Your Rights Dont Matter

[ricechickie]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

Ain't Obamunism grand?

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How did the cop contradict himself? The driver asked if he was detained. The cop said no. The driver then asked if he was free to go, he again was told no.

He was not being detained, but that does not mean he was free to go. SCOTUS has ruled that police can use these checkpoints to stop drivers for a minimal amount of time without it being a detention.

If the asshole driver was such a legal beagle he would have known that.

That's why I said, know your rights. Generally speaking if the police keep you in place for more than 5 minutes you are being detained, less than 5 minutes , no detainment.

The difference in the two is that the police MUST have a reasonable belief that you have committed a crime to detain you, no such requirement is needed to simply stop you .

The driver, and you, are wrong. He was NOT being detained, he may have believed he was being detained, and you may believe it, but words have meanings and this guy was not detained.

Except he was being detained, just not arrested.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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..............

He might nor be the guy who made the laws, but he is the asshole who is infringing on people's rights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How did the cop contradict himself? The driver asked if he was detained. The cop said no. The driver then asked if he was free to go, he again was told no.

He was not being detained, but that does not mean he was free to go. SCOTUS has ruled that police can use these checkpoints to stop drivers for a minimal amount of time without it being a detention.

If the asshole driver was such a legal beagle he would have known that.

That's why I said, know your rights. Generally speaking if the police keep you in place for more than 5 minutes you are being detained, less than 5 minutes , no detainment.

The difference in the two is that the police MUST have a reasonable belief that you have committed a crime to detain you, no such requirement is needed to simply stop you .

The driver, and you, are wrong. He was NOT being detained, he may have believed he was being detained, and you may believe it, but words have meanings and this guy was not detained.

Except he was being detained, just not arrested.

No, he wasn't , a short stop at a check point is NOT considered being detained. SCOTUS has ruled on this, take it up with them if you don't like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Technically I agree with that statement, with the caveat that first they need to encroach on our rights.

According to the Supreme Court, it is encroaching on your rights.

Does that help?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, he wasn't , a short stop at a check point is NOT considered being detained. SCOTUS has ruled on this, take it up with them if you don't like it.

You got part of that right, SCOTUS has ruled on it, and they rationalize that it is reasonable to detain people for short periods of time. I would challenge you ro find a single case where they said that stopping a person, and refusing to let him leave, is not actually detaining someone.

To support me, I cite Terry v Ohio.

On the one hand, it is frequently argued that, in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets, the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose, it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." [n3] Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the person. This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a mere "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," [n4] which can properly be imposed upon the [n5]

Terry v. Ohio LII Legal Information Institute

Want to try again?

 

[Moonglow]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

Ain't Obamunism grand?

This shit started waay before Oblama....derp

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Seige heil mien Furher...

 

[Moonglow]

You can easily predict how most USMB nutters will react to a case of overreach by an authority figure based on who started the thread.

Fûcking assholes. How about some consistency.

They consistently support Pootin' and degrade Oblama, if that is any indication..

 

[Moonglow]

Roadside safety checks are common, it's not like the cop was digging through his trunk for drugs with no probable cause.

No, he was just Stopping Him with no Probable Cause. Unlawful Detention at least which came close to Aggravated Assault when the Enraged Pig jerked opened the door.

The Pig became enraged because he knew he had no Probable Cause and a Citizen who knew his Rights. And he's not a Pig because he's a Cop, he's a Pig because he acted that way. He's a Servant not a Master.

I got pulled over by one of Oklahoma City's finest just last Saturday.

Aren't they a pleasure to work with??

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, he wasn't , a short stop at a check point is NOT considered being detained. SCOTUS has ruled on this, take it up with them if you don't like it.

You got part of that right, SCOTUS has ruled on it, and they rationalize that it is reasonable to detain people for short periods of time. I would challenge you ro find a single case where they said that stopping a person, and refusing to let him leave, is not actually detaining someone.

To support me, I cite Terry v Ohio.

On the one hand, it is frequently argued that, in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets, the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose, it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." [n3] Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the person. This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a mere "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," [n4] which can properly be imposed upon the [n5]

Terry v. Ohio LII Legal Information Institute

Want to try again?

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 fuck him.

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

You simply don't know everything.

 

[Pogo]

What a bunch of bullshit. The dipshit in the video is an attention whore and you morons are just feeding his ego.

Roadside safety checks are common, it's not like the cop was digging through his trunk for drugs with no probable cause.

Thanks to that jackass, the drivers after him had to put up with a surly cop that was rightfully pissed off for having to put up with a shithouse lawyer wannabe.

I hope he strangles on his own puke.

Sycophants unite!

 

[BluesLegend]

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

 

[House]

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

True. Dude lost his cool, no doubt. He could use some Anger Management therapy, Jack Nicholson style.

 

[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.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

True. Dude lost his cool, no doubt. He could use some Anger Management therapy, Jack Nicholson style.

Agree, what's he going to do when some douchebag jaywalks draw his weapon and start waving it around?

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 fuck 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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am not in the Navy anymore, I can say a lot of things I wouldn't have then.

 

[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.