Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
AbstractJ3
1607 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
bcronosJan 15, 2012
Never, never, NEVER let them search without a warrant! When they ask you what you're trying to hide (which they always do), tell them you're not trying to hide anything, you're trying to protect something. When they ask you what, say, "My constitutional rights!"
bille3Jan 15, 2012
Do not forget that you will be detained until that warrant arrives. You will not be allowed to leave and it is likely you will be waiting in the back of the patrol car. They may well totally trash your vehicle and possibly destroy some personal property. Your chances of compensation in the courts are very slim to non.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Jan 16, 2012
well that's a good reason to throw your rights away. it may inconvenience you.
pc25Jan 17, 2012
read the constitution you jackass they will get the warrant
particleman420Jan 17, 2012
so let them. make them follow the law instead of bullying people. Chances are that they either wont bother since they were more than likely just harassing you for no reason, or the judge wont give them one since they were just harassing you for no reason (probable cause). and if they get the warrant and find nothing, they wasted their time and may think twice next time they go on a power trip.
either way, they have to follow the actual law, you know that law that you and the res of the RWNJ's pretend is sacred, but only when it's convenient.
is it that hard to understand?
pc25Jan 17, 2012
that's fair I have no problem with that. Problem is if they want to sear you they are going to find reason to search you
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law. This article covers the basic issues that you should know, beginning with an overview of the 4th Amendment itself. (To read the 4th Amendment and other amendments in the Bill of Rights, check out Nolo’s list of The Most Important Cases, Speeches, Laws & Documents in American History.)
The 4th Amendment: Protecting Your Privacy
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
“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.”
The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.
The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
* the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
* the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
Search warrants are discussed in detail in Search Warrants: What They Are and When They’re Necessary.
When the 4th Amendment Doesn’t Protect You
The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.
Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:
* Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
* Is the person’s expectation objectively reasonable – that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people — including judges and juries — would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a “search” and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.
On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).
A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger’s head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag’s exterior for evidence of contraband
http://richardemanuel.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/kid-tells-cop-no-warrant-no-search-cop-goes-ballistic-and-its-all-caught-on-video/constituted a search subject to 4th Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S.334 (2000).)
neofollower2Jan 16, 2012
wait....why did bille3 get voted down so much...i think what he said was perfectly valid...haven't any of you seen the article where the guy with the bmw...his car got torn apart because some cop swears there was a smell of weed in it...after TEARING it apart they still didnt find weed...then they returned it to him. Do they just expect that he takes the car back and deal with it? even if they compensate for damages...how do you calculate that? i mean your car is no longer in good condition you'll have things rebuilt it wont be worth as much as before the cops tore it apart ever again. and you lost your time...you still have to go get it fixed yourself even if they pay for it. at this point you get a lawyer...go ahead google it it's a true story
bille3Jan 16, 2012
They hate truth and fact. It tends to get in the way of emotional self righteousness.
jftitanJan 16, 2012
No, because you both are taking the excuse of 'inconvenience; over the proper use of law.
I have a right to refuse search, thanks to the fourth amendment. Which no matter how hard tries to skewer the state/local laws, I still retain my right to unlawful searches.
Yes, I'll probably loose a car, or whatever during the investigation process, but that still doesn't defeat the fact of the 'due process' part of our laws. Meanwhile at day 1. You told a officer "No" because the officer had no reason to search your vehicle. Unless you left the 'stash' in plain sight. Otherwise, if the officer has already issued a ticket for a minor infraction. Then the officer has no reason to search you or your property because the 4th Amendment requires probable cause. In current times, we skewer that thinking process by the thought of "If your not breaking the law, you have nothing to hide" mentality. Why does any law enforcement/governmental agency have the right to search your personal property in which you have a reasonable cause for Privacy.
If they create a reason to search my property, whatever reason they go on, has to be proven by them. Not me. If they botch their own investigation, I hopefully get my stuff back, if not, then I demand the City to pay me back, and THEN SOME MORE for the fact that they took my property for false intentions, I should be repaid for the losses.
Meanwhile, if the City/Law enforcement agency has put my life back in correct order. "Where I left off. Before the encounter", I could trust my government. Because of one dickhole who overstepped the law, took away my rights for due process.
Sure, law has its own due process. Detain the subject, give Judge any reason to issue a search warrant. Often this is called a stamped, which is done over the phone, and technically the officer still doesn't have the warrant in his hand, when they 'execute' the given permission to search your vehicle. If they still find nothing, then your property was unlawfully damaged by a probable cause which was fluff, you have the Right to expect payment for damages.
This whole ordeal is inconvenient to anyone. If every citizen waives their rights at the blink of red/blue lights, then the continued process of disbanding citizens Constitutional Rights will go on. Only when it costs the government too much to finance the process, and the citizens movement to make it clear these violations of our Rights will not be funded by The Taxpayer any longer. THEN maybe the government will start doing its job.
/rant
smotpokerJan 16, 2012
I think most people face considerably more than mere inconvenience from confrontation with law enforcement. The average person already lives paycheck to paycheck and police encounters usually involve those who are young and/or impoverished - the exact type of person most juries and judges are most likely to be skeptical of.
Most people can't easily afford a lawyer and bail money or to sit in jail for months waiting on a trial. The justice system is f**ked and until it gets fixed people will keep up whatever they want until it seems more advantageous to stop. Just like with the DMV and many traffic violations, most people do not feel the reward (saving $100 or an hour of time) is worth the risk (losing your freedom to do things you consider more important).
I fully agree that more people should do it and think that more people could get away with it and policies might change if they did but disagree with blindly dismissing rational consideration and pragmatism as cowardice
jftitanJan 16, 2012
A bail Bond is pretty cheap. Getting out of jail is easy. I hope people realize those stories of DUI driver being arrested only to drink, drive and kill someone the following day. Are in fact true because of bail bonds.
Some bail offices will go ahead and take their 10 ~ 15% take on a 50k ~ 500k jail bond. On promise that if you jump bail, your property become the sole ownership of said bond location.
Now for my past experience with these organizations (I've never used a bail bond, but I have worked IT for these services) Many people are fly by nights. So getting a $1500 bail will only cost around $50 cash, and the individual is pulled out of jail the moment the bondsman calls the jail.
A honest individual usually asks the bond location for legal advice, including locating an attorney. In which case when matters are fully resolved, the individual is cleared, and the attorney gained a payment. Whereas the Bond location gets a kickback, and the bond is forgiven. (depends on state fyi)
However I learned the majority of the time, the Bondee, jumps bond, and the bail comapanys are now legally able to acquire whatever the contract agreement in cost was. If that bond jumper owned a car. The car becomes the ownership of the bail bond company for the remainder of the bail. Usually while the bond location is hunting down the bondee, they find the property as well. Once caught, the car is impounded become property of bond, and the bondee goes straight to jail in order to finish their court case. Thus satisfying the court, and the bond company gained some value. The bond is revoked by the court. The value of the bond, if the person remains free, become the profitable margins for why we have a f**ked up For Profit prison system.
smotpokerJan 17, 2012
@jft
Bail bond pricing depends on several factors (primarily the charges you face and the bond set by your judge) and "cheap" is in the eye of the beholder. A $10,000 bond for burglary still requires $1,000 cash or collateral to get out and that is way harder for the lower echelons of society to acquire. Part of the reason there is such great racial disparity with incarceration rates is due to the generational poverty that falls along racial divides.
People who can't afford to bail out are far more tempted to take plea offers that would put them on the streets way sooner than their trial date would be and a lot less willing to risk everything when they can't afford an adequate lawyer and barely get to talk to a public defender. Next time they get stopped after taking such a deal, they are far more likely to be suspected and re-arrested.
If you get arrested and are young, have no job or come from out of state, you are considered a flight risk and usually no local bondsmen will touch you (and judges are less likely to just let you go and expect you to return for court). In many cases, suspects are at an enormous disadvantage before actual judicial process is even really begun.
jager36cJan 16, 2012
The person's insurance company fully covered the damages and paid off the car, and is now suing the city for the money they are out.
Mican333Jan 16, 2012
Of course it should be noted that that is not what happened in the video. The driver got cussed out, not detained.
fauozJan 16, 2012
Best yet, play My brother is a lawyer and advised me not to.
redpubliusJan 16, 2012
That what i alway do
i usually bear it all anyway
FrankLuskaJan 15, 2012
"He shouldn't lose his job over this," she said.
Why not, deceiving the public, waste of government funds and time, firing should be the least of his problems.
angrycat70Jan 15, 2012
Over the years we have collectively acted on our fears to build a police state. We fear the criminal. Give police more power. We fear perverts. Give police more power. We fear terrorists. Give police more powers.
Do you feel secure yet or are the police on their way to becoming the biggest monster of them all?
grannysrightJan 15, 2012
Why don't you try walking in their shoes for a week. See if you can't go on a ride along with your local department. Of course if you're the local dirtbag that won't happen, but if you're not try it.
These folks only pray they get to go home after they're shift and not to the hospital or morgue. Even small towns aren't immune to cop killings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sly7765Jan 15, 2012
Yeah its a hard ass job and guess what? That's why I'm not a cop. I get so sick of people using their s**tty jobs as an excuse to be prick like you didn't choose that job and continue to show up to it willingly everyday. If you can't protect and serve without being an aggressive douche bag then guess what? You should probably quit and take a job with less responsibility cause you are not mentally sound enough to be a cop.
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
And if they didn't have to put up with obnoxious dirtbags all day long they probably would sing kumbaya to you, but no, you have to be the guy driving 55 in a 25 mph zone where kids are playing three days after that cop had to police a car/child accident.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysJan 16, 2012
if the power that be respected the word of law and respected the people they are duty bound to protect maybe we would not be obnoxious dirtbags as you call us.
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
If you obnoxious dirtbags behaved respectfully, then your life would be a lot easier.
nerysJan 16, 2012
chicken or egg. people were not dirtbags to the powers in place until the powers in place became dirtbags and ignored the word of law.
so "you first" as we say.
bille3Jan 15, 2012
I agree with you granny. The one distinction is where they stop working to protect us from the criminal element on all levels up to and including tyranny. When they begin working to enforce tyranny for the politicians we have a serious problem.
seidnuJan 16, 2012
who says they haven't already. We live in a police state some of the reasons I see people arrested for are stupid as well as pointless. Police brutality seems to be on the rise as well just look at the occupy movement a group of people who know they are about to be arrested sit down and wait to be arrested being compliant and they get pepper sprayed kicked around and degraded by people who are nothing more then high school bullies that never wanted to stop being bullies so they become cops I could show you guys some of these types that got out of high school and had a reality check that the only way they could get away with being an assh**e is to become a cop.
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
Police officers have to do what they are told by their bosses, because those bosses are paid by you too. Those officers have to follow the written law of their state and country. They don't have a choice of which laws to enforce most of the time, as they could go to jail for not following the law.
Everyone wants the cops to catch the other guy, but if you feel the need to break the law then expect to go to jail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysJan 16, 2012
no they don't they are duty bound to defend and protect the constitution from all enemies within and without as is their sworn oath. within includes "their bosses"
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
You are right, I guess I didn't explain myself clear enough for you.
The problem most of you folks have is that you don't have any idea what laws are out there, and of course so many have the "do you know who I am" complex and think they are above the law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysJan 16, 2012
thats exactly correct grannysright. our law enforcement and politicians have decreed themselves above the law.
that is the core of our problem.
bille3Jan 16, 2012
You got the point I was making.
If the police officers and soldiers will not enforce tyranny, it will never be enforced.
http://jackmclamb.community.officelive.com/PMANWO.aspx
This retired sheriff is on our side against tyranny.
shingoexJan 16, 2012
That's no excuse to lash out at people for exercising their rights. In a coincidental level of terminology, it's known as a "cop out".
TheNoizeJan 16, 2012
Yeah, that sucks. It's also a lower education job, that people usually perform as a last resort. It's not my fault that it's necessary, and it's tough. But I don't see why that gives them any special moral privileges to invade someone's property?
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
lower education job? Where are you from. Most departments across the country now require a bachelors degree minimum.
ncmusicJan 16, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html
Do you have any sources for your claim? My experience with my law enforcement friends says otherwise.
prettyboyfloydJan 16, 2012
This is not at all true. The newly hired chief of police in my suburban city just implemented a new rule, requiring all police officers to have not just a high school diploma or a GED certificate, but at least two years of community college (no bachelors degree, no masters, but at least 2 years in CC). This is all she could get the police union to agree to. The union doesn't want to limit the number of police officers in power simply by raising the minimum qualifications. The more members they have, the more money and power they can wield to lobby politicians who support their agenda. The most powerful unions in the state of California are the public safety unions and the prison guard union.
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
Don't tell me that is not at all true because it is. Many depts. across the country require bachelor degrees and if not requiring them, they hire the guy/gal with one.
On top of that I don't know any state that does not require a person to graduate from their police academies before the person can become an officer and that isn't easy.
You all can hate cops all you want, but don't whine when they don't show up to your house quickly when you call them, after all you can handle since you know more than they do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
prettyboyfloydJan 17, 2012
Citation needed. Graduation from a police academy is certainly a requirement, but that is in no way the equivalent of a Bachelors degree or even an associate degree. In most California cities, and certainly the state Department of Corrections, the minimum requirement is a high school diploma or GED. See http://jobs.spb.ca.gov and search for Dept. of Corrections.
grannysrightJan 17, 2012
Not everyone lives in Ca. You are right though in that many dept. across the country have been made to lower their requirements so that minorities can pass the tests. However in Michigan most dept will not hire anyone without a BA degree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicJan 17, 2012
You just keep saying things, getting called, out and repeat without showing up anything to back up your very big assertions, that >50% of police departments require a bachelors degree to become a police officer.
grannysrightJan 17, 2012
Guess what I was wrong. I called my son (who is a police officer) and asked him about the education. He told me they do require a 2 year degree, but if you do not have a BA you are unlikely to be hired. Without a 2 year degree there is no chance. So, uneducated is still pure bs.
ncmusicJan 18, 2012
It's not BS you're comment is still unsubstantiated. You're making a claim with nothing really to back it up.
grannysrightJan 18, 2012
Since my son has been in law enforcement for over 20 years, and has done hiring and firing himself, and been hired by three different departments, I think he knows more about it than you do.
ncmusicJan 18, 2012
I could go into some tirade about how you are the one who should get an education since you obviously don't understand statistics given that you are drawing really big conclusions based on a sample size too small to say anything.
For the record it seems like I know more police than you. 1 College friend is a sheriff's deputy, 2 friends that are MPs in the Marines and army, 3 police officers in 3 different cities.
Let's just say you know of exactly one place where they probably wouldn't hire you without a two year degree. That's the only thing you can say and support with any amount of data to back up the claim.
grannysrightJan 18, 2012
Let say I doubt you know more officers than I do, and because of my involvement with law enforcement over the last 30 years, I also know that Michigan is not the only state requiring higher education before hiring. That might not fit with your certainty that police officers are ignorant thugs, but then maybe you should change your caliber of friends.
kwanijmlJan 16, 2012
Nobody is saying that there aren't good people out there who become cops or that many of them don't have noble intentions. . . certainly, the job of protecting citizens and the risk associated with doing so is a noble thing indeed, and very necessary for civilized society.
What we are showing, is that (just like so many other government provided services), the same rules of economics and of human nature take sway on the institution of state provided police, as they do for state provided roads, or state provided housing, or state provided welfare, or state provided anything! When the state does something, it monopolizes it. It becomes an inherently corrupt institution because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The biggest thing is that the state monopolizes the provision of law/legislation, and courts, and therefore when the laws created begin (as they innevitably do) to violate our rights; cops must enforce those evil laws. . . therefore, even if the police officer is a "good" person and has every noble intention; he or she cannot in good conscience continue in that occupation because they are institutionally required to do evil and to violate people's rights.
Competition is the ultimate regulator upon any provider of a good or service. The government has no competition; they are completely unregulated. Voting/democracy is a joke. . . if you think it changes anything or is as efficient as the market at providing what people want, then you are very confused and a fool.
woj1sJan 16, 2012
grannysright, here are some facts for you.....
Officers are more likely to die from traffic accidents while they are on the side of the road.
In 2005 only 156 officers were killed while working. 44% of those were from assaults. The rest were accidents, heart attacks on the job, drownings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer#Line_of_duty_deaths
grannysrightJan 17, 2012
I remember an officer stopping along side the expressway to change a tire for two older ladies at night. As he was squatting down changing the tire a drunk driver swerved and hit him, killing him. A father, husband, brother, son, friend etc. Yes traffic accidents do kill them too.
But hey he was just a cop, right?
jonahsullivanJan 15, 2012
this reminds me of when i was about sixteen years old (so, half a lifetime ago for me), and some friends and i were playing hooky from school to hang out. we were sitting around in someone's living room, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, what have you. suddenly, there was a police officer standing in the hallway looking in.
how the officer had come to be there remains a mystery to this day, but what's important to the story is how things played out from there. three of my friends and i froze, waiting for all hell to break loose. the kid whose parents' house we were at, however, played it totally cool, and the results were a priceless lesson to me:
"alright, guys. let's go." said the cop.
my friend, probably half in the bag and all of sixteen years old, responded, "where's your warrant?"
"warrant!?"
"yeah, the document signed by a judge that gives you permission to be in here right now."
"oh! look at 'mr. knows-his rights'," replied the officer, snidely.
"yep, sure enough! in fact, you're trespassing right now. so, go ahead and get the f**k out of here before i call the police."
the cop turned and left, grumbling to himself. needless to say, my friends and i were punitively pestered for years following that incident.
crom99Jan 15, 2012
The video is a prank/hoax:
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/551839/Officials-look-into-St--Marys-police--prank-.html?nav=5066
cjdarkhavenJan 15, 2012
I'm looking for the part where it's called a prank without quotation marks. It just looks like the cop involved referred to it as a prank to get out of trouble. Where's the proof that it was a prank? If it WERE a prank, where's the driver of the SUV to confirm it? Playing a 'prank' like that on a random civilian seems...disturbed. And even it WERE a prank, why are cops doing that on the public dime, while in uniform?
Sounds flimsy. The city council is in their full right to investigate further.
dustinthewind2Jan 15, 2012
The 'prank' story says it was another officer in the SUV, but yes, very flimsy. You'd think there'd be more info on something like this if it were an actual prank, not just "we had a meeting, it was a prank, let's not fire anyone." Sounds like "the cop screwed up so let's pretend it was a prank so he doesn't get in trouble."
If it was a prank, fine, but give us something more to go on.
blklightningJan 15, 2012
if it is a prank, then it's clear that this guy will not be considered for a role in super troopers 2.
sbuckley00Jan 16, 2012
meow, license and registration!
lorensingleyJan 15, 2012
Bull s**t. The cop was swearing to himself in the car, clearly pissed off, well out of audible range of the person being "pranked". Not only is none of this even close to being funny or clever, the guy should be laughing to himself at least. This guy tried to put it off as a joke so he can continue to make a mockery of that uniform and continue his f**king power trip. And get more free donuts.
crom99Jan 15, 2012
Unless the other guy was in on it (like the article suggests), and the target of the hoax was the Youtube audience and subsequent blog outrage. It's a form of trolling.
dustinthewind2Jan 15, 2012
Or a form of cover-up.
whacklyJan 16, 2012
except in this case it actually was a joke. the dude in the suv was in on the gag. and you are, as you get mad at me for saying so, being actively and successfully trolled by a couple of cops who think they're hilarious.
dustinthewind2Jan 16, 2012
I'm not "mad at you" for saying so, I'm just not going to say "yep it was a prank" just because the dude's wife said so.
hiropendragonJan 15, 2012
From the article, it's clear that "it's a prank" was retroactive explaining.
A cop who goes off the handle from someone who is in a calm tone of voice like this probably has a temper that extends to many, many incidents.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
it's not clear at all. the thing is.. cops often are total assh**es.. but even if you assume that this cop is that much of a rage monster the video still doesn't make sense. the conversation doesn't scan. it's bad writing. of course, then there's the admission of all the participants that it was a gag. not a prank. there was no victim. the "victim" was playing a part. it was a setup. a bit of gallows humor. i'm not a cop apologist. but why do people's desire to believe something always make them so credulous?
hiropendragonJan 17, 2012
"why do people's desire to believe something always make them so credulous?"
It's on video?
"then there's the admission of all the participants that it was a gag"
Which makes no sense - who is supposed to be laughing?
"the conversation doesn't scan. it's bad writing."
People actually speak pretty stupidly.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
1. video does not equal real.... duh
2. the cops and his buddies and like minded folks who are not you
3. if that's your excuse for not being able to spot bulls**t then you need smarter friends.
hiropendragonJan 17, 2012
Sorry, I don't respond to personal attacks. Shod off.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
but you did. and then told me to "shod off." i assume you meant "sod off" but perhaps you meant for me to put shoes on a horse as a leave your presence.
incywebbJan 16, 2012
If it is actually a prank - why?!? It's not funny, it doesn't make the policeman look good, and it tells people how to exercise their legal rights. The last is a great thing, but not exactly a prank...
dauntless1Jan 16, 2012
It's less a "prank" and more like trolling. Actually, it's EXACTLY like trolling.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
it's funny if you're a cop.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
edit: it's funny if you're a d**kh**d cop.
nerysJan 16, 2012
I thought I had remember this video before too as being a prank. no idea if that was fact or not.
fitzal77Jan 16, 2012
If that's a prank, then the officer should be fired anyway, just for not knowing what "humor" is.
nysusJan 17, 2012
Thanks. What made it suspicious for me was the bad acting. It was clearly exaggerated. Also, those videos from cruiser cameras usually have time and date stamps all over them.
jonahsullivanJan 17, 2012
hmm... what seems likelier, all things considered?
1.) a police officer got an attack of the clevers, decided that he disliked his job, and figured that the best way to get a new job was by faking grossly inappropriate conduct in order to make a viral youtube video.
2.) a police officer was a prick, and flew completely off the handle in response to someone standing up for their constitutional rights. then, in order to save his job, the officer lied and called his actions a "prank".
i tend to believe explanation #1. of course, anything's possible, and in either case the cop's a jackass.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
the 1st scenario is more likely, once you removed the fabricated motivations.
cops do get annoyed when you use your rights but, in such situations, the ones who get really pissed will escalate not devolve into a tantrum. generally a refusal to allow them to search your car will result in 10 minutes of being grilled about what your hiding and what reason you have to refuse a search. they generally save the spaz throwing for once they've got just enough aggression out of you to "justify" an arrest (often with a complimentary tripping, shout of "he's resisting" and free beating about the head and face),
jonahsullivanJan 17, 2012
again, all things being equal, i think that it's safest to assume that this video is a hoax. if that's true, it makes the content of the footage a considered action. therefore, there was a motive involved beyond a split-second loss of control. motivation is important no matter how you look at it, and the validity of a particular motivation - real or supposed - is entirely subjective.
further, the fact that the dude was going to be in peril of losing his job, whether the footage was real or not, weighs heavily here in my opinion... the more i think about it, in fact. i'm going to retract my blanket assertion that the officer in question is a jackass, pending further information.
consider this if you will: let's say the guy was a cop who'd finally seen one too many depictions of actual incidents where police blatantly overstepped the bounds of their official discretion. he decided to turn in his badge and go weave baskets for a living, but first he wanted to use his police-issue equipment to make one final statement.
that, to me, would be a far more respectable motivation than an asinine prank, and it would tend to belie the notion that the people involved were simply morons. to believe that everyone involved thought that it would be harmless to use that officer's police-issue equipment to perpetrate a hoax, simply to see how many views they could get on youtube (or worse, with the idea that there might be financial gain in it), would make them dangerous buffoons. throwing fuel on the fire of anti-police sentiment for the sheer hell of it risks injury on both sides of the riot shield.
pyababaJan 16, 2012
Cops are usually the people that were lames in high school. Not saying they don't perform a good service in keeping weirdos from pulling weird s**t in subways, but I am saying - they really need some mental health. Not our fault a high school football captain put their heads in a toilet.
njdoo7Jan 16, 2012
Or that the cop was the high school football captain in your case, who has a perverted affection for dominating others.
whacklyJan 17, 2012
bullies and bullying victims are two sides of the same person. and both sides gravitate toward anything that gives them a position of power over others. far too many cops find their way on to the force because of that sense of power, but I don't if I'd agree that most do. i don't trust any cop automatically, because you never know which ones are going to be a problem, but there are still a lot of good cops out there.
analogkid1Jan 16, 2012
Fake.
justa__free__thinkerJan 16, 2012
Just shows that national mindset since 9/11. We have been programmed to think we should do anything in the name of "security". And the people who keep us "safe" can't handle it when they think "their rights" to do their job has been blocked.
We have seen nothing but a downward sprial in all our rights the last 10 years and every person that tapes a cop or other person trying to stamp us down even more is a hero in my book.
rixar13Jan 16, 2012
“The Driver is perfectly within his rights, but the reaction of the Cop is what is almost important as the stand that the young man took in his refusal.”
Contempt of Cop…..? wink
nsaneyJan 16, 2012
LMFAO What a psycho.
dissidentJan 16, 2012
If I was a cop I'd just plain and simple ignore drug laws unless the person was a dealer. All victimless crimes I'd turn a blind eye too.. only 'real' crimes would be attended too.
diggumsmack83Jan 16, 2012
if more cops would turn a blind eye to victimless crimes, the world would be a much better place. But those quotas aren't going to meet themselves.
mtownJan 16, 2012
It's somewhat scary that we have people that can lose their temper like this supposedly serving and protecting us.
lokjawJan 15, 2012
Didn't know kids were drivers
ka5p3rJan 16, 2012
The 4th Amendment means s**t to cops,and the $50,000,000 the CITY pays out.guess what the cops has no worries still,and if you upset a cop he will make your life a living hell,look what happen to Kelly Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas
cops motto Let Them Hate, So Long As They Fear.look at the badge.http://www.facebook.com/BigCityCops?filter=2
crazedleperJan 16, 2012
Pop quiz: "How can you tell the driver was white?"
A: Because he wasn't beaten or shot.
bdawg123Jan 18, 2012
Pop quiz: "How can you tell crazedleper is an angry black man?"
A: Because he plays the race card every chance he gets.
agentogreJan 15, 2012
This is all kinds of horrible digg. First of all the voice doesn't even sound like a "kid". Second of all you could put whatever audio you wanted on that. I don't know how anyone could seriously take this as being remotely authentic.
grannysrightJan 15, 2012
you're right, but these people want it to be true.
kwanijmlJan 16, 2012
No. We wish that the behavior exhibited by the cop in this video (whether it's a hoax or not) were the worst kind ever exhibited by police officers.
If that were the case, we would be living in a much better world, indeed.
You know there are many good websites dedicated to documenting police brutality and infractions. . .look them up some time; you might change your mind about good intentions having anything to do with outcomes.
More importantly, read this article as a good example of the systematic breakdown of rights, into the police state we have now:
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w242.html
Do not read the article as if it were just some anecdote for some girl who's loud mouth got her in trouble with the police. . . rather, pay attention to how the courts have, over time, re-interpreted the role and rights of police and citizen during an arrest.
Do not make the mistake of believing that those who resist police, in ideology, or in physical actuallity, are necessarily scumbags who deserve to be thrown into prison. . . that mindset is truly a sickness that only the state, or a twisted fanatical religous ferver could possibly inculcate in a person. Come out of the darkness and into the light. . the world is not full of mostly bad people and then a few. . . most of whom are cops. . that are not bad people. The world is full of people who just want to be left alone for the most part, and should be left alone unless their actions harm or defraud another person. This precludes a huge percentage of the activities which police engage in. . and so they also fail at having the time and resources to actually do right by the people (like actually finding and returning stolen property for example).
The world is full of statism which creates institutionalized dischord and societal distortions; it makes a criminal out of everybody. I dare you to try to even drive home from an average day at work without breaking at least 1 law. I guaratee that you cannot do it. Nobody can. This leaves "law enforcement" a nearly completely discretionary business on the cop's part, because if he/she wants to, he/she can always find some reason to pull you over or search your home, or arraign you . . . which puts too much responsibility on the police officer, and gives way too much power to ever hope that it won't be systematically abused. . . .even by the best intentioned cops.
grannysrightJan 17, 2012
As I have suggested before, see if you can't go on a ride along for one week. All of the complainers on here haven't got a clue what being a police officer means or what they go through. I'm well aware they are not all good, I've worked with a couple who were not good cops, however, the majority are.
kwanijmlJan 17, 2012
I have not been on the ride alongs, but two of my friends (both who, at one point wanted to become police officers) had done them on a frequent basis and I got to hear a lot from them about it . . . I feel, at least, like I have a pretty good sense of what it's like. I guess that means that I have sympathy for what police are up against in order to do their job, but I can't say I have empathy, since I've never had to actually do it.
But that's really beside the point. I don't doubt that police officers have tough jobs and often dangerous working conditions. You mentioned about how much they go through. . . .and I agree, and actually think that the amount of responsibility place on police officers is too great, and as I wrote about above, that is one of the problems, or rather a symptom of the disease, which is that the state has slowly but surely created a web of criminal law which really makes so many things "against the law" that no citizen, not even the most well-intentioned, law-abiding person, can escape being a "criminal" according to the law, and it leaves the officer in a position of having to constantly make arbitrary calls on which broken laws are "worthy" of going after, and which aren't worth his/her time. . . . but more importantly, leaving any law enforcement with an easy "in" if they want to search a vehicle, or even a house, or otherwise infringe upon a citizen's rights. It is too tempting for them, no matter how well intentioned, to use/abuse this loophole that's right in front of them (after all, everyone else will be, and they could never please their superiors unless they also utilize this, or they would seem less productive than their peers). It is too much responsibility, and too much power.
It seems that you were also completely missing the rest of what I wrote in the last comment. You see, it wouldn't matter if every single police officer out there was a "good" person and had the most noble intentions. By enforcing evil laws, they are complicit with the state in infringing upon rights (which is the only objective measure of good or bad), and can therefore no longer be considered good people. They are systematically required to do evil, and they are also part of a monopolized system which is imposed upon all, whether they want it or not, or whether they want to pay for all of it or not. We have no say over the matter, and so it (along with just about everything else the state does) is inherently immoral.
Our rights exist outside the law. Making a law/legislation does not necessarily make something right or wrong. . . but a law/legislation can conform to what is inherently right and reinforce the right. Sadly, most of our modern day "laws" do not conform to this, and do not have the effect of protecting rights. . . but rather of protecting the interests of the state.
If you told a person, who was training to become a police officer, that a new law (and hence one of their duties)would be to round up all those of middle-eastern descent in the country, and bring them to camps where they would be imprisoned and starved or otherwise killed . . . . how many people do you think would still become police officers? Not many. This is an extreme example, of course, and yet great evils, almost to this caliber, have been passed off as "law" in our society, and so many people have allowed themselves to be convinced that that is just one of the prices of civilized society, that they must not only allow it, but seek to enforce it. I am speaking, of course, mostly of victimless "crimes". . . things such as drug laws, and seatbelt laws, TSA airport security, terrorist witch hunts, disrespecting the officer, resisting unlawful arrest, resisting no-knock warrant home entries, etc.
How long will those who become officers of the law, divorce their consciences from the reality of what they are required to enforce, before they have become truly the real criminals themselves. I think that in many cases, that line has already been crossed.
fauozJan 16, 2012
Scary< I would be afraid he would shoot me. This guy should not be on the street
mandrakelordJan 15, 2012
OMG America what the f**k. sort out that s**t man.
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
It's a spoof, people. It's not a real encounter.
retardIQ70Jan 16, 2012
No one wants to hear the truth eve though you can read it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs
No it's much better to write a whole article anchored around a spurious video.
partrowJan 16, 2012
When anyone challenges their perceived power, the immature cops act like this.
Many of them actually provoke a challenge, so the cop can clamp down. It is a standard cop game of theirs.
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
winning!!!
whacklyJan 16, 2012
i agree.. never let them search you without a warrant, etc... but this video.. wasn't it proved to be a joke a long time ago? a couple of cops goofing around or something?
tkdwilsonJan 16, 2012
I have no idea what the officer got so mad. Something is going on we don't know. His wife left him, or someone in his family died.....Look, if he wanted to search the car, he could have said he smelt marijuana and then he could have searched it without a warrant. He could have given the guy the speeding ticket that he pulled him over for. The officer obviously just had a break down. If it happened to anyone of any other profession, people would just laugh at it online. Because it is an officer, everyone is going crazy about constitutional rights. The officer didn't pull him out and search the car anyway or anything, he left, obviously upset with his voice shaking at first. Let's think of the officer like a person.
ferretmanJan 16, 2012
There's a cop that needs some discipline and tutoring in the Bill of Rights.....
tkdwilsonJan 16, 2012
Obviously he behaved unprofessionally. What RIGHT did he break? He didn't search the car, or physically abuse the driver. If the driver went crazy like this, and the officer acted in the calm way the driver did, then everyone would just laugh. Yes, he acted unprofessional. He did not break any laws or violate anyone's rights from what I see.
incywebbJan 16, 2012
if the driver had used that language toward the policeman, would the latter have refrained from charging him with assault/verbal abuse/using rude words?
tkdwilsonJan 16, 2012
There is no "Charge" for that in the US. I am unaware of any law against such.
incywebbJan 16, 2012
a quick check (on Wikipedia, I'm not in the US) seems to say using abusive language towards another can be illegal, but it's also protected by the first amendment. It only gets invoked in conjunction with non-protected behaviour such as assault.
Example of this (again, from Wikipedia)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-416
§ 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another.
If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-255; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)
tkdwilsonJan 16, 2012
So, the cop would not have been able to arrest him for doing the same thing and behaving the same way. That is what I was saying
enseignerJan 16, 2012
please do not use Wikipedia to check on law status. There are thousands of case laws that dictate abusive language and most change from state to state. Overall, so long as there are no threats to injury or damage, it is not illegal to use bad language towards another person. It was just very poor professionalism and he probably broke some deparrtment policies.
FenderStratocasterJan 18, 2012
And.... Does that cop still work for the police department? If so, he should have been fired.
elj0h0Jan 17, 2012
Same video from just a few months ago... why is this being posted again?
specimen7Jan 17, 2012
What a dickface. So did this guy get fired for assaulting that driver and stealing his ID?
specimen7Jan 17, 2012
What a dickface. So did this guy get fired for assaulting that driver?
mcbowlerJan 16, 2012
This video was a prank/viral video. not real. it does happen though.
danchairJan 16, 2012
Meltdown! He could always have given him that speeding ticket!
prettyboyfloydJan 16, 2012
Okay, so it is a prank, and both officers were exposed as staging the event, but the city council decided not to impose any disciplinary actions against them, despite their obvious abuse of city property and resources to create the hoax. Had the event not been staged, do you think the cop in question would have been punished? Cops abuse and kill citizens with alarming frequency, and rarely ever face the kinds of serious consequences we would if accused of such crimes. Johannes Messerle is walking around a free man today, even though he shot a handcuffed man in the back on New Years Eve 2009. It was all captured on dozens of cell phone cameras so there's no disputing the truth of the murder, but he served less time than a typical person convicted of marijuana possession because the use of a gun in the crime was dismissed.
chaenomeleJan 16, 2012
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 words
Anger Management
enseignerJan 16, 2012
Let me go on record as saying this cop is completely unprofessional and I hope he gets reprimanded for this horrible behavior. Remember please, all cops are not like this - many are hard working, professional and courteous and would have handled this better. Who is to say what caused this rant - personal life issues, stress piling up (cops have an extremely stressful job, especially when constantly being dragged into public view like this) or maybe this guy just has a nasty personality. In any case he was wrong, acted poorly and should have some sort of reprimand put in his file.
retardIQ70Jan 16, 2012
The video is not genuine morons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs
Also, kid? That guy sounds at least 30.
chilidogsJan 16, 2012
That didn't make any sense. If a cop wants to manufacturer probable cause all he has to do is say that he smelled marijuana. If he really thinks that he has something then he will get a drug dog. I can't imagine why the cop reacted that way. It really makes no sense.
gordonvJan 16, 2012
In the video there's a hyperlink that says "Click here if you support marijuana." Not the right image to mix with constitutional rights.
It makes it look like people protect their rights only to conceal things they don't want to be punished for
mizuhochanJan 16, 2012
Isn't this old? Why is news again?
publikjohn9Jan 15, 2012
Boron, rhymes with moron.
Billy_JackJan 15, 2012
This video and story has been around since the dark ages...The whole video was created as a hoax, there is actually another officer in the SUV...LOL
igorunchainedJan 15, 2012
Aug 31st = The Dark Ages?
Wow, you get bored/distracted easily.....dont know if I should
take the word of someone who lacks reading comprehension
and a decent sense of time passing.
Billy_JackJan 15, 2012
@igorunchained...If you take things in a literal sense then the internet is no place for you! This video surfaced a while back, OK? LOL Oh, one more thing, you should never "take the word" of anyone, its always best to verify information. With the aforementioned stated, you really don't know anything about my education credentials, or, me for that matter, this basically leaves you unqualified to pass judgement upon me or my reading comprehension skills...That would be like me calling you an uneducated twit, without really knowing you...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grannysrightJan 15, 2012
I'm sorry but I find this totally unlikely. In other words I think this was just someone making a video so they could do a story on their 4th Amendment rights.
Why would I think that. Well I've worked with a lot of cops and even the worst ones never behaved like that. Most of all though, nowadays they have that little camera in their cars (any most do, as this one did). Did you notice this was shown as from the in car video, not some witnessing photographer?
You people are so easy because of your ignorance about the police. If you're not breaking the law, you will find most cops are very amenable.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sly7765Jan 15, 2012
THis video maybe fake but don't assume a cop won't act like that just cause the ones you know are nice. I've seen enough pictures and videos to know that some cops are just monsters who seek power over other people. Add to that fact that I am black. I generally try to make any traffic stop a very smooth transaction but I have been mildly harassed. It's sad but it's a dirty world out there pal.
grannysrightJan 16, 2012
you might stop and think how many good cops there are and how many bad cops there are. I guarantee you the good outnumber the bad. What people don't realize that a cop is no different than you are me or anyone else. It's a job and there are no saints in any job I've seen. If people keep expecting cops to take there abuse, day after day, without it eventually creeping into there way of thinking, then they should stop and consider whether they would take the verbal abuse, fights, attempts on their lifes with a smile on their face.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diggumsmack83Jan 16, 2012
Personally, I didn't become a cop because I have a brain larger than a peanut. The people that decided to become cops are dealing with the job they chose, if they don't like it, they can find another one.
you did get one thing right though, a cop is no different than you and me. In that respect, who the hell are they to tell me what I can and can't do? As long as my actions aren't hurting anyone else, they can take their laws and shove 'em. Why do you keep putting them up on a pedestal? they screw up just as bad as we do, except, they normally don't get punished for it. Thin blue line and all.
karmashockJan 16, 2012
The cop is clearly acting unprofessionally... but in so far as I understand the law they don't need a warrant to search a vehicle if there is probable cause. I'm assuming the prior conviction or whatever could be cited in that case as cause.
I could be wrong... but legally I think the cop does have a right to search the car. Search rights for cars and other mobile assets are distinct from search rights in homes or buildings or other places that can't move. Anyway cop is still a douche.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crazedleperJan 16, 2012
If he had "probable cause", he'd have searched the vehicle.
karmashockJan 16, 2012
I think we can assume the cop isn't actually that balanced. As such, I don't think we can assume anything of his actions since he seems unpredictable.
I mean, did you predict before that outburst that he was going to lose it? I read the title so I knew it was coming but without that I would have been completely surprised. Given that, I don't think his behavior is that predictable.
dustinthewind2Jan 16, 2012
A prior is not (solely) cause to search a vehicle, unless the person is on parole or probation.
Even with probable cause, you can deny the officers the search, but then the officers have the option of arresting you and impounding your car.
karmashockJan 16, 2012
I looked it up and you seem to be right mostly because a prior arrest isn't probable cause. However, if the police officer says he believed the driver to be under the influence then that is probable cause. I'm guessing that's a pretty unfalsifiable claim so basically any officer can claim that if they feel a need.
If I were a... unprincipled officer of the law... then I'd have said something along the lines of "your eyes look red, sir... have you been drinking?" The kid could respond with "what? My eyes aren't red"... to which I could respond "You look like you're sweating too... did you leave the heat on in there?"
Etc.
Then I could claim probable cause indifferent to the results of a drug test. I mean.... how could you stop me? So... that whole protection doesn't really work in cars due to the flexibility of probable cause.
balzorJan 16, 2012
If you have nothing to hide, why deny the search? It's not an invasion of privacy if he asks you if it's ok. That said, the cop needs to go get laid or smoke some weed because he is way too stressed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
incywebbJan 16, 2012
because if they plant something, then 'find' it, you're screwed.
pdxphoenixJan 16, 2012
Why deny the search? How about because the cop hasn't the right to & hasn't followed procedure? It hasn't anything to do with having anything to hide... a short essay on The Eternal Value of Privacy:
https://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html
balzorJan 16, 2012
without getting into all the paranoia of "every cop is out to get me". I have no problem letting cops search my car. Maybe it's because I don't have old warrants nor have I ever been arrested and I don't visit drug or gang infested areas.
Also the cop was already not gonna give him a ticket so he was letting him off and the kid was being a smug assh**e.
If the cop had actually had reasonable suspicion that the kid had drugs, he could have been an ass and made the kid get out and take a look anyway.
All that said, the cop did overreact and act unprofessionally and should be fired or at least suspended and docked pay.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xx4001Jan 16, 2012
Mn
Nmnnp