On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Right. So long after the arrest, as I stated is the norm. What the hell does that have to do with anything? The arrest was either legal or it wasn't. That doesn't change over time. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 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. Agreed...the issue here is detention and arrest, not S&S. Perfectly legal. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Agreed...the issue here is detention and arrest, not S&S. Perfectly legal. The issue here is 4th amendment. He broke it. Totally illegal. He was required to issue a ticket ad let her move on. Totally illegal. Edited July 30, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) 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. Right....it is stupid to maintain otherwise. The traffic stop was legal.....the detention was legal....the order to exit the vehicle was legal...the arrest was legal too. Any fool knows that the cops can direct the driver to exit the vehicle. As stated before for non-believers across the border: The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter. It does not matter that the weather is unpleasant or that the officer does not have a clear reason for asking you to get out. When the officer asks you to “please step out of your car,” you have to do it. As mentioned in Part VIII of this series, these sorts of “requests” can be confusing. A polite officer will often ask things like, “May I please see your license? Would you please step out of your car? Would you please pop your trunk? Would you please open your glove-box so I can take a look?” All of these sound like requests. But the first two are orders which may not be refused while the last two are fully optional requests which may, and should, be refused. Edited July 30, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Right....it is stupid to maintain otherwise. The traffic stop was legal.....the detention was legal....the order to exit the vehicle was legal...the arrest was legal too. Any fool knows that the cops can direct the driver to exit the vehicle. As stated before for non-believers across the border: The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter. It does not matter that the weather is unpleasant or that the officer does not have a clear reason for asking you to get out. When the officer asks you to “please step out of your car,” you have to do it. As mentioned in Part VIII of this series, these sorts of “requests” can be confusing. A polite officer will often ask things like, “May I please see your license? Would you please step out of your car? Would you please pop your trunk? Would you please open your glove-box so I can take a look?” All of these sound like requests. But the first two are orders which may not be refused while the last two are fully optional requests which may, and should, be refused. The traffic stop was legal, the order to leave the car was not. He gave no reason why he was extending her detainment beyond giving her the ticket for the lane change. The SC says so in a case as recent as last January, which I have posted, but I guess your legal comprehension may not be up to the task of understanding it. Quote
drummindiver 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. Sorry, a little off topic, hope it doesn't cost me a point, but I wanted to mention that in Canada, as of last week, according to SCC the smell of marijuna is not probable cause. Quote
LesActive Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 I feel I should interject here and point out that there's distinction between the terms, 'legal' and 'lawful'. The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, while lawful is not. Legal fraud is Fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms. Legal is also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result, legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lawful imo, while Officer Encinia may have had legal grounds to do what he did during the stop, his actions and reasoning were unlawful. Some on this board would seem to have us believe that legal actions are always lawful and therefore ok. They're kidding themselves. As an aside: years ago, I had a chat with a retired OPP officer who told me that during his second year of service he was chastised for gross negligence by a judge for telling a driver that he'd broken the law when, in fact, the driver had broken a rule of legislation and not 'the law'. The Highway Traffic Act is not 'the law'. That was when he realized there's a distinction between legal and lawful and he never made that mistake again. imo, Encinia's escalation of force, while perhaps perfectly legal (and that's arguable), violated the spirit of the law. Quote A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 imo, Encinia's escalation of force, while perhaps perfectly legal (and that's arguable), violated the spirit of the law. Very well, and in my opinion, the officer's actions will be found lawful, the basis for any criminal liability. The order to exit the vehicle was lawful, and resisting that order several times was unlawful. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Very well, and in my opinion, the officer's actions will be found lawful, the basis for any criminal liability. The order to exit the vehicle was lawful, and resisting that order several times was unlawful. You obviously haven't read the SC finding on this type of case. His request to exit the vehicle was illegal. He had no reason to extend her stop beyond presenting her with the illegal lane change ticket. He offered no reason as to why he was doing that, mostly because he didn't have one, and/or he also wasn't current with the law. But he's a cop so he is supposed to be. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Trust me, during my next traffic stop I am NOT going to ignore the trooper or police officer's order to exit my vehicle just because some web forum geniuses north of the border think it is perfectly within my "rights" to do so. Funny thing 'bout that is these same SJWs don't want to protect my constitutional right to own and bear firearms. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Trust me, during my next traffic stop I am NOT going to ignore the trooper or police officer's order to exit my vehicle just because some web forum geniuses north of the border think it is perfectly within my "rights" to do so. Funny thing 'bout that is these same SJWs don't want to protect my constitutional right to own and bear firearms. No it's the legal geniuses at your SC who say it's within your rights to do so. We have guns here as well. We just prefer to take some precautions so we don't have to clean up the mess on the street as often as y'all do. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Me: "Sorry Officer, I am not going to exit my vehicle because some very smart Canadians told me I don't have to based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings, so there ! ! " Officer: Very well.....ZZZZZZZZZOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT (feeling of 50,000 volt Taser). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Me: "Sorry Officer, I am not going to exit my vehicle because some very smart Canadians told me I don't have to based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings, so there ! ! " Officer: Very well.....ZZZZZZZZZOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT (feeling of 50,000 volt Taser). And you're proud of that are ya? Quote
Shady Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 I feel I should interject here and point out that there's distinction between the terms, 'legal' and 'lawful'. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lawful imo, while Officer Encinia may have had legal grounds to do what he did during the stop, his actions and reasoning were unlawful. Some on this board would seem to have us believe that legal actions are always lawful and therefore ok. They're kidding themselves. As an aside: years ago, I had a chat with a retired OPP officer who told me that during his second year of service he was chastised for gross negligence by a judge for telling a driver that he'd broken the law when, in fact, the driver had broken a rule of legislation and not 'the law'. The Highway Traffic Act is not 'the law'. That was when he realized there's a distinction between legal and lawful and he never made that mistake again. imo, Encinia's escalation of force, while perhaps perfectly legal (and that's arguable), violated the spirit of the law. How were his actions unlawful if you're saying he had legal grounds? That's a complete contradiction. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 How were his actions unlawful if you're saying he had legal grounds? That's a complete contradiction. Agreed...we already know that Bland's actions were unlawful. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 How were his actions unlawful if you're saying he had legal grounds? That's a complete contradiction. Who's actions are you talking about? Quote
Argus Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 The issue here is 4th amendment. He broke it. Totally illegal. He was required to issue a ticket ad let her move on. Totally illegal. You do not appear to have even the faintest clue as to the law. Honestly you should stop trying to discuss this. 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
LesActive Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Very well, and in my opinion, the officer's actions will be found lawful, the basis for any criminal liability. The order to exit the vehicle was lawful, and resisting that order several times was unlawful. Very well, you can see into the future to know how this will all go down? Impressive! The officer's legal business was concluded, he then unlawfully gave her an order with which, lawfully and legally, she needn't have complied. As her non-compliance was an apparent affront to his authoritah he decided to escalate his use of force to an unlawful level. I would see her alleged kick to the officers shins as a defensive manoeuvre to his unlawful actions, which to my mind, she had every legal right to do. Unless, of course, you believe that no one has a right to defend themselves against unlawful actions of state officials. If that's the case then....never mind. I don't want to acquire points yet. Btw, this "SJW" has no issue with you having firearms for defence, target practice or hunting for subsistence. Just, you know, play safe. Edited July 30, 2015 by LesActive Quote A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Argus Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) And you're proud of that are ya? Try refusing to exit the vehicle when 'requested' by Canadian police. It won't result in any different reaction. Edited July 30, 2015 by Argus 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 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Very well, you can see into the future to know how this will all go down? Impressive! The officer's legal business was concluded, No, it wasn't. he then unlawfully gave her an order with which, lawfully and legally, she needn't have complied. The order was lawful. You are simply flat out wrong. 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
LesActive Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 How were his actions unlawful if you're saying he had legal grounds? That's a complete contradiction. He had legal grounds up to a point and then he crossed the line into unlawful territory. Read the definition of 'lawful' that I posted to clear up this seeming 'contradiction' you perceive. Quote A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
LesActive Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 No, it wasn't. The order was lawful. You are simply flat out wrong. I will wait and see what the court says before I come to that kind of conclusion. You are welcome to assume, however. Quote A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 No, it wasn't. The order was lawful. You are simply flat out wrong. Try doing a little research and get back to us. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 Try refusing to exit the vehicle when 'requested' by Canadian police. It won't result in any different reaction. This thread is dealing with a US case. Try to keep up eh! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2015 Report Posted July 30, 2015 .... I would see her alleged kick to the officers shins as a defensive manoeuvre to his unlawful actions, which to my mind, she had every legal right to do. Unless, of course, you believe that no one has a right to defend themselves against unlawful actions of state officials. If that's the case then....never mind. I don't want to acquire points yet. Such "defensive" actions are not lawful, and would be/are considered assault on a police officer. Very bad advice and strategy. Btw, this "SJW" has no issue with you having firearms for defence, target practice or hunting for subsistence. Just, you know, play safe. No....it is my constitutional right to own and bear firearms, including handguns, for any legal reason I may have. But SJWs don't rage about that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.