February 24, 201412 yr If someone doesn't know their rights, that's their own fault. It's their own fault and therefore it should be okay for a police officer to infringe on those rights because they don't have anything else to do?
February 24, 201412 yr It's their own fault and therefore it should be okay for a police officer to infringe on those rights because they don't have anything else to do? Where did I say that? Nice job putting words in my mouth.
February 24, 201412 yr Where did I say that? Nice job putting words in my mouth. Just asking you for some clarification to your original statement. So I was in my early 20's and I didn't know all the details of what a police officer can and can't legally do to stop, question, or detain me. That was my own fault, correct. But when you are responding to John Anthony's statement about cops pulling over people to snoop and "prey on the public who doesn't know their rights" by saying "If someone doesn't know their rights, that's their own fault," you sure are giving the implication that the blame for the situation is on the person who doesn't know their rights, and not the police officer for infringing on those rights in the first place.
February 24, 201412 yr Let's change the scenario around here, and suppose the police officer had infringed on rights in another fashion. CWB: A police officer walked up to me when I was walking down the street and he punched me in the face. John Anthony: People need to know they have the right to defend themself from an assault, even if it's a police officer. HB20: If someone doesn't know their rights, that's their own fault. See where it might come off like you're saying the police officer was justified in their actions?
February 24, 201412 yr Just asking you for some clarification to your original statement. So I was in my early 20's and I didn't know all the details of what a police officer can and can't legally do to stop' date=' question, or detain me. That was my own fault, correct. But when you are responding to John Anthony's statement about cops pulling over people to snoop and "prey on the public who doesn't know their rights" by saying "If someone doesn't know their rights, that's their own fault," you sure are giving the implication that the blame for the situation is on the person who doesn't know their rights, and not the police officer for infringing on those rights in the first place.[/quote'] My statement to John Anthony was clear. You took it and tried to add words I never said to make my post look completely different. As for getting pulled over and having your rights infringed upon? That's a pretty broad statement. What exactly do you mean? Do you have specific examples because otherwise it's hard to discuss. But if a police officer gains consent to search a car because someone doesn't know that they can legally say no...that's not infringing on someone's rights. That's someone not knowing their rights, and IMO that's their fault. If an officer searches a car without consent and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause ...that's on the officer.
February 24, 201412 yr Let's change the scenario around here' date=' and suppose the police officer had infringed on rights in another fashion. CWB: A police officer walked up to me when I was walking down the street and he punched me in the face. John Anthony: People need to know they have the right to defend themself from an assault, even if it's a police officer. HB20: If someone doesn't know their rights, that's their own fault. See where it might come off like you're saying the police officer was justified in their actions?[/quote'] This might be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on this website. :lol2: You just changed everything, except my words of course, to make your point. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?
February 24, 201412 yr This might be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on this website. :lol2: You just changed everything' date=' except my words of course, to make your point. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?[/quote'] Again, police prey on the fact that the average uneducated American doesn't know their constitutional rights. Most Americans who are encountered by a cop feel they are the higher authority and must submit to whatever they say. This is America after all, we aren't the brightest country.
February 24, 201412 yr Again' date=' police prey on the fact that the average uneducated American doesn't know their constitutional rights. Most Americans who are encountered by a cop feel they are the higher authority and must submit to whatever they say. This is America after all, we aren't the brightest country.[/quote'] I'll try to make my response clear this time. The police have a job, but (most of the time) that job isn't to play lawyer. Sometimes police have to tell people their rights (custody+interrogation=Miranda rights). Other than that, it's not their responsibility. If the police legally search a car because someone either A.) doesn't know their rights or B.) doesn't choose to exercise their rights, that's not the fault of the police IMO. Obviously with out consent, police need a reason to search a car. They can get that through various means without consent, however if they do something illegal I certainly think they should be held accountable. Not sure why any officer would do that anyways, as anything they find would likely be thrown out in court unless they're willing to lie in court as well. If that's the case, hopefully they get caught I think people should know their rights and if they choose to exercise them when they come into contact with police, that's fantastic. It amazes me how ignorant some people are when it comes to the police. I guess in the end im just agreeing with you mostly. :lol2:
February 24, 201412 yr Again, police prey on the fact that the average uneducated American doesn't know their constitutional rights. Most Americans who are encountered by a cop feel they are the higher authority and must submit to whatever they say. This is America after all, we aren't the brightest country. John I'm with you, but I am one of the ones that doesn't really know. Could you post maybe the top 5 things you are referring to when dealing with police?
February 24, 201412 yr John I'm with you' date=' but I am one of the ones that doesn't really know. Could you post maybe the top 5 things you are referring to when dealing with police?[/quote'] It all comes down to one thing that this is a free country. Nobody can impede your freedom, police specifically, unless they have reasonable suspicion to detain you (suspend your freedom temporarily or for a prolonged period of time). They can not stop you on a hunch, they have to have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime to detain you. Going into the different amendments in each situation would be lengthy. My advice would be to ask if you are being detained and if they say no, say thank you officer and walk away. If they say yes, I would ask on what reasonable suspicion.. After he tells you, regardless if you agree or disagree, I would tell him you wish to remain silent until you have your lawyer with you and force the cop to show his cards and arrest you, which means they will need a step further in "probable cause" to arrest you. My guess is they weasel your ID out of you on their reasonable suspicion ground, bogus or not and find out your a good guy and let you walk. So in a nutshell.. they to try to use reasonable suspicion to stop you, then find probable cause to arrest you. If your a hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizen of this republic.. Don't let them.
February 24, 201412 yr My statement to John Anthony was clear. You took it and tried to add words I never said to make my post look completely different. As for getting pulled over and having your rights infringed upon? That's a pretty broad statement. What exactly do you mean? Do you have specific examples because otherwise it's hard to discuss. But if a police officer gains consent to search a car because someone doesn't know that they can legally say no...that's not infringing on someone's rights. That's someone not knowing their rights, and IMO that's their fault. If an officer searches a car without consent and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause ...that's on the officer. I get what CWB is referring too. I also see how you meant it after reading your explanation. Sometimes post's are read with the meaning we intended for them. While CWB's example was exaggerated it is basically the same thing. JA stated police prey on people that don't their rights and you stated if they don't know their rights that's their fault. It can be read they you meant the situation was their fault for not knowing their rights. However you meant it the read has to make an assumption. When I first read you post I took it the same way CWB did however after reading your explanation I see that as well.
February 25, 201412 yr "Am I being detained?" - A phrase to remember... Wouldn't have went about it like that guy, but yea... "am I being detained" and/or "am I free to go" are phrases worth remembering.
February 25, 201412 yr I don't think they were bullies but I do think they probably have solved the situation without slapping cuffs on her immediately. Given the fact that they obviously had to have startled her by grabbing her from behind you would have thought they could have overlooked an initial bad reaction--especially given that she didn't get physical with them. Had they given her a minute to compose herself this whole episode would likely have been avoided. Once the cuffed her she deserved to be arrested if she would not give her name and address. Bad behavior on both sides. Probably so but if they weren't being bullies I'd bet the officer told her if I can't verify who you are then I will have to detain you until I can which could involve the handcuffs. If she tried calling their bluff then what choice did he have. No way of knowing that's how it went down. But simply writing the citation would've been a lot less paper work for the officer.......
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.