Yet another cop goes overboard... - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Yet another cop goes overboard... (Page 2 of 6)

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:20:27 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Based on this thread and some others, I think we can safely say that we have some LEO members of this board who will gladly TRY to collect firearms when the order is given to confiscate them all.

Mind you, I said SOME LEOs, not all. I believe it is pretty obvious who they are.

Damn straight

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:20:58 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Based on this thread and some others, I think we can safely say that we have some LEO members of this board who will gladly TRY to collect firearms when the order is given to confiscate them all.

Mind you, I said SOME LEOs, not all. I believe it is pretty obvious who they are.

You're damn straight. All it takes is the cop claiming you appeared to have a CCW and that was grounds for a search. We are doomed in this country when we have so many people defending the actions of this cop.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:23:29 PM EDT

[#3]

It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:24:35 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
In all honesty, the kid that got arrested was an idiot. If you are standing in a yard and you see a cop pull over, get out, and start walking twoard you, can anyone honestly believe that the kid "didn't know he wanted to talk to me?"?! If you start going the other way when you see a cop coming twoards you with the obvious intent of making contact with you, you've just screwed up. Fleeing a peace officer is legally a big no-no. There's really only two main reasons the kid would be trying to avoid the cop - to avoid questioning (cause he knew he was doing something illegal - even if he can legally smoke, it's his parent's property and if they say no, he can't smoke there) or if he was going back in to get a weapon (i.e., it was either "flight or fight"). Either way, the kid got what he had coming to him.

The bottom line there was no crime committed and the cop had no reason to take it further that asking the parent how old the MAN was.

Bomber

Actually, he was violating no law, since he was in his parents yard, so there was no reason to even know the kid's age.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:25:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no obligation to talk to the police. The cop should hang.

1. You must identify yourself

2. If your not free to go...you can't go.

Flame on

Show me that in writing. If the officer didn't make it an official detention the kid is free to go. Saying, hey you isn't an official detention.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:26:49 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In all honesty, the kid that got arrested was an idiot. If you are standing in a yard and you see a cop pull over, get out, and start walking twoard you, can anyone honestly believe that the kid "didn't know he wanted to talk to me?"?! If you start going the other way when you see a cop coming twoards you with the obvious intent of making contact with you, you've just screwed up. Fleeing a peace officer is legally a big no-no. There's really only two main reasons the kid would be trying to avoid the cop - to avoid questioning (cause he knew he was doing something illegal - even if he can legally smoke, it's his parent's property and if they say no, he can't smoke there) or if he was going back in to get a weapon (i.e., it was either "flight or fight"). Either way, the kid got what he had coming to him.

The bottom line there was no crime committed and the cop had no reason to take it further that asking the parent how old the MAN was.

Bomber

The officer was investigating wether there was a crime committed. Similar to age restrictions on alcoholic beverages. The reason it went further was because the kid tried to leave and pulled away from the police officer. Had he provided ID this would be a non-issue.

If the officer would have know the fucking law, he would know no investigation was required. Simple fishing expedition.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:27:06 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Even if the story is complete bullshit and written by some moonbat, it doesn't excuse the fact that individuals on this board are okay with this scenario.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:28:57 PM EDT

[#8]

Fathers word on son's age should have been enough to satisfy the JBT, fucking rediculous.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:29:20 PM EDT

[#9]

First of all he was in the front yard which is public, not private.
Second of coarse an officer should stop and speak with someone who appears under age who is smoking.
Third, if the officer said he was being detained and he tried to walk away, of coarse he will be arrested.
Fourth, if the brother interferred while the brother was being arrested he deserved to be arrested also.
Fifth, taking someone to the ground and handcuffing them is not out of line when they are pulling away from you and have shown they are not going to follow your lawful orders.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:30:08 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I know, but don't worry, many here will say the kid should have "submitted", even though he did nothing wrong.

Well it can't be both ways. If all police are JBT who can't wait to shoot someone (or their dog) then he should have submitted. Do you seek out rabid dogs so you can pet them, and then complain when you get bit?

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:30:53 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to the story. There was probably a good reason the officer wanted to talk to the "kid" (he was 21). And used such a B.S. reason for his stop. The house was probably a crack house, the kid probably ditched his rock in the house when the cop told him to stop the first time then after ditching the contraband came back out. All the anti-gov cop haters believe this could happen to them. Loosen the tin-foil.

There is always more to the story.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:30:56 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Bingo.

An abundance of caution about believing the "facts" of this story is warranted.

After all, name for me a single family member of someone who was arrested that said that the cops did the RIGHT thing when talking to a reporter, and I will show you a unicorn.

It just doesn't happen often.

I am inclined to believe there is more to the story here. The "report" mentioned here goes from the police report to the recollection of family members, which seems a bit strange if it went down exactly as stated.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:31:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Based on this thread and some others, I think we can safely say that we have some LEO members of this board who will gladly TRY to collect firearms when the order is given to confiscate them all.

Mind you, I said SOME LEOs, not all. I believe it is pretty obvious who they are.

Yep, and they'll follow the mantra, if you wanted your guns you should have voted for people who wouldn't have passed the ban.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:32:13 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Based on this thread and some others, I think we can safely say that we have some LEO members of this board who will gladly TRY to collect firearms when the order is given to confiscate them all.

Mind you, I said SOME LEOs, not all. I believe it is pretty obvious who they are.

Like there was ever any doubt? I fully expect most LEOs to do the biding of their masters, as long they get to keep their toys they don't give a fuck about Joe Sixpack, they think most people are scum anyway after dealing with the human trash for years.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:32:37 PM EDT

[#15]

Oh yeah.....

on.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:33:18 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I know, but don't worry, many here will say the kid should have "submitted", even though he did nothing wrong.

Well it can't be both ways. If all police are JBT who can't wait to shoot someone (or their dog) then he should have submitted. Do you seek out rabid dogs so you can pet them, and then complain when you get bit?

No, but most people will agree that rabid dogs should be shot.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:33:19 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Since when was there a law prohibiting underage smokers?

I know it is illegal to purchase smokes underage... but possess?

never heard of an MIP? Minor in possession? but as far as I know the cop can do nothing to someone on their own property.

Sorry, but for all intents and purposes your property belongs to the state now.
See Kelo v. New London

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:34:48 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
First of all he was in the front yard which is public, not private.
Second of coarse an officer should stop and speak with someone who appears under age who is smoking.
Third, if the officer said he was being detained and he tried to walk away, of coarse he will be arrested.
Fourth, if the brother interferred while the brother was being arrested he deserved to be arrested also.
Fifth, taking someone to the ground and handcuffing them is not out of line when they are pulling away from you and have shown they are not going to follow your lawful orders.

Since when is my front yard public?

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:37:19 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all he was in the front yard which is public, not private.
Second of coarse an officer should stop and speak with someone who appears under age who is smoking.
Third, if the officer said he was being detained and he tried to walk away, of coarse he will be arrested.
Fourth, if the brother interferred while the brother was being arrested he deserved to be arrested also.
Fifth, taking someone to the ground and handcuffing them is not out of line when they are pulling away from you and have shown they are not going to follow your lawful orders.

Since when is my front yard public?

Because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on it.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:40:10 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no obligation to talk to the police. The cop should hang.

1. You must identify yourself if there is a law in your state requiring you to do so.

2. If your not free to go...you can't go. Now that's profound.

Flame on

Ok I'll play....

Where can you refuse to identify yourself to a police officer and not get at least brought in for a picture and prints?

Well that's simple. The state of Texas, where this took place. Check Texas Penal code Title 8 Section 38.02.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:40:42 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Even if the story is complete bullshit and written by some moonbat, it doesn't excuse the fact that individuals on this board are okay with this scenario.

My post wasn't an attempt to exonerate people who advocate public harrassment (I missed those posts I guess). My point was that there is a HIGH likelihood the police were very polite, understanding, and probably attempted to be defusing. The sons & father were most likely being antagonistic.

Had this piece been written by a different Star-Telegram editorialist, I'd believe it. But Sanders is a dirtbag.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:40:46 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
First of all he was in the front yard which is public, not private.
Second of coarse an officer should stop and speak with someone who appears under age who is smoking.
Third, if the officer said he was being detained and he tried to walk away, of coarse he will be arrested.
Fourth, if the brother interferred while the brother was being arrested he deserved to be arrested also.
Fifth, taking someone to the ground and handcuffing them is not out of line when they are pulling away from you and have shown they are not going to follow your lawful orders.

this is the problem. Maybe everyone should be taught in School "cop law" so they really know whats what and what your rights are. Most people here would "think" that you're front lawn or the seat of your car is "private property" but evidently to the average JBT it is'nt and the law that was made by sleazy pols probably backs up his opinion. Then maybe BS like this would'nt happen. Then also note that this is another example of BS "vice" laws like drugs and hookers and what not that is only "wrong" because some people "think" it's wrong and not because it really is a crime. MAybe people would be less likely to hate cops and authority if the state did'nt feel like it had to have it's finger straight up your ass 24 hours a day.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:40:58 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no obligation to talk to the police. The cop should hang.

1. You must identify yourself

2. If your not free to go...you can't go.

Flame on

Show me that in writing. If the officer didn't make it an official detention the kid is free to go. Saying, hey you isn't an official detention.

Are either of us going to know what was said from the original post? Don't be silly.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:41:20 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

No, but most people will agree that rabid dogs should be shot.

I can't advocate shooting cops or anyone else for that matter, unless it's self defense. But the way to solve these kinds of problems is to write better laws and make sure they're enforced for the police, too. When they cross the line, put them in prison for a very long time. When this sort of situation comes up and an officer thinks that rather than facing a citizen's complaint if they screw up, they might go to prison for 30 years, I imagine some good judgement will appear like magic.

The downside of this is there will no longer be any warnings, no cops giving someone a break, or any "I'm not a criminal, I just made one mistake" stuff.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:41:51 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all he was in the front yard which is public, not private.
Second of coarse an officer should stop and speak with someone who appears under age who is smoking.
Third, if the officer said he was being detained and he tried to walk away, of coarse he will be arrested.
Fourth, if the brother interferred while the brother was being arrested he deserved to be arrested also.
Fifth, taking someone to the ground and handcuffing them is not out of line when they are pulling away from you and have shown they are not going to follow your lawful orders.

Since when is my front yard public?

All your property is public.
Kelo v. New London

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:45:28 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no obligation to talk to the police. The cop should hang.

1. You must identify yourself if there is a law in your state requiring you to do so.

2. If your not free to go...you can't go. Now that's profound.

Flame on

Ok I'll play....

Where can you refuse to identify yourself to a police officer and not get at least brought in for a picture and prints?

Well that's simple. The state of Texas, where this took place. Check Texas Penal code Title 8 Section 38.02.

Thanks Miracle pants

38.02. Failure to identify.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:46:48 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Based on this thread and some others, I think we can safely say that we have some LEO members of this board who will gladly TRY to collect firearms when the order is given to confiscate them all.

Mind you, I said SOME LEOs, not all. I believe it is pretty obvious who they are.

That's the second time in one week I agree with LarryG...wtf...

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:48:44 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In all honesty, the kid that got arrested was an idiot. If you are standing in a yard and you see a cop pull over, get out, and start walking twoard you, can anyone honestly believe that the kid "didn't know he wanted to talk to me?"?! If you start going the other way when you see a cop coming twoards you with the obvious intent of making contact with you, you've just screwed up. Fleeing a peace officer is legally a big no-no. There's really only two main reasons the kid would be trying to avoid the cop - to avoid questioning (cause he knew he was doing something illegal - even if he can legally smoke, it's his parent's property and if they say no, he can't smoke there) or if he was going back in to get a weapon (i.e., it was either "flight or fight"). Either way, the kid got what he had coming to him.

The bottom line there was no crime committed and the cop had no reason to take it further that asking the parent how old the MAN was.

Bomber

Actually, he was violating no law, since he was in his parents yard, so there was no reason to even know the kid's age.

You may be correct, but I'm not completely sure. I'm not entirely familiar with the exact wording of the law in regards to smoking, but if it's anything like the statutes for underage drinking, the law would require that the underage person be under DIRECT PARENTAL SUPERVISION for it to be legal. Simply being on a certain person's property wouldn't cut it, and somehow I doubt going out to the yard just for the purpose of avoiding you parents in the first place really counts as direct supervision. Yes I know the kid was 21, but you rarely can tell for sure accurately exactly what age a person is just by looking at them. There was nothing wrong with the cop deciding to ask the kid if he was of legal age to smoke. In fact, that's exactly what you are paying him to do.

Cop sees kid smoking in yard. Since he isn't (presumably...) a psychic, he pulls over to ask if the kid is 18 or not. Kid sees cop coming, turns around and evades the police. This is where it goes south. Argue all you want about what happened from there on, but up to that point the police were in the right and the kid was in the wrong.

EDIT: On an unrelated note, I'm pretty sure from memory that there was a ruling that says your yard really is NOT the same as your house, in the sense that law enforcement does not need a warrant to be on your lawn, just probable cause. Seeing a potential instance of underage smoking definitely counts as probable cause to initiate further investigation (legally, anyways...according to half of you people, any LEO that looks too hard at blade of your grass should be instantly shot

).

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:50:48 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Bingo.

An abundance of caution about believing the "facts" of this story is warranted.

After all, name for me a single family member of someone who was arrested that said that the cops did the RIGHT thing when talking to a reporter, and I will show you a unicorn.

It just doesn't happen often.

I am inclined to believe there is more to the story here. The "report" mentioned here goes from the police report to the recollection of family members, which seems a bit strange if it went down exactly as stated.

Charges were dismissed, for obvious stupidity, by a court with jurisdiction. The court found the charges BASELESS. Also known as without merit, stupid, imbecillic, misguided, directionless, clueless, unfounded, produced by a syphillitic monkey, etc.

Argue with your court if you wish. They are the interpreter of your laws, not the police. Even if you disagree with there verdict it doesn't make the verdict wrong.

It is one matter to make a stupid mistake. We all do it. It is another matter to compound a stupid mistake and making gay excuses and rationalizations to make the first one look legitimate. If I did that at my job, I would be fired on the spot. Too bad many government organizations have to go through a painful process to fire incompetent people.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:52:31 PM EDT

[#30]

The parent asked the cop if he would like him to get the 21 year old son's birth certificate and he said no, and still arrested him.

I have been questioned by the cops when I didn't have ID, they asked for my SS# went to the car, ran it and let me go. Why the cop couldn't have done it in this case is beyond me.

The cop got carried away, plain and simple

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:54:04 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Thanks Miracle pants

38.02. Failure to identify.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

Great, where was the individual lawfully arrested prior to entering the house? I'll give you a hint, he wasn't. It's not even clear the officer detained the person.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:54:15 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
this is the problem. Maybe everyone should be taught in School "cop law" so they really know whats what and what your rights are. Most people here would "think" that you're front lawn or the seat of your car is "private property" but evidently to the average JBT it is'nt and the law that was made by sleazy pols probably backs up his opinion. Then maybe BS like this would'nt happen. Then also note that this is another example of BS "vice" laws like drugs and hookers and what not that is only "wrong" because some people "think" it's wrong and not because it really is a crime. MAybe people would be less likely to hate cops and authority if the state did'nt feel like it had to have it's finger straight up your ass 24 hours a day.

Maybe we should send you to common sense school then. The officer had the right to detain the "kid". End of story. What if the police let everyone just walk away? It was a minor offense, most likely a pretex stop, but still possibly an offense. The officer can detain him and investigate it. If an officer can see a possible offense on private property he can investigate. It is called plain view and is an exception to the search warrant requiremants of the 4th amendment.

I won't debate the merits of "Drugs and Hookers" on this thread. Feel free to start another.

If you want underage smokers, drugs and hookers run for office and write some legislation. It's the beauty of the american system.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:58:17 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
If the officer would have know the fucking law, he would know no investigation was required. Simple fishing expedition.

The officer saw a possible violation and was entitled to ascertain whether the activity was legal. What matters is what the officer knew at the time and not what he knew afterwards.

And yes it probably was a fishing expedition. He was applying the law in ways you probably are unable to comprehend.

Posted: 1/13/2006 2:59:05 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no obligation to talk to the police. The cop should hang.

1. You must identify yourself

2. If your not free to go...you can't go.

Flame on

Show me that in writing. If the officer didn't make it an official detention the kid is free to go. Saying, hey you isn't an official detention.

Are either of us going to know what was said from the original post? Don't be silly.

Exactly, however, we have people here that assume #1 the cop made his intentions clear and #2 the kid saw him. Since we don't know that, we move to the next landmark which is the dad, who verified his age and oh by the way since the dad was there even if he was underage his smoking wasn't illegal, offered to get the birth certificate. This apparently wasn't good enough.

What really interests me is where this "crime" would have fit in to the grand scheme of things anyway. Was it a felony? I doubt it. Was it a misdemeanor? Maybe. Or was it a noncriminal offense, like a minor traffic infraction? I find this likely.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:00:12 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to the story. There was probably a good reason the officer wanted to talk to the "kid" (he was 21). And used such a B.S. reason for his stop. The house was probably a crack house, the kid probably ditched his rock in the house when the cop told him to stop the first time then after ditching the contraband came back out. All the anti-gov cop haters believe this could happen to them. Loosen the tin-foil.

There is always more to the story.

Well since there were 7 officers there all over the place and they didn't find anything, I think you're making a huge jump there. More likely he was stopped because he wasn't white.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:01:43 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The cops nowadays are fucking Nazis. If they keep pulling shit like this, there's going to be a revolution.

I've been living in Holland for several months, and sometimes I go weeks without seeing ANY police (and this is in a city of over 150,000 people). And when I do see them, they're usually riding in pairs on bicycles. Furthermore, they're polite. They treat you like a human being instead of a criminal. What the fuck is wrong with police in america? They have their own culture and see themselves as super-citizens, just like the Nazis did. They need to be put in their place. They need to be told that Americans run this country, not the ones wearing a badge, which might as well be an armband. I'd rather take my chances with crime than have to put up with today's blue regime. FUCK THE POLICE

Feel free to stay in Holland then.

nazi....nazi....blah......blah....blah......

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:01:58 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all he was in the front yard which is public, not private.
Second of coarse an officer should stop and speak with someone who appears under age who is smoking.
Third, if the officer said he was being detained and he tried to walk away, of coarse he will be arrested.
Fourth, if the brother interferred while the brother was being arrested he deserved to be arrested also.
Fifth, taking someone to the ground and handcuffing them is not out of line when they are pulling away from you and have shown they are not going to follow your lawful orders.

Since when is my front yard public?

Because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on it.

Lower expectation of privacy, plain view from the public roadway, but it's still private property. Albeit, usually regulated what you can do with it by the municipal authorities.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:02:11 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
The court found the charges BASELESS....

The 7th's docket is so backed up with felony cases that it takes many people a year or more to go to trial. Even if the offense was valid and worthy of prosecution, Judge Hardy did the tax payers a favor by dismissing the case & focusing her efforts on child abusers, murderers, drug dealers, thieves, forgerers, etc.

Good for Cheril Hardy, good for tax payers, and good for Fort Worth.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:03:03 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to the story. There was probably a good reason the officer wanted to talk to the "kid" (he was 21). And used such a B.S. reason for his stop. The house was probably a crack house, the kid probably ditched his rock in the house when the cop told him to stop the first time then after ditching the contraband came back out. All the anti-gov cop haters believe this could happen to them. Loosen the tin-foil.

There is always more to the story.

Well since there were 7 officers there all over the place and they didn't find anything, I think you're making a huge jump there. More likely he was stopped because he wasn't white.

Did they do a complete search of the house? Probably not.

Did the "kid" flush whatever contraband he had? Probably so.

Don't be so naive.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:05:16 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If the officer would have know the fucking law, he would know no investigation was required. Simple fishing expedition.

The officer saw a possible violation and was entitled to ascertain whether the activity was legal. What matters is what the officer knew at the time and not what he knew afterwards.

And yes it probably was a fishing expedition. He was applying the law in ways you probably are unable to comprehend.

Nice personal attack.
Maybe you missed this part

But then there is a very clear exception to that ordinance: "It is an exception to this section that the minor possessed, purchased, consumed or received the cigarette or tobacco product in the presence of the minor's parent, guardian or spouse."

So, had James actually been an underage smoker, the fact that he was at his parents' home with his father present meant no law was broken.

Which means as soon as the father was identified, the investigation was over, but the cop was too stupid to realize that.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:05:37 PM EDT

[#41]

It was a B.S. nit-picky stop.

From the article it sounds like the "kid" was a jerk anyway.

Aside from all the "arrested for underage smoking". The problem is that you have a single cop out there, with three full grown adults starting to act hostile.

While I'm sure it could have been a bit more tactful I can see the cop's point of view (except for actually stopping and going after the guy).

And in nearly every state, you have to:
- comply with a law officer's commands
- identify yourself

In this case, the cop also had a legal right to enter onto private property. He saw an "alledged" crime happening in progress.

It's a BS stop, got way screwed up, and the guy got scared since the kid's dad was "coming after him".

Basically, it's what happens when two (in this case three) assholes meet.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:05:52 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Do not try to inject any sense into it.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:06:02 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Since we don't know that, we move to the next landmark which is the dad, who verified his age and oh by the way since the dad was there even if he was underage his smoking wasn't illegal, offered to get the birth certificate. This apparently wasn't good enough.

Read the original post.

It would have been had the father not told the cop off and advise his adult son to go in the house. The "kid" was being detained.

Had dad said "hang on officer I'll get some ID for him" I'm willing to bet the officer would have said have a nice night and left it at that.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:06:59 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

I'm sure there is a whole lot more to the story. There was probably a good reason the officer wanted to talk to the "kid" (he was 21). And used such a B.S. reason for his stop. The house was probably a crack house, the kid probably ditched his rock in the house when the cop told him to stop the first time then after ditching the contraband came back out. All the anti-gov cop haters believe this could happen to them. Loosen the tin-foil.

There is always more to the story.

Well since there were 7 officers there all over the place and they didn't find anything, I think you're making a huge jump there. More likely he was stopped because he wasn't white.

Did they do a complete search of the house? Probably not.

Did the "kid" flush whatever contraband he had? Probably so.

Don't be so naive.

You have no proof of any criminal misconduct. Yet you assume they're guilty of something. It's the attitude that everyone is guilty of something that is going to alienate the police from the general public.

Way to malign people with no proof, BTW.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:07:06 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Insane.

+1

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:08:00 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's amazing how much credit Bob Ray Sanders (lib, anti-gunner, Kerry suporter) is receiving from everyone here.

I give Sanders about as much credibility as I do for the 400lb ex-Navy SEAL gunshow guru.

This isn't a news report.

Even if the story is complete bullshit and written by some moonbat, it doesn't excuse the fact that individuals on this board are okay with this scenario.

My post wasn't an attempt to exonerate people who advocate public harrassment (I missed those posts I guess). My point was that there is a HIGH likelihood the police were very polite, understanding, and probably attempted to be defusing. The sons & father were most likely being antagonistic.

Had this piece been written by a different Star-Telegram editorialist, I'd believe it. But Sanders is a dirtbag.

NO way! That would be impossible. The media is always to be beleived when it is showing police in a bad light.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:08:32 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
More likely he was stopped because he wasn't white.

Out of the ten FTW officers I know, 4 of them are white. I've attended at least 5 graduation ceremonies. The number of Hispanic and Black graduates are quite significant.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:08:50 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Since we don't know that, we move to the next landmark which is the dad, who verified his age and oh by the way since the dad was there even if he was underage his smoking wasn't illegal, offered to get the birth certificate. This apparently wasn't good enough.

Read the original post.

It would have been had the father not told the cop off and advise his adult son to go in the house. The "kid" was being detained.

Had dad said "hang on officer I'll get some ID for him" I'm willing to bet the officer would have said have a nice night and left it at that.

Doesn't matter, there is no crime once the father is IDed. The investigation stops. The kid didn't jump when the cop commanded it and the cop got pissed. It's the respect my authority attitude at it's very worst.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:10:15 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
this is the problem. Maybe everyone should be taught in School "cop law" so they really know whats what and what your rights are. Most people here would "think" that you're front lawn or the seat of your car is "private property" but evidently to the average JBT it is'nt and the law that was made by sleazy pols probably backs up his opinion. Then maybe BS like this would'nt happen. Then also note that this is another example of BS "vice" laws like drugs and hookers and what not that is only "wrong" because some people "think" it's wrong and not because it really is a crime. MAybe people would be less likely to hate cops and authority if the state did'nt feel like it had to have it's finger straight up your ass 24 hours a day.

Maybe we should send you to common sense school then. The officer had the right to detain the "kid". End of story. What if the police let everyone just walk away? It was a minor offense, most likely a pretex stop, but still possibly an offense. The officer can detain him and investigate it. If an officer can see a possible offense on private property he can investigate. It is called plain view and is an exception to the search warrant requiremants of the 4th amendment.

I won't debate the merits of "Drugs and Hookers" on this thread. Feel free to start another.

If you want underage smokers, drugs and hookers run for office and write some legislation. It's the beauty of the american system.

Posted: 1/13/2006 3:10:29 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
More likely he was stopped because he wasn't white.

Out of the ten FTW officers I know, 4 of them are white. I've attended at least 5 graduation ceremonies. The number of Hispanic and Black graduates are quite significant.

Good to know. And that, of course, means there isn't any possibility of being stopped just because someone is a minority.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Yet another cop goes overboard... (Page 2 of 6)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us