FUCK THE POLICE
- Thread starter [ n a v ]
- Start date
^FUNNY THAT YOU MENTION THAT CAUSE I WROTE A STORY ABOUT THAT BAK IN 93' FOR A LITERATURE COURSE AND ALL THEM WHITE PEOPLE COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. BUT IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT IN THE HOOD, YOU RIgHT. BUT NOW IT'S EVEN WORSE AND AFTER 9-11 THEY CAN SAY N-E-THANg AND AIN'T NO LAWS TO PROTECT YOUR ASS. UNLESS YOU KNOW OF SOME. LACE MY BOOTS.
@EDJ They (the american GOVERNMENT) can pretty much can say anything they want thats why people need to ride as clean as possible. However, the average police officer is not going to haul you away on some terrorist shit (yet.) Now, if Nav was riding clean could that have deterred the cop from being an asshole? Probably not, but it could have stopped them from searching the vehicle, removing him from the vehicle etc.
@Nav what was the reason for being pulled over? I never saw a reason for being pulled over, but if the cop really wanted to be an asshole you would have been taken in custody and the vehicle could have been impounded.
Back @ EDJ the rights of citizens are becoming scarce, and the fact that many people don't know the laws or have no knowledge about the rights they have keep the police on top. In addition, officers are looked at as trustworthy and honest by the system, so they are going to believe them before they believe an average joe.
@Nav what was the reason for being pulled over? I never saw a reason for being pulled over, but if the cop really wanted to be an asshole you would have been taken in custody and the vehicle could have been impounded.
Back @ EDJ the rights of citizens are becoming scarce, and the fact that many people don't know the laws or have no knowledge about the rights they have keep the police on top. In addition, officers are looked at as trustworthy and honest by the system, so they are going to believe them before they believe an average joe.
AgREE. THAT'S WHY I SAY TO BE ALL THE WAY NICE.
IT'S STARTIN' TO gET THAT WAY. NO SEAT BELT, THEY CAN USE THAT EXCUSE TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE, CONSENT OR NO CONSENT. AND NOW THEY CAN EASILY SAY FOR "NATIONAL SECURITY" REASONS AND gET AWAY WITH IT.
IF HE HAD HIS LICENSE, THEN THEY COULDN'T OF DID SHIT. HELL, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS CRAK HIS WINDOW AND gIVE THEM HIS PAPERWORK.
REAL CHOP. COUNT YOUR BLESSINgS.
EXACTLY!
IT'S STARTIN' TO gET THAT WAY. NO SEAT BELT, THEY CAN USE THAT EXCUSE TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE, CONSENT OR NO CONSENT. AND NOW THEY CAN EASILY SAY FOR "NATIONAL SECURITY" REASONS AND gET AWAY WITH IT.
IF HE HAD HIS LICENSE, THEN THEY COULDN'T OF DID SHIT. HELL, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS CRAK HIS WINDOW AND gIVE THEM HIS PAPERWORK.
REAL CHOP. COUNT YOUR BLESSINgS.
EXACTLY!
Not in all cases, and certain things have to happen bfore they can just do it.
http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=550
and read this:
http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/atwater.html
and make sure you read this:
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/Pol_Atwater.html
http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=550
and read this:
http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/atwater.html
and make sure you read this:
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/Pol_Atwater.html
![[ n a v ]](/xf/data/avatars/s/13/13106.jpg?1534684272){kind=avatar}
my bad i fixed the original post. the reason he pulled me over was because my back left break light was out. he said it was on the first time i breaked and off the second time.
legal as it may be, hitting a maglight against my window is unnecesary
he asked after asking for the license. i had a temporary license but no picture ID. i wasnt as mad at being asked to step out as i was the way in which he asked it. his tone was very angry as well, like i said something rude to him or something (which i didnt)
true, but why would i have an ID in my belt or in my socks?
true, i always try to say as little as possible, and i realized after i said it that it could have egged any racism on any more had he not been ignorant on the subject.
again i was more mad at the way he did it. while one officer was directing my attention away from my car to give me the eye test, the other officer sneakily was all up in my car, opening glove compartments etc, without ever notifying me or nething. i jus thought that was a shady way to go about it.
i dont believe all cops are either, but in my experience that balance of the majority seems to lean in the wrong direction
legal as it may be, hitting a maglight against my window is unnecesary
he asked after asking for the license. i had a temporary license but no picture ID. i wasnt as mad at being asked to step out as i was the way in which he asked it. his tone was very angry as well, like i said something rude to him or something (which i didnt)
true, but why would i have an ID in my belt or in my socks?
true, i always try to say as little as possible, and i realized after i said it that it could have egged any racism on any more had he not been ignorant on the subject.
again i was more mad at the way he did it. while one officer was directing my attention away from my car to give me the eye test, the other officer sneakily was all up in my car, opening glove compartments etc, without ever notifying me or nething. i jus thought that was a shady way to go about it.
i dont believe all cops are either, but in my experience that balance of the majority seems to lean in the wrong direction
And you weren't cited for a fix it ticket?
I agree, I'm just saying it is legal to do so.
Most people who have complaints or issues with the police often cite the officers tone and demeanor as confrontational and this often leads to problems. No one should be "talked down" to. However, I find it strange that you had your temp license yet he told you to get a license tommorow or you'll be arrested. The temp license IS your license until the photo one comes in the mail.
No, you misunderstand me. The searching of a person for weapons is called a cursory search and this does involve the checking of a belt and socks. Now, if he made you take off your shoes and socks thats all bad, but if he ran his hands over your legs and patted down your socks thats all legal.
Yeah, the best thing to do is just be quiet, listen and speak when they ask you something. Don't try to be friends with them, don't try to be confrontational, don't try to explain anything.
Yes, it was shady, but if you had your license on you I don't see the reason for searching the vehicle. I wasn't present, so I don't know what they went on, but if you had your license and no crime occured that gave them probable cause to search your vehicle you should probablys peak with someone or find a community agency that handles complaints like this.
And yes, it is a shady thing, but count your blessings. They could have planted all types of contraband on you, so look at the bright side.
I agree with you.
I agree, I'm just saying it is legal to do so.
Most people who have complaints or issues with the police often cite the officers tone and demeanor as confrontational and this often leads to problems. No one should be "talked down" to. However, I find it strange that you had your temp license yet he told you to get a license tommorow or you'll be arrested. The temp license IS your license until the photo one comes in the mail.
No, you misunderstand me. The searching of a person for weapons is called a cursory search and this does involve the checking of a belt and socks. Now, if he made you take off your shoes and socks thats all bad, but if he ran his hands over your legs and patted down your socks thats all legal.
Yeah, the best thing to do is just be quiet, listen and speak when they ask you something. Don't try to be friends with them, don't try to be confrontational, don't try to explain anything.
Yes, it was shady, but if you had your license on you I don't see the reason for searching the vehicle. I wasn't present, so I don't know what they went on, but if you had your license and no crime occured that gave them probable cause to search your vehicle you should probablys peak with someone or find a community agency that handles complaints like this.
And yes, it is a shady thing, but count your blessings. They could have planted all types of contraband on you, so look at the bright side.
I agree with you.
A gangload of new fed laws came into play a few years ago. Hell, new laws came into play this year that the majority of people don't know about. As far as something needing to happen, a crime has to have occured, or the officer has to have some valid reason for getting inside the car.
Also, not to derail the thread, but in one of my CJ classes we learned about Autoerotic Asphyxiation. Google it if you want to learn more about it. We live in a strange world......
Also, not to derail the thread, but in one of my CJ classes we learned about Autoerotic Asphyxiation. Google it if you want to learn more about it. We live in a strange world......
^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoerotic_asphyxiation
HELL NAW. LOL
BUT THE FEDERAL LAW OF HAVIN' SEATBELTS ON OR THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE ON(THE ONE I'M TALKIN' ABOUT), THAT IS SUBJECT FOR AN OFFICER TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE, AND IS PROBABLE CAUSE, AND DON'T NEED YOUR CONSENT OR WARRANT FOR DOIN' SO(OR SOMETHIN' LIKE THAT).
HELL NAW. LOL
BUT THE FEDERAL LAW OF HAVIN' SEATBELTS ON OR THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE ON(THE ONE I'M TALKIN' ABOUT), THAT IS SUBJECT FOR AN OFFICER TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE, AND IS PROBABLE CAUSE, AND DON'T NEED YOUR CONSENT OR WARRANT FOR DOIN' SO(OR SOMETHIN' LIKE THAT).
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage
read that.
It is now a PRIMARY law, meaning they have probable cause to pull you over if you do not have on a seat belt. It used to be secondary and they would only give you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if they had you on something else. In some cases officers don't have to respect your privacy and can perform a warrentless search (which is what happened in Navs case), but they need cause to do so, and like I said some other type of crime or suspect behavior needed to occur.
If a reasonable law enforcement officer with comparable training and experience could conclude that a crime has been commited and a specific person commited the crime its considered probable cause. Plain and simple.
read that.
It is now a PRIMARY law, meaning they have probable cause to pull you over if you do not have on a seat belt. It used to be secondary and they would only give you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if they had you on something else. In some cases officers don't have to respect your privacy and can perform a warrentless search (which is what happened in Navs case), but they need cause to do so, and like I said some other type of crime or suspect behavior needed to occur.
If a reasonable law enforcement officer with comparable training and experience could conclude that a crime has been commited and a specific person commited the crime its considered probable cause. Plain and simple.