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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Because there's clearly some vast conspiracy where officers give each other the details of "that Cannerus guy, always walking around without a shirt on. We stop him and bother him, for funsies of course".

"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".

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

There's the Frazzled we all know.

I blame "Human Rights Groups" for this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th Amendment

In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.

The door they have to "suspect" you.

Kanluwen wrote:"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT-

Thats your opinion, and its wrong.

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

There's the Frazzled we all know.

Indeed, I'm quite the law and order guy, and have no particular issues with cops now (translation I view them as lowly as every other human - no trust a human to do a wienerdog's job!) but defintiely did then. And I wasn't beven violtating the cardinal misdemeanor of DWB.

Kanluwen wrote:
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".

It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)."
The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT-

Thats your opinion, and its wrong.

It's also, seemingly, the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, as evidenced by the outcome of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al.

I had respect for the police.

Then the most racist, sexist guy I've ever met became one. I liked the chap in question mind, despite his despicable views. But God forbid what kind of department would hire him.

AustonT wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".

It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)."
The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.

And if you read Cannerus' posting, he hasn't actually ever been in a Terry stop.

But please. Keep going. You're about as kneejerk reactionary as Frazzled.

Which is exactly what Dakka needs. Another Frazzled.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT-

Thats your opinion, and its wrong.

It's also, seemingly, the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, as evidenced by the outcome of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al.

Belligerence is not a crime. In general I wipe my ass with the US court system for so many reasons. On the positive I'm certain whatever they wrote is being misrepresented by you, but again I could care less.
Further you're being sophistic. Its still your opinion that its fine. From experience being routinely pulled over makes you dislike cops intensely.
If you have a problem with that I could care less.

I'll note here I've not yet attacked the police yet...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".

It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)."
The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.

And if you read Cannerus' posting, he hasn't actually ever been in a Terry stop.

But please. Keep going. You're about as kneejerk reactionary as Frazzled.

Which is exactly what Dakka needs. Another Frazzled.

Personal snide comment from Kanluwen, how unexpected.

I don't see a problem if the Police shoot at people with knives or guns.

rockerbikie wrote:I don't see a problem if the Police shoot at people with knives or guns.

Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.

Frazzled wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I don't see a problem if the Police shoot at people with knives or guns.

Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.

It is but it is for the safety of the Public and the Police to stop him from attacking civilans if they plan to use a knife as a weapon.

Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.

reds8n wrote:

Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.

meanwhile..

Let's all try and emulate the Fonz when we're wasting the precious grains of our lives,as they trickle away one by one, never to return debating on the internet.

Thanks !

rockerbikie wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I don't see a problem if the Police shoot at people with knives or guns.

Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.

It is but it is for the safety of the Public and the Police to stop him from attacking civilans if they plan to use a knife as a weapon.

I don't think you're getting the joke here (police shooting knives, at people). The power of da intranetz failz US!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Fonz reference is lost on me.

I think Redy means either 1. be cool; or 2. drive a Harley sportster over a tank filled with sharks. Obviously he could mean both. EHHHHHHH!!!!

suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.

Well there is a common consensus among the family that Frazzled is, indeed, a jerk. Have you been talking to my brother in law again?

AustonT wrote:
You're right you referred to Terry.

Yes. I did refer to Terry, as an "interesting case".

And then told Cannerus he needed to change what he's doing and not to be belligerent in a harmless context. I would rather put forth that the erosion of his 4A rights is a far from harmless situation and properly citing Terry allows him to walk away without providing information as a stop requires consent without reasonable suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.

Terry won't allow him to "walk away without providing information", as Terry has been further defined by the other two cases which I also referred him towards.

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".

Seeing as how:
1) We don't know where the incidents in place occurred.
2) We don't know exactly what was going on, outside of Cannerus saying he was "walking or running in exercise shorts with no shirt on".
3) No stop and frisk was done.

I'd say I'm right, and you're wrong.

Kanluwen wrote:2) We don't know exactly what was going on, outside of Cannerus saying he was "walking or running in exercise shorts with no shirt on".
3) No stop and frisk was done.

Would you want to frisk Cannerus?
I think there's something in the Geneva convention about "crimes against humanity..."

Good about cops:
*Have to deal with the dregs of society
*When you're running away, they are running towards.
*Occasional true believer (as SWMBO used to say).

Bad about cops:
*Have to deal with the dregs of society.
*Protect society, not you.
*Power tripping bad seed cops.

Or worse, suburbian cops that think they have something to prove, that they're "tougher on crime" than the urban cops even though they have less crime to deal with...

AustonT wrote:

The Fonz reference is lost on me.

Civilisation is over then. Elect the dead etc etc


T'was a general " be cool" plea.

.. or, and this is always equally applicable, travel to various points in time with several of your friends, a somewhat anthropomorphic dog that tries to emulate you and a far out future space chick called "cupcake" who has a crush on you. Whilst trying to get back to 1957 Milwaukee.

... or something.

Frazzled wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I don't see a problem if the Police shoot at people with knives or guns.

Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.

It is but it is for the safety of the Public and the Police to stop him from attacking civilans if they plan to use a knife as a weapon.

I don't think you're getting the joke here (police shooting knives, at people). The power of da intranetz failz US!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Fonz reference is lost on me.

I think Redy means either 1. be cool; or 2. drive a Harley sportster over a tank filled with sharks. Obviously he could mean both. EHHHHHHH!!!!

suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.

Well there is a common consensus among the family that Frazzled is, indeed, a jerk. Have you been talking to my brother in law again?

That would so awesome. So efficent to arrest criminals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Or worse, suburbian cops that think they have something to prove, that they're "tougher on crime" than the urban cops even though they have less crime to deal with...

Police aren't tough unless they act like Dirty Harry.

rockerbikie wrote:Police aren't tough unless they act like Dirty Harry.

Keep your mother out of this.

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.

QFT. No "interesting case" here.

Kanluwen wrote:

AustonT wrote:
You're right you referred to Terry.

Yes. I did refer to Terry, as an "interesting case".

And then told Cannerus he needed to change what he's doing and not to be belligerent in a harmless context. I would rather put forth that the erosion of his 4A rights is a far from harmless situation and properly citing Terry allows him to walk away without providing information as a stop requires consent without reasonable suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.

Terry won't allow him to "walk away without providing information", as Terry has been further defined by the other two cases which I also referred him towards.

bolded emphasis now mine

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".

Seeing as how:
1) We don't know where the incidents in place occurred.
2) We don't know exactly what was going on, outside of Cannerus saying he was "walking or running in exercise shorts with no shirt on".
3) No stop and frisk was done.

I'd say I'm right, and you're wrong.

1. Unprovoked flight is running from the cops, not saying I dot want to talk to you.
2. Doesn't matter see below
3. As a stop and frisk is refered to as a "Terry Stop" and one was not performed Hiibel does not apply and there is no specific requirement to Identify in Texas where he is listed as living on Dakka.
4. Without reasonable suspicion there is no compunction to detain under Terry, in other words consent is required. Lawful detainment is required for identification to be mandatory.
Since you decided to play that game, you weren't right before and you aren't right now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

AustonT wrote:

The Fonz reference is lost on me.

Civilisation is over then. Elect the dead etc etc


T'was a general " be cool" plea.

.. or, and this is always equally applicable, travel to various points in time with several of your friends, a somewhat anthropomorphic dog that tries to emulate you and a far out future space chick called "cupcake" who has a crush on you. Whilst trying to get back to 1957 Milwaukee.

... or something.

I know who the Fonz is, just not what you were trying to convey. I'm still surprised when people don't understand the Jump the Shark reference. Obligatory emorkons

Frazzled wrote:
*When you're running away, they are running towards.

Some cops.

Many like to run off as well.

Melissia wrote:Or worse, suburbian cops that think they have something to prove, that they're "tougher on crime" than the urban cops even though they have less crime to deal with...

... ...Almost all of the negative experiences I've had when dealing with law enforcement occurred during encounters with " Suburb cops".
Most ( not all but most) Inner city cops that I grew up around seemed to have better things to do than flex muscle and prove how hardassed they were.

I was brought up to respect the fuzz, despite my anti-establishment views, and to be honest were I to be "pulled over" for nothing, I'd just be as non-confrontational as I can.

Avoid the argument and you'll be on your way faster, surely?

Everyone I know despises the police for one reason or another, some good and legit some petty and pointless. But in my experience treat them with respect and they will treat you with respect in turn.

unless you've done something wrong in which no matter you much respect you show then they are apparantly free to call you a f***ing idiot and a gimp as much as they want in a condecending superior manner whilst gloating on your cock-up irrelevant of the reasons and motivations for said incident.

Nom

I've had no problems with police. I have been pulled over for speeding a few times in my life. I've was polite, but took my ticket like a man. I knew what I was doing when I decided to drive faster than the posted limit.

Story time?

Highway 59, North of Houston, is infamous for the number of drug runners/smugglers taking their "wares" into the heartland of America. You'll see cars pulled over all of the time getting searched. When I was in college, I visited a friend in Houston with my roomate. On the way back, we got pulled over. I wasn't speeding.

The cop asked me to step to the back of the pickup and asked me a bunch of questions. He then went to my roomate and asked him the same questions. He let us go.

Looking back on it, the cop saw a couple of young punks wearing t-shirts and ball caps, with a couple of suitcases in the back of their pickup with out-of-state plates driving on a notorious drug route. After he decided to question us and found our stories matched up, we weren't searched and were sent on our way.

Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.

kronk wrote:I've had no problems with police. I have been pulled over for speeding a few times in my life. I've was polite, but took my ticket like a man. I knew what I was doing when I decided to drive faster than the posted limit.

Story time?

Highway 59, North of Houston, is infamous for the number of drug runners/smugglers taking their "wares" into the heartland of America. You'll see cars pulled over all of the time getting searched. When I was in college, I visited a friend in Houston with my roomate. On the way back, we got pulled over. I wasn't speeding.

The cop asked me to step to the back of the pickup and asked me a bunch of questions. He then went to my roomate and asked him the same questions. He let us go.

Looking back on it, the cop saw a couple of young punks wearing t-shirts and ball caps, with a couple of suitcases in the back of their pickup with out-of-state plates driving on a notorious drug route. After he decided to question us and found our stories matched up, we weren't searched and were sent on our way.

Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.

That wasn't Diboll was it? The problem with being stopped on 59 is that you're stopped in East Texas. Where do you think Conrad got the idea for Heart of Darkness from?

EDIT: Want to know fear? Want to know terror?
Go to the Marshall Walmart at 9.00 at night on a Saturday. Bring a tape recorder. Later, after you have recovered your sight, play the tape recorder back and throw back a shot every time your hear yourself screaming into the microphone "SWEET MOTHER OF GOD WHAT IS THAT!" It will deaden the pain.

kronk wrote:

Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.

I don't mind them when i've done something wrong. I mind the arrogance that comes with quite often comes with that or when they lie on forms about what they've searched you for. :/