Your Rights Dont Matter

[House]

That officer was WAY out of line. Officers are trained to remain professional and respectful in such situations, he failed.

LOL civilians....

MPs are trained to start out professionally, but if heads need to be cracked.....

You would NEVER see a soldier speaking like that to an MP.

Military vs civilian apples to oranges. I pay that hot head's salary, he works for me, he will conduct himself in a professional manner or be sent to the unemployment line.

I know just what you mean... the last time I saw a cop, I made him hop on one foot for 30 seconds just for the hell of it.

He didn't want to, but I threatened to dock him a week's pay and that changed his mind in a hurry!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard.

Excerpts From Supreme Court s Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints - New York Times

and from your case

It took the Court some time to settle on a test for when a "seizure" has occurred, and the Court has recently modified its approach. The issue is of some importance, since it is at this point that Fourth Amendment protections take hold. The Terry Court recognized in dictum that "not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves 'seizures' of persons," and suggested that "[o]nly when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred."198 Years later Justice Stewart proposed a similar standard, that a person has been seized "only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."199

This asshole was seized, but he was not detained. Two different legal concepts.
Now, was the cop a dick for not explaining the difference? Yep, but frankly he isn't required to do so and the driver was being a dick to, so **** him.

Your amateur " I know everything" is a fail Quantam Windbag.

You simply don't know everything.

No, he was detained, but not seized, because no force was used.

I never claim to know everything. I do, however, know more than you, which means my knowledge could fill a 3 page notebook.

You are stupid, truly you are. Read the quote from SCOTUS. Force isn't required to rise to seizure. A show of authority making a person aware that they can not leave is enough.

Detention requires a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, a seizure does not.

For example, imagine a store has been robbed near you and a police officer stops you to ask you if have any information about the robbery. He hasn't detained you , because he doesn't have any reasonable suspicion to believe you have committed a crime, but he HAS seized you. You aren't free to just walk away.

I say again go re read the opinion on sobriety checkpoints. SCOTUS specifically ruled that drivers can be temporarily seized then detained IF police found reasonable cause to detain them.

Seriously, why do you people nitpick over stupid meaningless stuff that you don't even know what you're talking about?

This cop was an asshole, but so was the driver. The cop answered the man's questions but he could have given more complete answers.

He wasn't wrong when he said he wasn't detaining the driver because legally speaking a person can NOT be detained unless a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person committed a crime. He was simply temporarily seized in order for the police to see if he NEEDED to be detained.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That officer was WAY out of line. Officers are trained to remain professional and respectful in such situations, he failed.

LOL civilians....

MPs are trained to start out professionally, but if heads need to be cracked.....

You would NEVER see a soldier speaking like that to an MP.

It's ridiculous to compare civilians with soldiers on any level. Especially levels that require any measure of self-discipline and/or self-control.

Agreed. Bear with me, I"m adjusting to sloppy , stupid, lazy, arrogant, moronic, childish, and otherwise unpleasant civilians.

 

[House]

That officer was WAY out of line. Officers are trained to remain professional and respectful in such situations, he failed.

LOL civilians....

MPs are trained to start out professionally, but if heads need to be cracked.....

You would NEVER see a soldier speaking like that to an MP.

It's ridiculous to compare civilians with soldiers on any level. Especially levels that require any measure of self-discipline and/or self-control.

Agreed. Bear with me, I"m adjusting to sloppy , stupid, lazy, arrogant, moronic, childish, and otherwise unpleasant civilians.

Been there, done that. Now I blend right in.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ah yes Wikipedia, the bastion of accuracy and unimpeachable information.

Want to point out what the article got wrong?

That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.

You're an idiot.

Yes, Wikipedia IS NOT to be used by scholars as a legitimate source of information. But intelligent folks can use it as a tool. IF you had any brains at all, you would know how to use it as a clearing house for information.

All of wiki's material is annotated. Or didn't you know that? So any information you like, you can go to the bottom of the article, find the original source for the information, and go directly to the source material, and viola, you have your information. FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE. It's a short cut to research.

But, I could tell from your posts, you aren't too bright.

 

[House]

Ah yes Wikipedia, the bastion of accuracy and unimpeachable information.

Want to point out what the article got wrong?

That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.

You're an idiot.

No, I'm a troll. Kudos on the proper use of you're. IQ of a rocket surgeon, you have.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ah yes Wikipedia, the bastion of accuracy and unimpeachable information.

Want to point out what the article got wrong?

That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.

You're an idiot.

No, I'm a troll. Kudos on the proper use of you're. IQ of a rocket surgeon, you have.

I think you may have had one too many, you may have lost your edge sir.

 

[House]

Ah yes Wikipedia, the bastion of accuracy and unimpeachable information.

Want to point out what the article got wrong?

That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.

You're an idiot.

No, I'm a troll. Kudos on the proper use of you're. IQ of a rocket surgeon, you have.

I think you may have had one too many, you may have lost your edge sir.

You do realize you are undermining your own point, yes?

 

[MisterBeale]

Want to point out what the article got wrong?

That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.

You're an idiot.

No, I'm a troll. Kudos on the proper use of you're. IQ of a rocket surgeon, you have.

I think you may have had one too many, you may have lost your edge sir.

You do realize you are undermining your own point, yes?

Whatever. Sauce for the goose lady.

 

[House]

That would require going to the URL, which I haven't since that fateful day in college where I was "corrected" for using such a sewer of a site.

You're an idiot.

No, I'm a troll. Kudos on the proper use of you're. IQ of a rocket surgeon, you have.

I think you may have had one too many, you may have lost your edge sir.

You do realize you are undermining your own point, yes?

Whatever. Sauce for the goose lady.

Flawed logic is flawed.

But by all means, continue!

 

[dblack]

Rebellion is meaningless without a clear purpose. The jackass in the OP was just being a jackass.

Had the cop actually been engaged in unethical behavior, I'd have been in the front row of the cheering section. But being a dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead and then self-promoting such dickheadedness is idiotic, just like the suckers that buy into the garbage.

Meaningless? It's got everyone here talking about Constitutional rights. I don't call that 'meaningless'.

People don't need to act like a dickhead to start a conversation... especially on a political messageboard. So yeah I call that pretty damned meaningless.

They don't "need" to, but it's always an option. And the more government encroaches on our rights, the more we should avail ourselves of the "dickhead" tact.

yeah man I'm with you, because that poor asshole cop who's working the 2 am sobriety check point is the one who made the laws..............

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nice try, but as a Typical American you don't know the Law and you NEVER read the link provided.

Sure I did, and I figured you'd cherry-pick something irrelevant out of it. It doesn't change the fact that it mentions the supreme court ruling such stops as constitutional. Period.

The cop showed more restraint than I would have, I'd have taken Citizen Dumbass' attitude as probable cause to impound his car for a thorough search at HQ.

Dickheads deserve to be treated like dickheads.

the fact that it mentions the supreme court ruling such stops as constitutional. Period

that is not exactly correct

depends on the level of intrusion



http://www.thesheppardlawfirm.com/P...utionality-of-Police-Roadblocks-Decalogue.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just STFU.

You admitted your ignorance of the topic at hand, so don't bother posting about it, because it just makes you look as stupid as the people who think DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.

As we become ever more of a police state, cops get the idea that they are a class above the peasants, natural rulers to be obeyed without question.

You already advocated car jacking a peasant for daring to assert civil rights. I assume you would assault them and kidnap them in the process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like it or not, a cop can come up with probable cause to impound your car with a minimum of effort if they really want to.

So you're saying that cops are nothing but violent thugs with contempt for the law and for the Constitution?

Yeah, I knew that already

 

[Uncensored2008]

What? Do you have kids?

If you tell them they can't go out and play then later you say "okay you can go out and play" were you right both times, wrong both times, or right one time and wrong the other?

Like it or not, the COTUS is the Supreme Court's "child" they are empowered to raise it how they would like.

You have a very sick view of how government should work.

It absolutely does NOT work the way you think - North Korea does, but not the USA - yet.

Perhaps you could actually READ Marbury v. Madison to glean some scant comprehension of judicial review and what it really means?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Aren't you a goofy one, thinking that Obama made up the roadside checkpoints.

Nah, Obama just pushes the encroaching police state and the concept that government workers are not subject to the laws that govern the peasantry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Agreed. Bear with me, I"m adjusting to sloppy , stupid, lazy, arrogant, moronic, childish, and otherwise unpleasant civilians.

Herein lies the problem. The police ARE civilians. We have a civilian police force in this nation,. YOU think you are an occupying army here to crush the peasants under your jack-boots, but that is not the legal structure.

The public views you as the enemy because you treat us like your enemy. Cops don't know how to behave in civilized society. You are comfortable with the other violent street gains, Vagos, Crips, MS13, et al. Because you have so much in common with them, the same methods and goals - the same contempt for law, the same contempt for the public. But you don't do well with normal people - because you have nothing in common with those who work each day and live peaceful lives.

 

[bornright]

I think this guy pissed in his pants. You would think a wise guy with cameras an all would have displayed a little more courage.

What would YOU have done if a Big Armed Cop jerked YOUR car door open?

That's another reason to keep yer doors locked at all times.

I don't smart off to start with. I am mature enough to know that the cop does not want to be standing out in the rain to look at everyone's drivers license. He is doing the job that the people of that state pay him to do. I was a cop so I know what is in his mind. This guy was lucky that the cop was not allowed to do what really needed to be done to the wise guy.

 

[House]

Just STFU.

You admitted your ignorance of the topic at hand, so don't bother posting about it, because it just makes you look as stupid as the people who think DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.

As we become ever more of a police state, cops get the idea that they are a class above the peasants, natural rulers to be obeyed without question.

You already advocated car jacking a peasant for daring to assert civil rights. I assume you would assault them and kidnap them in the process.

The only thing that dickhead asserted was his foot into his mouth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only thing that dickhead asserted was his foot into his mouth.

Yet you said you would carjack him. Such contempt for the law - you must be a cop.