On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Sure they do...but the courts have long upheld infringing such rights based on circumstances....police stops....FAA airline safety/security...minor children....etc. Any idiot who starts screaming about their rights at a routine traffic stop is just asking for a trip "downtown". So you're saying discussing my rights should be a route to having them infringed upon? Quite the logic! Quote
jacee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Any idiot who starts screaming about their rights at a routine traffic stop is just asking for a trip "downtown".Because cops are thugs?And we're supposed to just accept that? I don't think so. We pay their salaries! Sandra Bland spoke up about her rights WHEN HER RIGHTS WERE BEING VIOLATED. She tried to call her lawyer and the copthug ordered her not to, ordered her out of her car, threatened to tase her. Just because cops DO behave badly doesn't mean we have to put up with - AND PAY THEM FOR - their thug crap. That's why police forces everywhere are under the spotlight and having to change their ways. Are you arguing in favour of the status quo? . Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Are you arguing in favour of the status quo? . U.S. courts have long upheld that police officer safety/security trumps "rights" under some circumstances. Bland should have complied with the lawful order to exit her vehicle....she chose otherwise. She would continue to make bad choices, including her last choice. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 We have gone from dashboard cameras in police cars to body cameras on police to most members of the public carrying cell/video phones. How soon before body cameras for members of the public become common? How much would a body camera cost? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 U.S. courts have long upheld that police officer safety/security trumps "rights" under some circumstances. Bland should have complied with the lawful order to exit her vehicle....she chose otherwise. She would continue to make bad choices, including her last choice. Except as has been pointed out here a number of times, his request to exit her vehicle was not lawful. That was one of his bad choices. Quote
eyeball Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Routine traffic stop and perp arrest....Bland is only making news because she killed herself. Officers have little to no warning that they are dealing with the mentally ill. Which all too often makes them next to useless. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
overthere Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Except as has been pointed out here a number of times, his request to exit her vehicle was not lawful. That was one of his bad choices. Sure, whatever. But what does that have to do with her offing herself? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Sure, whatever. But what does that have to do with her offing herself? It has nothing to do with her actual cause of death. What's your point? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Which all too often makes them next to useless. No...police officers are very useful for all kinds of things...crazy suicidal perps...not so much. "Hello...911? I want to report a robbery in progress but please do not send a useless police officer. Instead, please send the craziest suicidal woman you can find....with a smart phone. Thanks ! " Edited July 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 No...police officers are very useful for all kinds of things... Yes....along with also, all too often, being next to useless. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
overthere Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 It has nothing to do with her actual cause of death. What's your point? Whats your point? You're the one relentlessly flogging an error in process by the traffic officer as if it mattered in any rational scale of events, or was in any way connected to her death. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Yes....along with also, all too often, being next to useless. Only to the haters.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Whats your point? You're the one relentlessly flogging an error in process by the traffic officer as if it mattered in any rational scale of events, or was in any way connected to her death. As I've already pointed out, I don't think anyone on this thread is discussing her actual cause of death. Maybe start another thread if that's what you want to discuss. Edit to add: You could certainly make a case that had she not been illegally arrested, she likely would have gone on to her new job instead of dying in jail. Edited July 29, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote
Shady Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 As I've already pointed out, I don't think anyone on this thread is discussing her actual cause of death. Maybe start another thread if that's what you want to discuss. Edit to add: You could certainly make a case that had she not been illegally arrested, she likely would have gone on to her new job instead of dying in jail. Arrests aren't determined illegal or legal until afterwards. The police officer always has discretion. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Arrests aren't determined illegal or legal until afterwards. The police officer always has discretion. They are either legal or illegal at the time they occur. The police officer has to follow the law. This one clearly did not, but we would likely never have known that without the dashcam. Quote
Shady Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 They are either legal or illegal at the time they occur. The police officer has to follow the law. This one clearly did not, but we would likely never have known that without the dashcam. I guess if the resources existed to have a judge go along with every officer, and adjudicate the arrest at the time of arrest, that would be possible. But what you suggest isn't ground in reality and isn't at all feasable. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 I guess if the resources existed to have a judge go along with every officer, and adjudicate the arrest at the time of arrest, that would be possible. But what you suggest isn't ground in reality and isn't at all feasable. No, that's what the dashcam does. It brings what happened to the judge rather than bringing the judge to the event. Quote
Shady Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 No, that's what the dashcam does. It brings what happened to the judge rather than bringing the judge to the event. So a judge is sitting somewhere watching the dash cam video at the time of arrest? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 So a judge is sitting somewhere watching the dash cam video at the time of arrest? No, he sees it as evidence during the trial. Quote
Argus Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Nope. In contravention of the USSC. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf He's got some 'splainin' to do. The cite above has zero relation to what actually happened. It has to do with searches and seizures, not ordering people out of the car for safety reasons. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Except as has been pointed out here a number of times, his request to exit her vehicle was not lawful. Just because you decided it wasn't lawful doesn't mean it wasn't lawful. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 The cite above has zero relation to what actually happened. It has to do with searches and seizures, not ordering people out of the car for safety reasons. Searches and seizures is exactly the point of how this cop broke the law. First of all there is no indication that his order to exit the car had anything to do with safety as you try to suggest, and as per the SC ruling cited, he stopped her for a traffic violation which does not require exiting the vehicle. Give a warning, or a ticket, and then he has to let you go, unless he has a suspicion that a further crime is, or has been committed. No indication of either. So he has no authority to detain her further than to deliver the citation. Quote
Shady Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) No, he sees it as evidence during the trial. Right. So long after the arrest, as I stated is the norm. Edited July 29, 2015 by Shady Quote
Shady Posted July 29, 2015 Report Posted July 29, 2015 Searches and seizures is exactly the point of how this cop broke the law. First of all there is no indication that his order to exit the car had anything to do with safety as you try to suggest, and as per the SC ruling cited, he stopped her for a traffic violation which does not require exiting the vehicle. Give a warning, or a ticket, and then he has to let you go, unless he has a suspicion that a further crime is, or has been committed. No indication of either. So he has no authority to detain her further than to deliver the citation.A police officer just has to have probable cause. Like say smelling marijuana for instance. Regardless, lawful or unlawful doesn't get evaluated until afterwords, like I've been saying for several pages now. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 A police officer just has to have probable cause. Like say smelling marijuana for instance. Regardless, lawful or unlawful doesn't get evaluated until afterwords, like I've been saying for several pages now. He doesn't have to have probable cause, but he as to have a reason to think a further crime has been or is being committed. He did not have that. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.