congratulate you for recognizing that the circustances of the search matter.

For example, if the officer had just placed the suspect under arrest for some crime, the pat down search incidenet to the arrest would NOT be dependent on any "evidence" being visible, and yet it would still be a perfectly valid Constitutionally appropriate search.

Or, if the suspect was not under arrest at all at the time of the pat down, but the officer had just gotten a detailed report of "man with gun involved in a shooting" at that immeidate vicinity describing the suspect to a "t," the officer might have to pat the guy down as a matter of his own security in order to briefly question him -- which he would also be allowed to do under Constitutional law analysis.

In NEITHER case was the "evidence" visible -- as you previously said was REQUIRED -- yet in each case there is no Constitutional violation. Supporting the officer's conduct in each case has no bearing on being a "statist" or not, you imbecile.

Your ignorance is massive but very amusing. Keep posting!

Do you COMPREHEND that being stopped is NOT being under arrest? The officer has NO right to search your person without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

IF a person is placed under arrest, the officer HAS the right to search your person...

Liability...no......you are not a statist...you just support the state over the individual at every turn.You make excuses for the state to violate the rights of the individual...but you're not a statist...ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I comprehend that you simply have not the faintest clue of what you are pretending to talk about.

I do not support the state over the individual at every turn, either, you lying imbecile. You have less than no evidence of your latest "justification" for your ongoing lie, you delieberately dishonest buttrash.

I doubt you'd be interested in a variety of case law focused on Constitutional analysis that shows you that you are quite simply wrong. But if you ever pull your head out of your ass and come up for air, moron, I would be happy to provide the Constitutional Law analysis to you. Doubtless you would then simply choose to disagree with the rather clear line of case law precedence. Oddly enough, that's ok. But at least you would then be able to make your grandiose pronouncements in a manner consistent with -- and critical of -- actual Constitutional Law analysis.

The fact is that there are many circumstances recognized by the law which permit police officers to search for evidence which is not "visible," even though the officers lack warrants and the search is not incident to any arrest. It is simply NOT the case that all searches require a warrant or require an arrest. And when done properly, a search which is not incident to an arrest and not made pursuant to any warrant can still be a perfectly valid search in terms of Constitutional law.

Hey statist...WHY are you having so much trouble keeping up? Is it your pea for a brain or your overwhelming Statism that's the problem? Have you READ ANYTHING I posted??? I never said the ONLY way an officer can search your person is with a warrant... I SAID: search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.


You CLEARLY don't understand the Constitution or the Law...in your childish statist hypothetical questions, you have police officers patting people down without ANY justification...

But, it's all that can be expected of a die hard statist... the STATE can do NO wrong in your tiny pea for a brain...

BTW pea brain...a police officer is an agent OF the state...

 

[RadiomanATL]

The officer has NO right to search your person without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

Change that word to "or" and your statement is correct.

 

[Bfgrn]

The officer has NO right to search your person without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

Change that word to "or" and your statement is correct.

It should be "or", you are correct...(I C&P it from a website)...an officer doesn't need a warrant to search you, but without a warrant he must have probable cause...

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Hey statist...WHY are you having so much trouble keeping up?

I'm not a statist. You are just a liar. I'm not the one having any trouble keeping up. It is your MASSIVE ignorance and doltishness that is preventing you from learning anything in the first place.

Is it your pea for a brain or your overwhelming Statism that's the problem?

You are the one with the infintessimal brain and your continued lie that I am in any way a statist serves as proof of how shallow you are.

Have you READ ANYTHING I posted???

Sure. It has been amusing. Largely incorrect, but that's just your way.

I never said the ONLY way an officer can search your person is with a warrant... I SAID: search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

Actually, moron, what you'd said earlier reveals a much more pertinent detail about you: You are an imbecile. What You SAID, lest you try to deflect and evade and deny some more, is that an officer must see visible evidence before he may search. That is stupid and wrong. Again, stupid and wrong is your way.

You CLEARLY don't understand the Constitution or the Law...in your childish statist hypothetical questions, you have police officers patting people down without ANY justification...

My question was intentionally open and did NOT presuppose any lack of justification. If you had the capacity to comprehend words and be honest (both being traits you lack), you could go back and re-read and possibly begin to see how wrong you are. In fact, I even complimented you for finally recognizing that the CIRCUMSTNACES matter. No need for you to admit it. It goes against the grain of a liar like you to be forced to admit the truth. It's ok. The words are there, whether a liar like you cares to admit them or not.

And the point of the discussion, so far, is that it is YOU who has a very surface level (childish) comprehension of the Constitution. Your actual grasp on what it says and means is very weak -- like your intellect.

But, it's all that can be expected of a die hard statist... the STATE can do NO wrong in your tiny pea for a brain...

The State can indeed do wrong and since I have never been a statist -- your endless reiteration of your ignornat intentional lie notwithstanding, you moron -- I have no problem recognizing as much. On the other hand, imbecile, it is NOT the case that EVERYTHING the State does is "wrong." And that is the thrust of your imbecilic ramblings.

BTW pea brain...a police officer is an agent OF the state...

Hey, moron, everybody (even imbeciles like you) recognize that a police officer is an agent of the State. That does NOT mean that all of his or her actions are "wrong." You imbecile.

Not one single solitary thing I have posted -- not one -- stands for the proposition that a police officer may validly search you and seize "evidence" without proper cause. It is your sub-moron ability to comprehend the meaning or words and sentences that leads you to such erroneous conclusions. I don't actually blame you much. I recognize that your massive stupidity is a heavy handicap.

Nevertheless, it IS still true that -- depending on the CIRCUMSTANCES -- a police officer may LEGITIMATELY conduct a search and seizure without either a warrant OR having made an arrest. One of the many questions YOU remain too massively stupid to pose is: "Gee, what circumstances might exist that would make a search and seizure by a police officer Constitutionally valid even where there is no arrest and no warrant?"

Whazza matta, booboo? Afraid to ask?

 

[Bfgrn]

Liability...

The discussion stated over profiling...a police officer pulling someone over because of personal characteristics i.e. race, age...

NOW, please tell me where you believe in that context this post is in error...

I am aware there are OTHER "circumstances" where a police officer would have the right to pull someone over like an APB or a "Be on the Look Out For" alert that would satisfy "probable cause"... I am also aware there are some profiling techniques that have been deemed acceptable, to my protest...



Bfgrn wrote:
In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

 

[Liability]

Liability...

The discussion stated over profiling...a police officer pulling someone over because of personal characteristics i.e. race, age...

NOW, please tell me where you believe in that context this post is in error...

I am aware there are OTHER "circumstances" where a police officer would have the right to pull someone over like an APB or a "Be on the Look Out For" alert that would satisfy "probable cause"... I am also aware there are some profiling techniques that have been deemed acceptable, to my protest...



Bfgrn wrote:
In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

Visible means 'able to be seen using vision.'

vis·i·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈvi-zə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin visibilis, from visus, past participle of vidēre to see
Date: 14th century
1 a: capable of being seen <stars visible to the naked eye> b: situated in the region of the electromagnetic spectrum perceptible to human vision <visible light> —used of radiation having a wavelength between about 400 nanometers and 700 nanometers
2 a: exposed to view <the visible horizon> b (1): conspicuous <has played a highly visible role in the negotiations> (2): well-known <a highly visible politician>
3: capable of being discovered or perceived : recognizable <no visible means of support>
4: accessible 4 <visible resources>
5: devised to keep a particular part or item always in full view or readily seen or referred to <a visible index>
— vis·i·ble·ness noun
— vis·i·bly \-bl&#275;\ adverb

visible - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You know it. I know it. We all know it.

I have already said that racial profiling is an improper basis to detain anyone. Specifically, it is not proper to stop (for example) a black man on the basis that he is black (with the suppressed premise being that blacks commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than do whites). That kind of thing is ignorant and racist and in no way a valid version of probable cause.

If, as you now state, you are aware that there are other scenarios where a police officer may conduct a search and seizure without having made an arrest and without a warrant, then we are no longer in any apparent disagreement. For that is pretty much all I was saying. And no part of that makes me a "statist." [Instead, I am a firm believer that Mark Levin's words ring out the truth.]

I will toss this much more into the stew, however:

I DO believe that there are some LEGITIMATE forms of "profiling" that do not involve any need at all for analysis along Constitutional lines and the criminal law.

For example, if one is interested in preventing some scum-sucking "terrorist" from blowing up a jetliner or an oceanliner or a train or railway station or a large office building or a market, etc., it makes a great deal of sense to focus on the TYPES of people who have demonstrated a propensity for doing or trying to do that kind of thing. Elderly women from Scandanavian backgrounds, for example, probably deserve a a whole lot less "scrutiny" than a 20 something year old male from a Middle Eastern nation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liability...

The discussion stated over profiling...a police officer pulling someone over because of personal characteristics i.e. race, age...

NOW, please tell me where you believe in that context this post is in error...

I am aware there are OTHER "circumstances" where a police officer would have the right to pull someone over like an APB or a "Be on the Look Out For" alert that would satisfy "probable cause"... I am also aware there are some profiling techniques that have been deemed acceptable, to my protest...



Bfgrn wrote:
In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

Visible means 'able to be seen using vision.'

vis·i·ble
Pronunciation: \&#712;vi-z&#601;-b&#601;l\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin visibilis, from visus, past participle of vid&#275;re to see
Date: 14th century
1 a: capable of being seen <stars visible to the naked eye> b: situated in the region of the electromagnetic spectrum perceptible to human vision <visible light> —used of radiation having a wavelength between about 400 nanometers and 700 nanometers
2 a: exposed to view <the visible horizon> b (1): conspicuous <has played a highly visible role in the negotiations> (2): well-known <a highly visible politician>
3: capable of being discovered or perceived : recognizable <no visible means of support>
4: accessible 4 <visible resources>
5: devised to keep a particular part or item always in full view or readily seen or referred to <a visible index>
— vis·i·ble·ness noun
— vis·i·bly \-bl&#275;\ adverb

visible - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You know it. I know it. We all know it.

I have already said that racial profiling is an improper basis to detain anyone. Specifically, it is not proper to stop (for example) a black man on the basis that he is black (with the suppressed premise being that blacks commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than do whites). That kind of thing is ignorant and racist and in no way a valid version of probable cause.

If, as you now state, you are aware that there are other scenarios where a police officer may conduct a search and seizure without having made an arrest and without a warrant, then we are no longer in any apparent disagreement. For that is pretty much all I was saying. And no part of that makes me a "statist." [Instead, I am a firm believer that Mark Levin's words ring out the truth.]

I will toss this much more into the stew, however:

I DO believe that there are some LEGITIMATE forms of "profiling" that do not involve any need at all for analysis along Constitutional lines and the criminal law.

For example, if one is interested in preventing some scum-sucking "terrorist" from blowing up a jetliner or an oceanliner or a train or railway station or a large office building or a market, etc., it makes a great deal of sense to focus on the TYPES of people who have demonstrated a propensity for doing or trying to do that kind of thing. Elderly women from Scandanavian backgrounds, for example, probably deserve a a whole lot less "scrutiny" than a 20 something year old male from a Middle Eastern nation.

There IS some credence to my "visible" claim...and my expansion to the synonyms...

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation.

For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be:

1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”

In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1]

In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." [2]

References

1. ^ Retrieved August 14, 2006, from FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6 Web site: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6
2. ^ See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137 (1990). See also U.S. v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994) (restating the Horton rules)
wiki

 

[Liability]

Liability...

The discussion stated over profiling...a police officer pulling someone over because of personal characteristics i.e. race, age...

NOW, please tell me where you believe in that context this post is in error...

I am aware there are OTHER "circumstances" where a police officer would have the right to pull someone over like an APB or a "Be on the Look Out For" alert that would satisfy "probable cause"... I am also aware there are some profiling techniques that have been deemed acceptable, to my protest...



Bfgrn wrote:
In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

Visible means 'able to be seen using vision.'

vis·i·ble
Pronunciation: \&#712;vi-z&#601;-b&#601;l\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin visibilis, from visus, past participle of vid&#275;re to see
Date: 14th century
1 a: capable of being seen <stars visible to the naked eye> b: situated in the region of the electromagnetic spectrum perceptible to human vision <visible light> —used of radiation having a wavelength between about 400 nanometers and 700 nanometers
2 a: exposed to view <the visible horizon> b (1): conspicuous <has played a highly visible role in the negotiations> (2): well-known <a highly visible politician>
3: capable of being discovered or perceived : recognizable <no visible means of support>
4: accessible 4 <visible resources>
5: devised to keep a particular part or item always in full view or readily seen or referred to <a visible index>
— vis·i·ble·ness noun
— vis·i·bly \-bl&#275;\ adverb

visible - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You know it. I know it. We all know it.

I have already said that racial profiling is an improper basis to detain anyone. Specifically, it is not proper to stop (for example) a black man on the basis that he is black (with the suppressed premise being that blacks commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than do whites). That kind of thing is ignorant and racist and in no way a valid version of probable cause.

If, as you now state, you are aware that there are other scenarios where a police officer may conduct a search and seizure without having made an arrest and without a warrant, then we are no longer in any apparent disagreement. For that is pretty much all I was saying. And no part of that makes me a "statist." [Instead, I am a firm believer that Mark Levin's words ring out the truth.]

I will toss this much more into the stew, however:

I DO believe that there are some LEGITIMATE forms of "profiling" that do not involve any need at all for analysis along Constitutional lines and the criminal law.

For example, if one is interested in preventing some scum-sucking "terrorist" from blowing up a jetliner or an oceanliner or a train or railway station or a large office building or a market, etc., it makes a great deal of sense to focus on the TYPES of people who have demonstrated a propensity for doing or trying to do that kind of thing. Elderly women from Scandanavian backgrounds, for example, probably deserve a a whole lot less "scrutiny" than a 20 something year old male from a Middle Eastern nation.

There IS some credence to my "visible" claim...and my expansion to the synonyms...

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation.

For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be:

1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”

In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1]

In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." [2]

References

1. ^ Retrieved August 14, 2006, from FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6 Web site: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6
2. ^ See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137 (1990). See also U.S. v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994) (restating the Horton rules)
wiki

Ok. Let's go with that, then.

IF (and I'm not entirely sure you are yet being quite clear, so I am trying not to just put words in your mouth) what you are saying is that a police officer is NOT Constitutionally permitted to conduct a search and seizure in ANY "confrontation" with a citizen unless the officer has a warrant or has made an arrest UNLESS there is SOME sensory information (sight, sound, smell, etc) of "evidence" already apparent, then I still disagree with you.

Instead, it would be a correct statement of both the law and proper Constitutional analysis to say that, "the legitimate Constitutional authority of a police officer to conduct a search and seizure of a person without having already made an arrest and without a warrant MAY exist, depending on the circumstances." Such situations may be comparitively rare, but they DO exist. The test is still reasonableness.

Now, of course, you may still disagree with the way I just couched that. And if you do, that's fine. But I'd be interested in finding out where you believe I have strayed off the path of a proper statement of Constitutional law analysis, and the basis for your belief.

 

[Bfgrn]

Visible means 'able to be seen using vision.'


visible - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You know it. I know it. We all know it.

I have already said that racial profiling is an improper basis to detain anyone. Specifically, it is not proper to stop (for example) a black man on the basis that he is black (with the suppressed premise being that blacks commit more crimes as a percentage of their population than do whites). That kind of thing is ignorant and racist and in no way a valid version of probable cause.

If, as you now state, you are aware that there are other scenarios where a police officer may conduct a search and seizure without having made an arrest and without a warrant, then we are no longer in any apparent disagreement. For that is pretty much all I was saying. And no part of that makes me a "statist." [Instead, I am a firm believer that Mark Levin's words ring out the truth.]

I will toss this much more into the stew, however:

I DO believe that there are some LEGITIMATE forms of "profiling" that do not involve any need at all for analysis along Constitutional lines and the criminal law.

For example, if one is interested in preventing some scum-sucking "terrorist" from blowing up a jetliner or an oceanliner or a train or railway station or a large office building or a market, etc., it makes a great deal of sense to focus on the TYPES of people who have demonstrated a propensity for doing or trying to do that kind of thing. Elderly women from Scandanavian backgrounds, for example, probably deserve a a whole lot less "scrutiny" than a 20 something year old male from a Middle Eastern nation.

There IS some credence to my "visible" claim...and my expansion to the synonyms...

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation.

For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be:

1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”

In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1]

In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." [2]

References

1. ^ Retrieved August 14, 2006, from FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6 Web site: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6
2. ^ See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137 (1990). See also U.S. v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994) (restating the Horton rules)
wiki

Ok. Let's go with that, then.

IF (and I'm not entirely sure you are yet being quite clear, so I am trying not to just put words in your mouth) what you are saying is that a police officer is NOT Constitutionally permitted to conduct a search and seizure in ANY "confrontation" with a citizen unless the officer has a warrant or has made an arrest UNLESS there is SOME sensory information (sight, sound, smell, etc) of "evidence" already apparent, then I still disagree with you.

Instead, it would be a correct statement of both the law and proper Constitutional analysis to say that, "the legitimate Constitutional authority of a police officer to conduct a search and seizure of a person without having already made an arrest and without a warrant MAY exist, depending on the circumstances." Such situations may be comparitively rare, but they DO exist. The test is still reasonableness.

Now, of course, you may still disagree with the way I just couched that. And if you do, that's fine. But I'd be interested in finding out where you believe I have strayed off the path of a proper statement of Constitutional law analysis, and the basis for your belief.

We're in the area of probable cause and the right to reasonable privacy...I don't like to use the word ANY, because I am not a lawyer and there are always special circumstances where an officer may have more rights than I'm aware of. But let's keep it close to the original premise of profiling.

If you are pulled over by a police officer and he says "your left tail light is not working" and asks for your license and registration, unless the officers sees or smells something that would give him or her probable cause that a crime was committed, then the officer has only the right to ASK you if he can search your person or your vehicle.

 

[Liability]

There IS some credence to my "visible" claim...and my expansion to the synonyms...

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation.

For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be:

1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”

In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1]

In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." [2]

References

1. ^ Retrieved August 14, 2006, from FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6 Web site: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 of 6
2. ^ See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137 (1990). See also U.S. v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994) (restating the Horton rules)
wiki

Ok. Let's go with that, then.

IF (and I'm not entirely sure you are yet being quite clear, so I am trying not to just put words in your mouth) what you are saying is that a police officer is NOT Constitutionally permitted to conduct a search and seizure in ANY "confrontation" with a citizen unless the officer has a warrant or has made an arrest UNLESS there is SOME sensory information (sight, sound, smell, etc) of "evidence" already apparent, then I still disagree with you.

Instead, it would be a correct statement of both the law and proper Constitutional analysis to say that, "the legitimate Constitutional authority of a police officer to conduct a search and seizure of a person without having already made an arrest and without a warrant MAY exist, depending on the circumstances." Such situations may be comparitively rare, but they DO exist. The test is still reasonableness.

Now, of course, you may still disagree with the way I just couched that. And if you do, that's fine. But I'd be interested in finding out where you believe I have strayed off the path of a proper statement of Constitutional law analysis, and the basis for your belief.

We're in the area of probable cause and the right to reasonable privacy...I don't like to use the word ANY, because I am not a lawyer and there are always special circumstances where an officer may have more rights than I'm aware of. But let's keep it close to the original premise of profiling.

If you are pulled over by a police officer and he says "your left tail light is not working" and asks for your license and registration, unless the officers sees or smells something that would give him or her probable cause that a crime was committed, then the officer has only the right to ASK you if he can search your person or your vehicle.

As a general rule, that's true. On the other hand, there are exceptions to almost all the basic rules, and depending on other unexpressed circumstances, it remains possible that the officer may go further. Unlikely, perhaps, but still possible.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ok. Let's go with that, then.

IF (and I'm not entirely sure you are yet being quite clear, so I am trying not to just put words in your mouth) what you are saying is that a police officer is NOT Constitutionally permitted to conduct a search and seizure in ANY "confrontation" with a citizen unless the officer has a warrant or has made an arrest UNLESS there is SOME sensory information (sight, sound, smell, etc) of "evidence" already apparent, then I still disagree with you.

Instead, it would be a correct statement of both the law and proper Constitutional analysis to say that, "the legitimate Constitutional authority of a police officer to conduct a search and seizure of a person without having already made an arrest and without a warrant MAY exist, depending on the circumstances." Such situations may be comparitively rare, but they DO exist. The test is still reasonableness.

Now, of course, you may still disagree with the way I just couched that. And if you do, that's fine. But I'd be interested in finding out where you believe I have strayed off the path of a proper statement of Constitutional law analysis, and the basis for your belief.

We're in the area of probable cause and the right to reasonable privacy...I don't like to use the word ANY, because I am not a lawyer and there are always special circumstances where an officer may have more rights than I'm aware of. But let's keep it close to the original premise of profiling.

If you are pulled over by a police officer and he says "your left tail light is not working" and asks for your license and registration, unless the officers sees or smells something that would give him or her probable cause that a crime was committed, then the officer has only the right to ASK you if he can search your person or your vehicle.

As a general rule, that's true. On the other hand, there are exceptions to almost all the basic rules, and depending on other unexpressed circumstances, it remains possible that the officer may go further. Unlikely, perhaps, but still possible.

No, it is PROBABLE the officer will go further... that's why it's MOST important to protect our rights...in the REAL world, if an officer "asks" to search you or your vehicle, knowing or trying to exercise your rights will PROBABLY not stop him or her...and if you SAY "I know my rights", they view that as a direct challenge to their authority...

You show way too much tendency to side with the state IMO...

Abe Lincoln said: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."...

 

[Liability]

We're in the area of probable cause and the right to reasonable privacy...I don't like to use the word ANY, because I am not a lawyer and there are always special circumstances where an officer may have more rights than I'm aware of. But let's keep it close to the original premise of profiling.

If you are pulled over by a police officer and he says "your left tail light is not working" and asks for your license and registration, unless the officers sees or smells something that would give him or her probable cause that a crime was committed, then the officer has only the right to ASK you if he can search your person or your vehicle.

As a general rule, that's true. On the other hand, there are exceptions to almost all the basic rules, and depending on other unexpressed circumstances, it remains possible that the officer may go further. Unlikely, perhaps, but still possible.

No, it is PROBABLE the officer will go further... that's why it's MOST important to protect our rights...in the REAL world, if an officer "asks" to search you or your vehicle, knowing or trying to exercise your rights will PROBABLY not stop him or her...and if you SAY "I know my rights", they view that as a direct challenge to their authority...

You show way too much tendency to side with the state IMO...

Abe Lincoln said: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."...

No. You misunderstand. What I was saying witth the use of the word "possible" is that there might be some remaining exceptions to the general rule whereby the officer is properly permitted to go further. I wasn't addressing the likelihood of any particular officer electing to go further or not.

What YOU believe, in your opinion, is my alleged "tendency" to "side with the state" is just you being wrong.

And you are also mistaken about how most police officers behave. The fact is that they DO "ask" in many traffic stop situations if the may have permission to do a little extra searching. They are allowed to ask. If they were intent on "just doing it" which your ever-present mistrust of the all authority suggests, then there would be no point in bothering to "ask." Instead, the majority of police officers DO ask and if denied, that's where they stop.

Do SOME officers go further? Of course. Do some officers lie under oath? Of course. Is that acceptable? Nope. Not even a little. Do they necessarily get away with it? I'd say they do, too often. But not always.

And all of that is NOT the point. The discussion is not whether all police are always scrupulous in adhering to the proper bounds of their legitimate authority. The point of the discussion has been (and still is) what the law and the Constitution PERMITS.

 

[Intense]

My Irish ancesters arrived in America AFTER the blacks were freed in 1865

So neither me nor my family owe them anything.

And, depending on when they arrived, they could very easily have been treated much like, and in many cases worse than, Blacks at the time.

The Irish immigrants were treated worse than blacks and were hired last, if at all.

Though I'd agree that people can be dumb, mean, and stupid, in how we treat each other, slavery sucks, then and now. There is little that compares to it. I'm curious about the relation between skin color, or ethnicity, or religion, in current slave owners today. How is the practice still tolerated in this world?

 

[Bfgrn]

As a general rule, that's true. On the other hand, there are exceptions to almost all the basic rules, and depending on other unexpressed circumstances, it remains possible that the officer may go further. Unlikely, perhaps, but still possible.

No, it is PROBABLE the officer will go further... that's why it's MOST important to protect our rights...in the REAL world, if an officer "asks" to search you or your vehicle, knowing or trying to exercise your rights will PROBABLY not stop him or her...and if you SAY "I know my rights", they view that as a direct challenge to their authority...

You show way too much tendency to side with the state IMO...

Abe Lincoln said: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."...

No. You misunderstand. What I was saying witth the use of the word "possible" is that there might be some remaining exceptions to the general rule whereby the officer is properly permitted to go further. I wasn't addressing the likelihood of any particular officer electing to go further or not.

What YOU believe, in your opinion, is my alleged "tendency" to "side with the state" is just you being wrong.

And you are also mistaken about how most police officers behave. The fact is that they DO "ask" in many traffic stop situations if the may have permission to do a little extra searching. They are allowed to ask. If they were intent on "just doing it" which your ever-present mistrust of the all authority suggests, then there would be no point in bothering to "ask." Instead, the majority of police officers DO ask and if denied, that's where they stop.

Do SOME officers go further? Of course. Do some officers lie under oath? Of course. Is that acceptable? Nope. Not even a little. Do they necessarily get away with it? I'd say they do, too often. But not always.

And all of that is NOT the point. The discussion is not whether all police are always scrupulous in adhering to the proper bounds of their legitimate authority. The point of the discussion has been (and still is) what the law and the Constitution PERMITS.

Well you missed what the Constitution and the law does permit...even without probable cause or a warrant, a legal search can still take place...if the officer ASKS to search you and/or your vehicle. And he or she does NOT have to tell you that you have the right to decline. If you do decline, the officer has ways of intimidating you with police dogs and he can detain you for more than an hour...he or she will call in backup and you will be overwhelmed with questions from numerous officers...

You are either naive, or live in Disney Land...

 

[Liability]

No, it is PROBABLE the officer will go further... that's why it's MOST important to protect our rights...in the REAL world, if an officer "asks" to search you or your vehicle, knowing or trying to exercise your rights will PROBABLY not stop him or her...and if you SAY "I know my rights", they view that as a direct challenge to their authority...

You show way too much tendency to side with the state IMO...

Abe Lincoln said: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."...

No. You misunderstand. What I was saying witth the use of the word "possible" is that there might be some remaining exceptions to the general rule whereby the officer is properly permitted to go further. I wasn't addressing the likelihood of any particular officer electing to go further or not.

What YOU believe, in your opinion, is my alleged "tendency" to "side with the state" is just you being wrong.

And you are also mistaken about how most police officers behave. The fact is that they DO "ask" in many traffic stop situations if the may have permission to do a little extra searching. They are allowed to ask. If they were intent on "just doing it" which your ever-present mistrust of the all authority suggests, then there would be no point in bothering to "ask." Instead, the majority of police officers DO ask and if denied, that's where they stop.

Do SOME officers go further? Of course. Do some officers lie under oath? Of course. Is that acceptable? Nope. Not even a little. Do they necessarily get away with it? I'd say they do, too often. But not always.

And all of that is NOT the point. The discussion is not whether all police are always scrupulous in adhering to the proper bounds of their legitimate authority. The point of the discussion has been (and still is) what the law and the Constitution PERMITS.

Well you missed what the Constitution and the law does permit...even without probable cause or a warrant, a legal search can still take place...if the officer ASKS to search you and/or your vehicle. And he or she does NOT have to tell you that you have the right to decline. If you do decline, the officer has ways of intimidating you with police dogs and he can detain you for more than an hour...he or she will call in backup and you will be overwhelmed with questions from numerous officers...

You are either naive, or live in Disney Land...

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just stupid.

The discussion is still not about what any individual police officer, personally, might do. The discussion had been what the Constitution permits. Of course a police officer may ask for permission; and if it's given, he may search without a warrant or an arrest or anything else.

As to the rest of your paranoid delusions, I can only pity you. Naturally some police officers try to intimidate people into giving permission which it is not in their interests to give. In your delusional and paranoid world, this is the norm. In reality, it isn't. It happens, true. But the NORMAL course is that when a police officer seeks permission but gets denied, that is the end of the matter unless some other proper justification arises.

 

[Bfgrn]

No. You misunderstand. What I was saying witth the use of the word "possible" is that there might be some remaining exceptions to the general rule whereby the officer is properly permitted to go further. I wasn't addressing the likelihood of any particular officer electing to go further or not.

What YOU believe, in your opinion, is my alleged "tendency" to "side with the state" is just you being wrong.

And you are also mistaken about how most police officers behave. The fact is that they DO "ask" in many traffic stop situations if the may have permission to do a little extra searching. They are allowed to ask. If they were intent on "just doing it" which your ever-present mistrust of the all authority suggests, then there would be no point in bothering to "ask." Instead, the majority of police officers DO ask and if denied, that's where they stop.

Do SOME officers go further? Of course. Do some officers lie under oath? Of course. Is that acceptable? Nope. Not even a little. Do they necessarily get away with it? I'd say they do, too often. But not always.

And all of that is NOT the point. The discussion is not whether all police are always scrupulous in adhering to the proper bounds of their legitimate authority. The point of the discussion has been (and still is) what the law and the Constitution PERMITS.

Well you missed what the Constitution and the law does permit...even without probable cause or a warrant, a legal search can still take place...if the officer ASKS to search you and/or your vehicle. And he or she does NOT have to tell you that you have the right to decline. If you do decline, the officer has ways of intimidating you with police dogs and he can detain you for more than an hour...he or she will call in backup and you will be overwhelmed with questions from numerous officers...

You are either naive, or live in Disney Land...

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just stupid.

The discussion is still not about what any individual police officer, personally, might do. The discussion had been what the Constitution permits. Of course a police officer may ask for permission; and if it's given, he may search without a warrant or an arrest or anything else.

As to the rest of your paranoid delusions, I can only pity you. Naturally some police officers try to intimidate people into giving permission which it is not in their interests to give. In your delusional and paranoid world, this is the norm. In reality, it isn't. It happens, true. But the NORMAL course is that when a police officer seeks permission but gets denied, that is the end of the matter unless some other proper justification arises.

I've seen it happen and I know people it's happened to...especially young people and minorities... I hope you never have a personal epiphany...

 

[Liability]

Well you missed what the Constitution and the law does permit...even without probable cause or a warrant, a legal search can still take place...if the officer ASKS to search you and/or your vehicle. And he or she does NOT have to tell you that you have the right to decline. If you do decline, the officer has ways of intimidating you with police dogs and he can detain you for more than an hour...he or she will call in backup and you will be overwhelmed with questions from numerous officers...

You are either naive, or live in Disney Land...

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just stupid.

The discussion is still not about what any individual police officer, personally, might do. The discussion had been what the Constitution permits. Of course a police officer may ask for permission; and if it's given, he may search without a warrant or an arrest or anything else.

As to the rest of your paranoid delusions, I can only pity you. Naturally some police officers try to intimidate people into giving permission which it is not in their interests to give. In your delusional and paranoid world, this is the norm. In reality, it isn't. It happens, true. But the NORMAL course is that when a police officer seeks permission but gets denied, that is the end of the matter unless some other proper justification arises.

I've seen it happen and I know people it's happened to...especially young people and minorities... I hope you never have a personal epiphany...

If you'd unplug your ears and open your eyes and mind, you might have seen that I just finished acknowledging that it happens.

You seem to think it's the rule, though, rather than the exception.

I'm sure you have some anectdotal information to support your preconceived notion. But I seriously doubt you could legitmately quantify it.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just stupid.

The discussion is still not about what any individual police officer, personally, might do. The discussion had been what the Constitution permits. Of course a police officer may ask for permission; and if it's given, he may search without a warrant or an arrest or anything else.

As to the rest of your paranoid delusions, I can only pity you. Naturally some police officers try to intimidate people into giving permission which it is not in their interests to give. In your delusional and paranoid world, this is the norm. In reality, it isn't. It happens, true. But the NORMAL course is that when a police officer seeks permission but gets denied, that is the end of the matter unless some other proper justification arises.

I've seen it happen and I know people it's happened to...especially young people and minorities... I hope you never have a personal epiphany...

If you'd unplug your ears and open your eyes and mind, you might have seen that I just finished acknowledging that it happens.

You seem to think it's the rule, though, rather than the exception.

I'm sure you have some anectdotal information to support your preconceived notion. But I seriously doubt you could legitmately quantify it.

Hey, you have the right to your opinion, but don't tell me what I've seen and KNOW happens here...I could tell you plenty of stories that I know are true. But I've seen with my own eyes our local town police constantly harassing young drivers and minorities...it is usually at least 3 -5 squad cars and the K-9 unit for a routine traffic stop, an hour minimum of being detained and they REALLY get pissed off if they don't find something to arrest the person. And often time the traffic violation is bogus.

It may not be the norm throughout the country, but in my town and adjacent towns it is.

If we ever move, the first thing I will investigate is if that town has asshole authoritarian thugs with badges...

IMO, police departments need to do a better job of weeding out the thugs that think they're Wyatt Earp and enjoy hurting people...

Just like the most likely place to find an arson is the fire department, the most likely place to find an authoritarian thug is the police department...

 

[Liability]

I've seen it happen and I know people it's happened to...especially young people and minorities... I hope you never have a personal epiphany...

If you'd unplug your ears and open your eyes and mind, you might have seen that I just finished acknowledging that it happens.

You seem to think it's the rule, though, rather than the exception.

I'm sure you have some anecdotal information to support your preconceived notion. But I seriously doubt you could legitimately quantify it.

Hey, you have the right to your opinion, but don't tell me what I've seen and KNOW happens here...I could tell you plenty of stories that I know are true. But I've seen with my own eyes our local town police constantly harassing young drivers and minorities...it is usually at least 3 -5 squad cars and the K-9 unit for a routine traffic stop, an hour minimum of being detained and they REALLY get pissed off if they don't find something to arrest the person. And often time the traffic violation is bogus.

It may not be the norm throughout the country, but in my town and adjacent towns it is.

If we ever move, the first thing I will investigate is if that town has asshole authoritarian thugs with badges...

IMO, police departments need to do a better job of weeding out the thugs that think they're Wyatt Earp and enjoy hurting people...

Just like the most likely place to find an arson is the fire department, the most likely place to find an authoritarian thug is the police department...

I didn't tell you what you've seen. I just pointed out that your anecdotal observations do not make your assertion about police behavior a proper basis to say it happens more often than not.

I was right.

You cannot quantify it.

I have a bit of experience in the field, too. And I'm telling you that MY anecdotal observations suggest that although it does happen (and perhaps more often than anybody would like), it is still the exception rather than the rule.

And while it comes to your lips and typing fingerti[ps too easily, the truth is that you are far better off with professional police officers than you seem willing to even imagine.

I have NO qualms about castigating a police officer for deliberate violations of anyone's Constitutional rights or for lying in testimony at anybody's trial. I have seen it. I am not willing to say -- and neither you nor I have any valid basis upon which to make the claim --that most police officers "do it" or that it happens more often than not.

(An interesting digression from the topic of this thread, but I still say:

no white Americans living today have any rational moral obligation to feel any need to apologize to any black Americans living today for the conduct of long since dead white Americans.)