Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So basically, you're basing this off what likely is a case of a police chief telling his trainees something that he likely either:
A) Should not be
or
B) Was telling them so that they can use it to establish a context for a legal stop.

Kanluwen wrote:So basically, you're basing this off what likely is a case of a police chief telling his trainees something that he likely either:
A) Should not be
or
B) Was telling them so that they can use it to establish a context for a legal stop.

I don't know at all what you mean by the last one. I just know it's okay for people to ask to see my ID because I'm walking and that sort of feels like the equivalent to rape to me. I know my paranoia of cops is fairly irrational, but I'd really rather them not ever talk to me or be in a vehicle anywhere near a vehicle I'm in.

Okay.

Basically:
This was established in 2004 under Devenpeck v. Alford.

Under this, it was decided that "for an arrest to be constitutional, there is no requirement in the Fourth Amendment for the offense establishing probable cause for an arrest to be 'closely related' to and based on the same conduct as the offense identified by the officer".

TL;DR version: it was a way for officers to make an arrest for a lesser offense but upon further investigation, it can be decided that the actions are more appropriate for a different offense.

It also established that the officer's state of mind is not a factor in establishing probable cause.

I haven't gotten into much trouble yet but the cops in Canada seem quite friendly and fairly reasonable.

There's another case which was decided shortly before that, 2000's Illinois v. Wardlow.

This one stated that "Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about take place."

Also: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al. in 2004 had another thing to say on the matter of identification.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply".

Over here in Western Australia, a couple of years ago there were two events within a couple of weeks of each other. In the first, the trial of a guy charged with king hitting an off duty policeman and causing serious brain damage concluded, with the guy found not guilty. I agree that the decision made by the jury was ridiculous, but was surprised at the massive numbers of regular people who got into the streets to protest the decision, outraged over the lack of protection given to a policeman.

In the second case, an aboriginal guy was picked up for being drunk and disorderly, kept in a cell overnight, and then transferred to another prison the next day. The problem was that the back of the van he was transported in had no air conditioning, no ventilation, just was metal seats, and he was being taken across the middle of the outback, during summer. Temperatures outside reached about 40' C, temperatures inside the van exceeded 50' C, and the guy cooked to death. There were no street protests, not like the concern over the bashed policeman.

The contrast between the two situation seemed to show to me where our sympathies primarily lie.

I think cops do a tough job, and I know that there is certainly a number of people who are overtly anti-police, but they are pretty much a powerless minority, mostly teenagers looking for their rebellious cause, and aging and long since irrelevant anarchist/hippie types. Among the rest of society there is no such antipathy towards police, indeed the opposite is true, we are incredibly trusting of our police, grant them any possible benefit of the doubt over any allegation, and remain largely unbothered whenever there is a death in custody.

Policing is a contraversial issue, and no ideology can properly describe the situation, with each instance needing to be judged in its own rights, each officer judged according to how he acted in that situation. But the OP's idea that there is some systemic bias towards policemen is just not true.

And Kanluven, I'm not saying that all cops are scum. In my 14 years driving and 6 years working in EMS, volunteering for the Fire Department, and working in the Emergency Room I have encountered a grand total of 2.5 cops who I would consider bad apples.

The first was a Highway Patrol man who was in charge of the scene of a vehicle fire I worked at the side of the interstate. Car was on fire in the break down lane, and our SOGs dictate that when we stop our trucks on the interstate, we will utilize said truck to block "lane+1" meaning we will block and shut down the lane of the incident and the lane next to it. In this case we blocked the breakdown lane and the "slow" lane. This gives the guys who are focused on putting out the fire two lanes of safety and if somebody is not paying attention they will hit a truck containing 1000 gallons of water instead of a human being.

I was driving the Engine and as soon as we arrived on scene and followed our SOG the trooper started running towards me and started to yell at me while he was about 3 feet from my face and I was putting the safety chocks in front of my tires to get ready and flow water. I am not lying to you when I say that this professional trooper proceeded to scream at the top of his lung "Get your F***ing truck of my interstate!" I told him that I am following my SOGs to ensure the safety of my crew. He again yelled at me, now inches from my face "I don't care what your F***ING SOGs are, this is my interstate and you WILL move your f***ing truck or I will arrest you."

At this time my captain arrived on scene, and I told the trooper "that is my captain, when he tells me to move my truck, I will move my truck, talk to him". Mr. Trooper started to run towards my captain and told him "Get your f***ing truck off my interstate", he tried to tell him why we are blocking lane+1 and was cut off my the trooper "I don't care what you f***ing volunteers have in your SOGs, you WILL get your truck off this lane or I will arrest every single one of you a**holes."

At this point my captain told me to seize operations, and have my guys roll up the hose and load up. Trooper started to ask what the hell we were doing. Captain told him that if we are not allowed to do our job safely, he can do our job himself and that he hopes he has a big fire extinguisher in his trunk. After that he let us do our job, and while we were putting out the fire a car swerved to avoid our truck at the last minute and ended up in the median. At this time trooper became unglued again and started to yell "That is the reason I told you g**damn a**holes to get of my f***ing lane!" Trying to explain that this driver was a prime example of why we were blocking the lane to begin with because if he almost missed a big red truck with flashing lights he surely would have missed a guy in turnouts standing on the side of the road did not result in much success.

A few weeks later, and a few phone calls later, said trooper was reassigned from the metro area to the panhandle of Oklahoma.

Cop #2 was called to my emergency room after one of my coworkers received a phone call stating that the person calling is going to come to the hospital and kill him. We were able to get an address and called 911. After about 30 minutes cop shows up and proceeds to tell us that there is nothing that he could do because the address that we gave him did not exist. He told us that xxx8 was the parking lot to the hospital and so the address was crap. Me and the other nurse who received the phone call both used to work for EMS and told him "the address is an even number right?" to which the cop replied affirmative. So we asked him "all even numbers are on the south and east sides of the street right?" to which he again replied affirmative. "So if the address is an even number, and our parking lot is on the west side of the street, how can the address be in our parking lot?" After not having a good answer he started to tell us about how the address is not in the property tax records so it could not exist. At this point I asked him if he drove by the area of the address to see if there was a house there he again started to talk about how no tax records mean no house exists. He started to use our computers in the nurses station to pull up the county tax assessor website to show us that there are no tax records for this address.

At this point I decided that I had enough of him and left the hospital, walked to the parking lot, and walked down the road next to the parking lot until I stood in front of a house with the exact address that the caller gave us. I walked back to the ER and told the cop, "I just stood in front of the house you said doesn't exist." He again said, that can't be, there are no tax records, while continuing to pull up records on the computer. I told him "Listen, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. But I used to work for EMS and if I got a 911 call saying go to X address, and I pull up to a house that has X address, I would probably knock on the door no matter what the computer said".

At this point he continued to make the same point about tax records. One of our hospital cops tapped the city cop on the shoulder and told him that they watched me walk over there on the camera, and that they currently have a security camera pointed at the house with the address in plain sight if he cared to look at it. Didn't see the city cop again after he left.

Cop 2.5 was just a little on edge and might even be more of a Cop 2.25. I was speeding through a school zone and didn't realize it until about a quarter in when I slammed on my brake. I was on the inside lane and saw the cop light up about 10 cars behind me pulling out of a parking lot. Before he even was close I started to move to the right lane and when he got behind me I turned on my hazzards to let him know I was aware of him. This was on a very busy main street so I was going to pull into the first parking lot or side street to get our of traffic. (That is what I have done for the last 6 years whenever I got pulled over and the cops have always been appreciative of not having to work in traffic.)

After following me for 5 seconds he started to hit his siren. I motioned that I was aware and that I am pulling into the parking lot about 5 seconds further down the road. I pulled into the parking lot, turned off my engine, and placed my hands on the steering wheel so that he could see them. Again, I know that they are always at risk so I try to make sure that they can always see what I am doing so that they have one less thing to worry about. As soon as the cop got out of his car he pulled his gun and was holding it in his hands as he was walking towards my car. At this point I put my hands outside the window that was already rolled down so that he could see that I was not holding anything, but he still held onto his gun until after he started to talk to me.

Now given, maybe they just had something bad go down with a car matching my description, but it seemed pretty extreme.

Now 2.something bad cops after working with cops every day for 6+ years is not a bad tally. And the vast majority of cops are outstanding guys and gals.

But the risk for abuse still exists and some people go mad as soon as you put a badge on their chest. A small comic once said "who watches the watchmen?" I think that we should be able to film cops whenever they are in public and hold them accountable. States that are passing laws outlawing videotaping police and charging people with wiretapping for filming a cop during a traffic stop and then get arrested and slammed to the ground is simply wrong.

If a cop gets caught being bad, then something should be done about it. The police work for the people, not the other way around.

And as I stated earlier: if you consider how many cops there are in the United States, the number of "bad cops" on YouTube is not very impressive. And people are not going to put videos of "watch this officer pull over someone and be totally professional about it!!!!" on YouTube because that is what we expect of our cops anyway.

tl;dr version:

I think that the vast majority of cops are outstanding at what they do, but if we catch one being bad we should be able to make the evidence available and pursue action against him or her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Over here in Western Australia, a couple of years ago there were two events within a couple of weeks of each other. In the first, the trial of a guy charged with king hitting an off duty policeman and causing serious brain damage concluded, with the guy found not guilty. I agree that the decision made by the jury was ridiculous, but was surprised at the massive numbers of regular people who got into the streets to protest the decision, outraged over the lack of protection given to a policeman.

In the second case, an aboriginal guy was picked up for being drunk and disorderly, kept in a cell overnight, and then transferred to another prison the next day. The problem was that the back of the van he was transported in had no air conditioning, no ventilation, just was metal seats, and he was being taken across the middle of the outback, during summer. Temperatures outside reached about 40' C, temperatures inside the van exceeded 50' C, and the guy cooked to death. There were no street protests, not like the concern over the bashed policeman.

The contrast between the two situation seemed to show to me where our sympathies primarily lie.

We would have protests over both, so at least we would be consistent.

We actually have a case over three guys who were drunk and almost killed an off duty police officer even after they were informed that he was a cop. They continued to beat him until he was paralyzed with a broken neck.

sebster wrote:I think cops do a tough job, and I know that there is certainly a number of people who are overtly anti-police, but they are pretty much a powerless minority, mostly teenagers looking for their rebellious cause, and aging and long since irrelevant anarchist/hippie types. Among the rest of society there is no such antipathy towards police, indeed the opposite is true, we are incredibly trusting of our police, grant them any possible benefit of the doubt over any allegation, and remain largely unbothered whenever there is a death in custody.

I am a 30 year old professional, far from an anarchist type. I am mostly libertarian instead and I trust the police, but when I see legislatures that are trying to do stuff like making it illegal to videotape a police officer in public I start to loose that trust. If they have nothing to hide, why would they be so paranoid about being filmed? Knowing that the cops are filming me and wearing microphones during a traffic stop makes it even worse. If they can film everybody they stop, we should be able to film them. Most of our cops are sympathetic to this cause with the only restriction they want in place being "don't interfere with me doing my job and don't film me where it puts you in danger. Other than that I don't care if people film me". And I can totally respect that point.

sebster wrote:Policing is a contraversial issue, and no ideology can properly describe the situation, with each instance needing to be judged in its own rights, each officer judged according to how he acted in that situation. But the OP's idea that there is some systemic bias towards policemen is just not true.

I agree with that statement. My only problem would be that if we cannot record cops, then they are in charge of all the evidence even if they are the ones being accused. Both sides having evidence is a good thing.

Both sides have stereo types/profiling. If you talk, act, and look like a "gangsta" well....if it walks like a duck, quack like a duck then it has to be a duck right? As for law enforcement well having a badge and a weapon does influence having a power trip. It could all be base on perception. I have been pulled over like a lot of you all but I make it a point to show both my hands out the window. To me that puts the officer at ease. Since I do like to see everyone hands exposed while in Afghanistan or Iraq. Same apply to him/her. From what I seen posted already it seems some of you all are a bit shady just by the way your wording it and what my perception of you are.

d-usa wrote:We would have protests over both, so at least we would be consistent.

Sure, and I should clarify that there was a decent measure of public outcry over the second case, just nothing like the numbers that got out to protest the failure to punish the guy who crippled a policeman. It just seems like the policeman being attacked struck a powerful, emotive chord with people, whereas the guy dying in custody was recognised as wrong, but without the same emotion.

It seems to me fairly clear that society in general is highly supportive of its police.

I am a 30 year old professional, far from an anarchist type. I am mostly libertarian instead and I trust the police,

Then you're not really the kind of guy I was talking about, and almost certainly not the type being talked about by the OP and others like him when they talk about police bashing. There is a small, but highly vocal minority that likes to make a lot of noise about horrible all cops are. It's important to acknowledge that that sort exist, whether they're teenagers sounding off to sound tough, or just general anti-authority types, not because they have any power or relevance, because they certainly don't, but because the far more numerous group that will support police in almost anything they do will regularly refer to that tiny minority to try and discredit any criticism of policemen.

but when I see legislatures that are trying to do stuff like making it illegal to videotape a police officer in public I start to loose that trust. If they have nothing to hide, why would they be so paranoid about being filmed? Knowing that the cops are filming me and wearing microphones during a traffic stop makes it even worse. If they can film everybody they stop, we should be able to film them. Most of our cops are sympathetic to this cause with the only restriction they want in place being "don't interfere with me doing my job and don't film me where it puts you in danger. Other than that I don't care if people film me". And I can totally respect that point.

Honestly, I can actually see the argument for a flat out ban on filming police actions. These guys follow set routines for a lot of their actions, and filming how they operate and spreading that on-line could be downright dangerous.

However, there now exist small lapel cameras that have been distributed to police for trial runs. Here in Oz they were running a trial of the cameras, and an officer in that trial was involved in a crowd control scene at a music festival. A girl was charged with assaulting an officer who ended up with a broken nose, and she said she had no idea how he got hurt, but she hadn't attacked him. The lapel camera showed the officer was incredibly aggressive, and while the girl was giving him some lip, she wasn't physically threatening, and his incredibly aggressive response was well and truly uncalled for. The court found she did break his nose, but only in the act of attempting to break free from the very dangerous grapple the officer put her in (they were against the fence that festival patron were crammed up against). Had the lapel camera not been there the decision would have likely been very different.

The police have claimed the cameras would represent too great a data processing challenge, and frankly that's bs. They like going to court with only their word against the accused, so I agree with you entirely there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:From what I seen posted already it seems some of you all are a bit shady just by the way your wording it and what my perception of you are.

Sorry, I don't really know what you mean in that sentence.

If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear...as the cops would say.

I am sure that there are also situations were law enforcement benefited from bystander footage that was taken during an Incident.

I just want bad cops caught and punished so that they no longer cast a bad light on the police in general and drag the good cops down by association.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: I don't consider posting videos of cops being bad and posting them online cop bashing. I am sure some of the language used by people posting them is inflamstory and their intention is to bash cops, but I also know of people posting videos in a calm manner to air a grievance that has been ignored by the authorities.

So while some people post videos to bash cops, I don't think that the sole act of posting a video of cops being bad equals cop bashing...if that makes any sense.

A good example would be the videos earlier this year about some people being arrested at a memorial in DC for dancing. They knew they were going to be arrested, and they danced expecting to be arrested. When the cops arrested them they started fighting the cops and a guy got body slammed.

The YouTube video was titled "Body slammed by police for dancing!" when in fact they were arrested for dancing, and then body slammed for resisting arrest. These are two distinct incidences in my mind with two distinct responses.

Now if he was dancing and the cop just picked him up and slammed him on the ground they would have had a valid point and should have posted the video. But in this case the cop did nothing wrong in my mind other than enforce a stupid law and the video shown is in favor if the cop, even if the people posting it think otherwise.

d-usa wrote:If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.

Writing down what cops do really isn't the same thing as video showing it. And look, I'm not even saying I completely agree with the justification, but I can see the argument behind it.

Whereas putting cameras on cops and having them film all the time sidesteps that problem, while still giving providing evidence.

sebster wrote:

d-usa wrote:If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.

Writing down what cops do really isn't the same thing as video showing it. And look, I'm not even saying I completely agree with the justification, but I can see the argument behind it.

Whereas putting cameras on cops and having them film all the time sidesteps that problem, while still giving providing evidence.

The main concern with that though is that cops have all the evidence. So if you accuse the cops of breaking the law, they control the evidence that determines their guild. Videos don't get released and equipment malfunctions and evidenc gets lost. I don't trust a bad cop to han on to the evidence that proves he is dirty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it is a good thing they have the technology, but I want my own backup.

sebster wrote:

d-usa wrote:If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.

Writing down what cops do really isn't the same thing as video showing it. And look, I'm not even saying I completely agree with the justification, but I can see the argument behind it.

Whereas putting cameras on cops and having them film all the time sidesteps that problem, while still giving providing evidence.

By and large this is not true. A written log of routine activities and observations is just as if not more usefull than video footage. You may be looking at it from a TLDR standpoint, which would be incorrect. A log can be read relatively quickly and easily reviewed. Scanning hours and hundreds of hours of tape is not nearly as fast.
There is no legitimate reason to attempt to pass legislation preventing the police from being filmed, while the proliferationof cameras operated by or accessed by the police expands, like say New York. The police do not have special rights in this regard.

d-usa wrote:The main concern with that though is that cops have all the evidence. So if you accuse the cops of breaking the law, they control the evidence that determines their guild. Videos don't get released and equipment malfunctions and evidenc gets lost. I don't trust a bad cop to han on to the evidence that proves he is dirty.

An officer who reports nothing wrong with camera, who then says 'oh like it must have stopped for like the two minutes I was accused of beating that hobo then started working again, but seriously he was resisting arrest' would be immediately brought under suspicion. Cops who regularly failed to have video evidence would stand out, very clearly.

Fundamentally its no different to the cameras we already have mounted in police cars, except these will be with the officers at all times.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I do very little in terms of illegal activity and have nightmares and an extreme paranoia in regards to cops. They bug me. I have little respect for them by default and I'm open about it. They can ticket you for no reason, which can absolutely kill someone's budget. Why does some random guy have that kind of power over me? It's silly. I've been stopped multiple times while walking and upon asking why I was stopped they said they were just making sure I was being safe, etc yet they asked for my ID. Why are they trying to randomly ID me? What the hell? Is running or walking in exercise shorts and no shirt illegal or something? I thought they weren't supposed to be able to do that. Whatever.

Perhaps they thought you were.... 'soliciting', let's say? It's a reasonable assumption.

sebster wrote:

An officer who reports nothing wrong with camera, who then says 'oh like it must have stopped for like the two minutes I was accused of beating that hobo then started working again, but seriously he was resisting arrest' would be immediately brought under suspicion.

Just playing devil's advocate here... That statement seems to assume that the Police are held accountable for every breech in protocol and that no cop ever covers up for another. Which i find hard to believe.

Our local police have such a bad reputation that even the bad coppers from other areas have no respect for them. Mind you, recruitment standards are so low these days that its a bit like being arrested by a horde of arrogant munchkins.

It should be a simple enough principle: If you wish to enforce the law, you must be the first to obey it. But Target-driven policing and low standards have created a police force that is better skilled at making itself look corrupt than actually doing any policing.

Jihadin wrote:Law Enforcement and the military are in the same boat

If I were you I would NOT put yourself in the same boat as police.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become


if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM

Ooo oo can I be one of THEM too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:In regards to your stoppage thing: look into "Terry v. Ohio" Cannerus.

Landmark case about stops, mostly dealing with context.

And actually they need a reason to ticket you. You don't just get ticketed "because", and if you do--you can challenge it.

It's called they open their magic book of bs and choose a reason to give you a ticket. If you want to challenge it, there's no guarantee of getting out of anything and it costs your time and effort to get it dismissed OR ELSE YOU GET A WARRANT AND GET ARRESTED. Does anyone think this is remotely fair? I heard a police chief tell me that he told every trainee they had that if you couldn't find a reason to ticket someone after observing them driving/walking for one city block, then you were a bad cop. If I hadn't heard and seen that proven, I wouldn't hold this view. I'll look up that case.

My favorite is "resisting arrest" charges when there are no other charges.
Then why were they being arrested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:There's another case which was decided shortly before that, 2000's Illinois v. Wardlow.

This one stated that "Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about take place."

Also: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al. in 2004 had another thing to say on the matter of identification.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply".

in other words Cannerus is right. You can be stopped for any reason. You're not supporting an argument on why Cannerus should not be angry about it.

In other words, Cannerus is absolutely 100% not right.

Suspicious behavior makes police suspicious?

What a twist!

Kanluwen wrote:In other words, Cannerus is absolutely 100% not right.

Suspicious behavior makes police suspicious?

What a twist!

To Kanluwen being in public equals suspicious behavior....yea...right.

When in Cali I lived in a nice little neighborhood of helicopters and cops with shotguns/assault rifles hanging out. Generally I did not mind them, even when they were raiding parties on the block. I would never drink anything besides Dr. Pepper when outside and had many humorous conversations with cops when they rousted everyone else outside. I was just the weird Texan with the Dr. Pepper bottle.

However on occasion they would randomly pull me over. That was very annoying. I wasn't speeding. It wasn't a vehicle of someone they were looking for (only 1200 made in the US). But I would get pulled over about once every two months. No tickets ever. it was stupid and could quickly make you lose your respect for them.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:In other words, Cannerus is absolutely 100% not right.

Suspicious behavior makes police suspicious?

What a twist!

To Kanluwen being in public equals suspicious behavior....yea...right.

Go reread what Cannerus said about what he's doing whenever he gets "hassled".

Being in public with no identification and immediately challenging the police on why you're being stopped, even for a matter as simple as "we want to make sure you're being safe" is pretty suspicious.

Plus, in my experience as a motorist--runners/bikers in urbanized areas constantly think they have the right of way when walking on heavily trafficked roads, even when it's posted that cars have right of way.

However on occasion they would randomly pull me over. That was very annoying. I wasn't speeding. It wasn't a vehicle of someone they were looking for (only 1200 made in the US). But I would get pulled over about once every two months. No tickets ever. it was stupid and could quickly make you lose your respect for them.

Out of interest, is it a classic car?

My dad drives a 1967 Dart and gets pulled over quite often, mostly because as one of the Highway Patrolmen put it "They're told to at least stop and engage drivers in classic automobiles, as there's a chance the car might be stolen and not reported yet".

Out of interest, is it a classic car?
***Just rare and distinguishable (Volvo 1800es).
Pulling them over because "they might be stolen" is no different. Its not reasonable suspicion. Again you're not supporting the argument.

Frazzled wrote:
Out of interest, is it a classic car?
***Just rare and distinguishable (Volvo 1800es).
Pulling them over because "they might be stolen" is no different. Its not reasonable suspicion. Again you're not supporting the argument.

You and I both know that vehicles aren't held to the same standard for searches and/or stops.
Carroll established that in freakin' 1925.

However you of all people should be able to articulate the fact that if you get stopped and engaged by a police officer--even about something as simple as "are you being safe?", it's a not so great idea to behave belligerently.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Out of interest, is it a classic car?
***Just rare and distinguishable (Volvo 1800es).
Pulling them over because "they might be stolen" is no different. Its not reasonable suspicion. Again you're not supporting the argument.

You and I both know that vehicles aren't held to the same standard for searches and/or stops.
Carroll established that in freakin' 1925.

However you of all people should be able to articulate the fact that if you get stopped and engaged by a police officer--even about something as simple as "are you being safe?", it's a not so great idea to behave belligerently.

You've not been stopped constantly however. That changes things.

No, it doesn't.

If you're stopped constantly by the same officer, it does change things and puts it into the realm of harassment.

Kanluwen wrote:No, it doesn't.

If you're stopped constantly by the same officer, it does change things and puts it into the realm of harassment.

Yea it does.

And Cannerus didn't say he's been stopped by the same officer or anything untoward.

Just a helpful hint: but if multiple police officers stop you and question you, you might want to rethink your behavior because you're doing SOMETHING that is raising a red flag.

Kanluwen wrote:And Cannerus didn't say he's been stopped by the same officer or anything untoward.

Just a helpful hint: but if multiple police officers stop you and question you, you might want to rethink your behavior because you're doing SOMETHING that is raising a red flag.

No thats your words. You said same officer. I said being stopped.

Helpful hint, unless you've been stopped repeatedly and weren't doing anything wrong MAYBE YOU SHOULD SHUT THE feth UP.

Frazzled wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Law Enforcement and the military are in the same boat

If I were you I would NOT put yourself in the same boat as police.

Yeah I don't see that many similarities other than wearing a uniform frankly. We dont get the opportunity to flagrantly take the piss out of nice normal members of the public who are minding their own business, unless you shoot one.

Then you get caught pretty quick.

My car has an old style seatbelt which does not have a diagonal cross-belt-- that is, it's just across the waist, nothing more.

So sometimes cops think I'm not wearing a seat belt....