User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 11:36:43 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My wife said the guy at our VIC called his supervisor over to see if he could give me one. 
His boss said no  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OHHH Shit wait!!!! I take it back I have been through one and have seen it apparently, kinda, sorta.. When I was stationed at Ft Drum we went up to the thousand islands area to a bar to party. Some old rich fucker off his yacht at Capt Morgans tried to pick up on my wife, he thought we were just dating so smooth dude decides to buy me shoots of tequila to get me wasted. about $150 bucks into it my wife let's him know that we are married and he is giving me booze for nothing. Dude leaves pissed and I switch to Goldschlager. I don't drive home the wife does and I guess there was a sobriety check point. My wife said I was very verbose. I tried to get the cops to give me a breathalyser test to see how high I could score  . Good times. I forgot about that    that is hilarious!My wife said the guy at our VIC called his supervisor over to see if he could give me one.
His boss said no That sucks! When I first started a long time ago and got SFST certified and had access to a PBT, I would go into bars to only test my new skills. Never had a problem getting guys to help me. They all wanted bragging rights of having the highest score
(And yes, they all had DD's) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 11:48:26 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 11:58:59 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:04:19 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He really doesn't care where you are going. Someone who is evasive or stumbles for an answer gets closer attention. People who are not up to something have no trouble giving that answer. Someone who isn't honest usually has a real problem articulating what they are doing and where they are headed. The officer is also listening for any slurring when speaking and a lot of other things. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know... the "where ya headed" question has never really bothered me. I know what it is. I know the LE knows what it is. My answer is usually somewhere along the lines of "to <next town down the highway>." At that point, i figure Mr. LE knows that I know what the question is. We've done our dance. And the stop is over. Generally that's been my experience. Save one, which i've posted about before. /shrug. He really doesn't care where you are going. Someone who is evasive or stumbles for an answer gets closer attention. People who are not up to something have no trouble giving that answer. Someone who isn't honest usually has a real problem articulating what they are doing and where they are headed. The officer is also listening for any slurring when speaking and a lot of other things. That's right, he is just fishing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:06:08 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Started watching the first vid. It is generally not gonna be the best day when you start off being a dick to the police. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.) Quoted:
Quoted:
Ever hear of internal affairs??? 
Majority of cops terminated from my agency in last year were as a direct result of IA investigating citizen complaints. A GOOD cop hates a BAD cop worse than any citizen ever will. I've heard this a lot. Never seen any actual evidence of it though. Just circle the wagons. Hey man it could be any of us next time! There are no good cops at roadblocks.
Started watching the first vid. It is generally not gonna be the best day when you start off being a dick to the police. Maybe if the police were not being dicks in the first place... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:09:19 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm extremely fortunate I haven't been put in that position. Bottom line, I'm not going to loose my job because of something someone else did. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wrong. I have personally been involved with seeing an officer fired for his actions and attempts for being dishonest. If asked to testify in court I would. If asked to do a report I would. That wasn't needed though. He was fired in less than a week for his stupidity. I'm extremely fortunate I haven't been put in that position. Bottom line, I'm not going to loose my job because of something someone else did. Have you ever prepared yourself mentally to 'step in' to prevent a fellow officer from violating a citizen's civil rights? We (people, I'm not an Officer) tell ourselves to war game any other potentially ambiguous situation, and this seems like an easy one to accidentally back the wrong horse on. How would stepping in be viewed? I understand it's a great deal easier to say "This guy is a bad cop" after he's waist deep in shit of his own making, but that didn't stop Joe Q. from getting reemed either. If you step in before the situation escalates, are you now a buddy fucker? There's the tandem goal of not screwing over the contact (and potentially your departments operating budget), and also making sure officer dipshit doesn't remain in employ to do it again. How would you balance it? I honestly think departments should be given training on how to specifically handle this. Are you? I know civil rights is a loaded term, but it's the best approximation of the direction of my question, since I don't think the question even needs to be asked about blatant criminal action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:15:26 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. Previous threats to my life, limb, and property made by sworn LEOs. 2. Department policy and practice of contriving suspicion of intoxication. 3. Assault/battery of me by sworn LEOs. 4. Previous theft of property (notebook, camera) from my vehicle by sworn LEOs. 5. Possible Insurance claims (texters, road ragers, etc.). No. I will never intentionally go to a roadblock without sniper support, or perhaps an armored car. Fortunately I don't have to worry about running into one near my home because the local police stopped operating roadblocks because of me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can I ask the reasoning for wiring up multiple cameras in your vehicle? 1. Previous threats to my life, limb, and property made by sworn LEOs. 2. Department policy and practice of contriving suspicion of intoxication. 3. Assault/battery of me by sworn LEOs. 4. Previous theft of property (notebook, camera) from my vehicle by sworn LEOs. 5. Possible Insurance claims (texters, road ragers, etc.). Is the intent to go to every checkpoint you hear about and capture it on video? No. I will never intentionally go to a roadblock without sniper support, or perhaps an armored car. Fortunately I don't have to worry about running into one near my home because the local police stopped operating roadblocks because of me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:21:23 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
California requires checkpoints to be advertised. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. California requires checkpoints to be advertised. Same here in TN. Do you know where they do it? In the newspaper.  Anyone here still get a daily paper? It's probably on the Tennessean's website but why should I contribute hits to that Leftist rag or any other source just to avoid interacting mit (insert Godwin's Law here.) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:24:10 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? Don't be a retard. You are inferring too much. Cops are out to find a law someone is breaking and prosecute them for it. It's literally the definition of their job. It doesn't matter to most cops if it is actually right to do that or not (some think prosecuting anyone for ANY law whether they actually broke it or not is actually OK, but thankfully they are the minority). Newsflash, laws aen't the end all be all moral authority AT ALL. Fuck, the SCOTUS ruled that tomatoes are vegetables, just because DUI stops are legal doesn't make them not a violation of rights. Many cops have no compunction about infringing on rights to do their job of searching for violations of laws (the majority of cops in many areas are like this, though thankfully, not all departments are created equally and some actually know how not to be raging douche bag criminals and actually have respect for their fellow man). And yes, taking 15 minutes of someones time in a BS investigation/fishing expedition (because that's what roadblocks are) is hurting people even if you don't cite or arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:26:54 PM EST
[#10]
SNIP
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh I am aware there are people who refuse to cooperate and so forth. I have a supervisor who worked as a supervisor in a very large city as a LEO. I hear the stories and read the articles. What I also know is that those stories do not represent all LEOs and all departments. True. We seem to have a good force in our city. Next town 10 miles away, not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:28:16 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Douches can be found everywhere, regardless of what side of the blue line they stand on. And this thread is bringing them out in force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:31:00 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same here in TN. Do you know where they do it? In the newspaper. Anyone here still get a daily paper? It's probably on the Tennessean's website but why should I contribute hits to that Leftist rag or any other source just to avoid interacting mit (insert Godwin's Law here.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: "I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. California requires checkpoints to be advertised. Same here in TN. Do you know where they do it? In the newspaper. Anyone here still get a daily paper? It's probably on the Tennessean's website but why should I contribute hits to that Leftist rag or any other source just to avoid interacting mit (insert Godwin's Law here.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:40:49 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't be a retard. You are inferring too much. Cops are out to find a law someone is breaking and prosecute them for it. It's literally the definition of their job. It doesn't matter to most cops if it is actually right to do that or not (some think prosecuting anyone for ANY law whether they actually broke it or not is actually OK, but thankfully they are the minority). Newsflash, laws aen't the end all be all moral authority AT ALL. Fuck, the SCOTUS ruled that tomatoes are vegetables, just because DUI stops are legal doesn't make them not a violation of rights. Many cops have no compunction about infringing on rights to do their job of searching for violations of laws (the majority of cops in many areas are like this, though thankfully, not all departments are created equally and some actually know how not to be raging douche bag criminals and actually have respect for their fellow man). And yes, taking 15 minutes of someones time in a BS investigation/fishing expedition (because that's what roadblocks are) is hurting people even if you don't cite or arrest. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? Don't be a retard. You are inferring too much. Cops are out to find a law someone is breaking and prosecute them for it. It's literally the definition of their job. It doesn't matter to most cops if it is actually right to do that or not (some think prosecuting anyone for ANY law whether they actually broke it or not is actually OK, but thankfully they are the minority). Newsflash, laws aen't the end all be all moral authority AT ALL. Fuck, the SCOTUS ruled that tomatoes are vegetables, just because DUI stops are legal doesn't make them not a violation of rights. Many cops have no compunction about infringing on rights to do their job of searching for violations of laws (the majority of cops in many areas are like this, though thankfully, not all departments are created equally and some actually know how not to be raging douche bag criminals and actually have respect for their fellow man). And yes, taking 15 minutes of someones time in a BS investigation/fishing expedition (because that's what roadblocks are) is hurting people even if you don't cite or arrest. I ask a question to someone else, and you choose to answer the question by starting off with name calling? ya I'm going to continue to read your reply LOL
Kinda like arguing with a liberal Obama supporter. When your called a racist you know you've won. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:41:26 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Questions to any Officers who will answer them: Have you ever prepared yourself mentally to 'step in' to prevent a fellow officer from violating a citizen's civil rights? We (people, I'm not an Officer) tell ourselves to war game any other potentially ambiguous situation, and this seems like an easy one to accidentally back the wrong horse on. How would stepping in be viewed? I understand it's a great deal easier to say "This guy is a bad cop" after he's waist deep in shit of his own making, but that didn't stop Joe Q. from getting reemed either. If you step in before the situation escalates, are you now a buddy fucker? There's the tandem goal of not screwing over the contact (and potentially your departments operating budget), and also making sure officer dipshit doesn't remain in employ to do it again. How would you balance it? I honestly think departments should be given training on how to specifically handle this. Are you? I know civil rights is a loaded term, but it's the best approximation of the direction of my question, since I don't think the question even needs to be asked about blatant criminal action. I will answer to my own personal experience and opinions that very well may differ from any other persons here. I will step in if I see something done that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I am lucky to only have experience with one incident and that person is no longer a LEO and will have a very hard time getting another LEO job if ever. I would prefer someone to step in if I were over the line or about to cross it. I would rather be stopped from making a dumb decision or part way through one than being let go to make it worse. I am fully aware that I should be held responsible for my actions if those actions are outside of Federal, State and Local laws, and Department Policy. I was raised to take my consequences for my actions. If I get fired I get fired. There are other jobs out there. I would not expect to be rehired elsewhere nor do I know if I would even apply elsewhere for LE. In my situation of the guy who got fired. Sure it hurt the budget but the people we interact with deserved to deal with fair honest people and not this guy. The Chief and others involved in the decision, investigation, and interviews felt the same way. The only training I got on this was in the academy where they said you don't have to follow an order or condone somebody doing something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I know where my ethics are, I know my morals, and I took hours upon hours of law classes/training in school, academy, and on the department level every year. I still have a ton to learn about laws. I can say some things for absolute certain. I will not take a bribe. I will not lie about what I saw or didn't see. I will not abuse people. I will quit my job if I am asked to confiscate firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:54:39 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Questions to any Officers who will answer them: Have you ever prepared yourself mentally to 'step in' to prevent a fellow officer from violating a citizen's civil rights? We (people, I'm not an Officer) tell ourselves to war game any other potentially ambiguous situation, and this seems like an easy one to accidentally back the wrong horse on. Thankfully in 12 years this has never come up on any serious level. I have stopped officers who were in a suspects face screaming at them after they ran and were caught before the situation escalted to a point a possible civil rights violation occured. I'm "that guy" after I have to forcefully make an arrest and they are secured, by asking, "Are you ok? Do you need an ambulance". I am teased at times at how strong my belief is in, innocent until proven guilty. So yes, I like to think I'm mentally prepared to step in and stop civil rights violations How would stepping in be viewed? I understand it's a great deal easier to say "This guy is a bad cop" after he's waist deep in shit of his own making, but that didn't stop Joe Q. from getting reemed either. If you step in before the situation escalates, are you now a buddy fucker? I'm NOT going to risk loosing my job for no one... Supervisor, fellow officer, citizen, bad guy.. NO ONE.. So I don't care how I would be viewed by co-workers. I like to think it would be relief if there are bad apples in the mix that they know 100% were I stand and would avoid me like the plague There's the tandem goal of not screwing over the contact (and potentially your departments operating budget), and also making sure officer dipshit doesn't remain in employ to do it again. How would you balance it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. I'll go ahead an answer, but if I'm off base re-ask or PM me. I don't care about the departments budget or how a case turns out. I am employed to enforce the law, and by enforcing it I go by the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. I honestly think departments should be given training on how to specifically handle this. Are you? I wouldn't be opposed to mandated training on this I know civil rights is a loaded term, but it's the best approximation of the direction of my question, since I don't think the question even needs to be asked about blatant criminal action. Keep in mind the answers in red, represent my own personal beliefs and opinons. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that are presented in the same fashion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 12:58:25 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. It's actually on the form.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In for the "you can film me but don't get in my way" butthurt. In before the "talk smack on the internet because that's all we ever will have the nuts to do" buthurt. Look out.. we got a badass here.... I haven't met a cop yet that would encourage a person to stand up for themselves and exercise their rights instead of fucking them over. Have you ever told anyone that they have the right to say no to a search? Yes. It's actually on the form. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:02:40 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Questions to any Officers who will answer them: Have you ever prepared yourself mentally to 'step in' to prevent a fellow officer from violating a citizen's civil rights? We (people, I'm not an Officer) tell ourselves to war game any other potentially ambiguous situation, and this seems like an easy one to accidentally back the wrong horse on. How would stepping in be viewed? I understand it's a great deal easier to say "This guy is a bad cop" after he's waist deep in shit of his own making, but that didn't stop Joe Q. from getting reemed either. If you step in before the situation escalates, are you now a buddy fucker? There's the tandem goal of not screwing over the contact (and potentially your departments operating budget), and also making sure officer dipshit doesn't remain in employ to do it again. How would you balance it? I honestly think departments should be given training on how to specifically handle this. Are you? I know civil rights is a loaded term, but it's the best approximation of the direction of my question, since I don't think the question even needs to be asked about blatant criminal action. yes if another officer is doing something that is not allowed I will correct them. there is no "mental training" needed. the premise of your question seems to be that the person who screws up is INTENDING to fuck someone over. I have never met an officer like that. correcting another officer when they are about to screw up is not "your a buddy fucker" its "OH SHIT! I forgot, thanx!" and then its generally just new cops who are still green. "he gave us the finger! let pull em over!"," yea no, toughen up Nancy" no civil rights are not a loaded term. MOST cops hold rights in the highest regard. most cops I know carry a pocket constitution with them on duty. so in short no, we do not get extra training on it because its not something that really needs any. this ZOMG POLICE STATE MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS!!! world pretty much only exists in the minds of folks like those at cop block. always laugh my ass off (on the inside  ) when I notice the kid in the car trying to hide his Iphone on a stop as he is "uploading to the cloud"...waiting for me to attack him
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:04:09 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about the old "Can I have your keys please sir" trick? Maybe I'm off base here.. But how does handing your keys over to an officer who asked or made a demand for them turn into giving consent to search the vehicle? I've asked for keys from a possible drunk driver on a DWI investigation, to ensure he wasn't going to drive off and kill someone. Because he/she gave me their keys didn't mean they were waiving their 4th amendment rights... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:08:34 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about the old "Can I have your keys please sir" trick? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In for the "you can film me but don't get in my way" butthurt. In before the "talk smack on the internet because that's all we ever will have the nuts to do" buthurt. Look out.. we got a badass here.... I haven't met a cop yet that would encourage a person to stand up for themselves and exercise their rights instead of fucking them over. Have you ever told anyone that they have the right to say no to a search? Yes. It's actually on the form. i don't know. Never used it so it must not be that common a "trick'. What in the heck would I want the keys for? Is this some secret "I wish to create Joinder with you" code? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:14:20 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryUmm OUCH |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:16:18 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I'm off base here.. But how does handing your keys over to an officer who asked or made a demand for them turn into giving consent to search the vehicle? I've asked for keys from a possible drunk driver on a DWI investigation, to ensure he wasn't going to drive off and kill someone. Because he/she gave me their keys didn't mean they were waiving their 4th amendment rights... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What about the old "Can I have your keys please sir" trick? Maybe I'm off base here.. But how does handing your keys over to an officer who asked or made a demand for them turn into giving consent to search the vehicle? I've asked for keys from a possible drunk driver on a DWI investigation, to ensure he wasn't going to drive off and kill someone. Because he/she gave me their keys didn't mean they were waiving their 4th amendment rights... I wouldn't think so either. But I also wouldn't give them up just knowing that it's an ambiguity that some jackass would try and exploit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:27:19 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That sucks! When I first started a long time ago and got SFST certified and had access to a PBT, I would go into bars to only test my new skills. Never had a problem getting guys to help me. They all wanted bragging rights of having the highest score
(And yes, they all had DD's) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OHHH Shit wait!!!! I take it back I have been through one and have seen it apparently, kinda, sorta.. When I was stationed at Ft Drum we went up to the thousand islands area to a bar to party. Some old rich fucker off his yacht at Capt Morgans tried to pick up on my wife, he thought we were just dating so smooth dude decides to buy me shoots of tequila to get me wasted. about $150 bucks into it my wife let's him know that we are married and he is giving me booze for nothing. Dude leaves pissed and I switch to Goldschlager. I don't drive home the wife does and I guess there was a sobriety check point. My wife said I was very verbose. I tried to get the cops to give me a breathalyser test to see how high I could score . Good times. I forgot about that that is hilarious!My wife said the guy at our VIC called his supervisor over to see if he could give me one.
His boss said no That sucks! When I first started a long time ago and got SFST certified and had access to a PBT, I would go into bars to only test my new skills. Never had a problem getting guys to help me. They all wanted bragging rights of having the highest score
(And yes, they all had DD's) awesome |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:28:59 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Previous threats to my life, limb, and property made by sworn LEOs. 2. Department policy and practice of contriving suspicion of intoxication. 3. Assault/battery of me by sworn LEOs. 4. Previous theft of property (notebook, camera) from my vehicle by sworn LEOs. 5. Possible Insurance claims (texters, road ragers, etc.). No. I will never intentionally go to a roadblock without sniper support, or perhaps an armored car. Fortunately I don't have to worry about running into one near my home because the local police stopped operating roadblocks because of me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can I ask the reasoning for wiring up multiple cameras in your vehicle? 1. Previous threats to my life, limb, and property made by sworn LEOs. 2. Department policy and practice of contriving suspicion of intoxication. 3. Assault/battery of me by sworn LEOs. 4. Previous theft of property (notebook, camera) from my vehicle by sworn LEOs. 5. Possible Insurance claims (texters, road ragers, etc.). Is the intent to go to every checkpoint you hear about and capture it on video? No. I will never intentionally go to a roadblock without sniper support, or perhaps an armored car. Fortunately I don't have to worry about running into one near my home because the local police stopped operating roadblocks because of me. Common denominator in 1-4 above would be? How often do you travel between Reno/Sparks and Syria? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:02:18 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of those cases were a result of other cops (who hate bad cops, after all) helping rid their practice of the bad cops. They were results of testimony by victims and surveillance footage. You say nobody hates bad cops like good cops, but in reality, other cops will be uncooperative in pursuing such cases, and will rally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ever hear of internal affairs???
Majority of cops terminated from my agency in last year were as a direct result of IA investigating citizen complaints. A GOOD cop hates a BAD cop worse than any citizen ever will. I've heard this a lot. Never seen any actual evidence of it though. Just circle the wagons. Hey man it could be any of us next time! You want evidence?? Okay Item #1 Item 2 Item 3 A simple google search is all that's needed for evidence. None of those cases were a result of other cops (who hate bad cops, after all) helping rid their practice of the bad cops. They were results of testimony by victims and surveillance footage. You say nobody hates bad cops like good cops, but in reality, other cops will be uncooperative in pursuing such cases, and will rally. The cops on here are their own worst enemy. Sometimes people really should learn to remain silent for their own good instead of digging themselves deeper into a hole. The attitudes and arrogance displayed here are sickening.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:04:31 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cops on here are their own worst enemy. Sometimes people really should learn to remain silent for their own good instead of digging themselves deeper into a hole. The attitudes and arrogance displayed here are sickening.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ever hear of internal affairs???
Majority of cops terminated from my agency in last year were as a direct result of IA investigating citizen complaints. A GOOD cop hates a BAD cop worse than any citizen ever will. I've heard this a lot. Never seen any actual evidence of it though. Just circle the wagons. Hey man it could be any of us next time! You want evidence?? Okay Item #1 Item 2 Item 3 A simple google search is all that's needed for evidence. None of those cases were a result of other cops (who hate bad cops, after all) helping rid their practice of the bad cops. They were results of testimony by victims and surveillance footage. You say nobody hates bad cops like good cops, but in reality, other cops will be uncooperative in pursuing such cases, and will rally. The cops on here are their own worst enemy. Sometimes people really should learn to remain silent for their own good instead of digging themselves deeper into a hole. The attitudes and arrogance displayed here are sickening.
Is that why we wonder why the public hates us? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:05:12 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryI think there are probably a lot of officers that realize the things they are asked to do are wrong. I think some absolutely hate it. It's the ones who enjoy it that are the problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:07:24 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cops on here are their own worst enemy. Sometimes people really should learn to remain silent for their own good instead of digging themselves deeper into a hole. The attitudes and arrogance displayed here are sickening.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ever hear of internal affairs???
Majority of cops terminated from my agency in last year were as a direct result of IA investigating citizen complaints. A GOOD cop hates a BAD cop worse than any citizen ever will. I've heard this a lot. Never seen any actual evidence of it though. Just circle the wagons. Hey man it could be any of us next time! You want evidence?? Okay Item #1 Item 2 Item 3 A simple google search is all that's needed for evidence. None of those cases were a result of other cops (who hate bad cops, after all) helping rid their practice of the bad cops. They were results of testimony by victims and surveillance footage. You say nobody hates bad cops like good cops, but in reality, other cops will be uncooperative in pursuing such cases, and will rally. The cops on here are their own worst enemy. Sometimes people really should learn to remain silent for their own good instead of digging themselves deeper into a hole. The attitudes and arrogance displayed here are sickening.
Care to explain? This gentleman was asking for examples of what I thought was officers getting terminated from civilian complaints after I've said several times if you have a compliant, contact the agency's IA and file a complaint. How am I showing an "attitude" or "arrogance". And please explain how I'm digging myself deeper Into a hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:08:14 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there are probably a lot of officers that realize the things they are asked to do are wrong. I think some absolutely hate it. It's the ones who enjoy it that are the problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there are probably a lot of officers that realize the things they are asked to do are wrong. I think some absolutely hate it. It's the ones who enjoy it that are the problem. I've never been asked to do anything legally or morally wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:12:49 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's right, he is just fishing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know... the "where ya headed" question has never really bothered me. I know what it is. I know the LE knows what it is. My answer is usually somewhere along the lines of "to <next town down the highway>." At that point, i figure Mr. LE knows that I know what the question is. We've done our dance. And the stop is over. Generally that's been my experience. Save one, which i've posted about before. /shrug. He really doesn't care where you are going. Someone who is evasive or stumbles for an answer gets closer attention. People who are not up to something have no trouble giving that answer. Someone who isn't honest usually has a real problem articulating what they are doing and where they are headed. The officer is also listening for any slurring when speaking and a lot of other things. That's right, he is just fishing. Just fishing? That's his frikkin job. He is paid to be suspicious- it's in the job description. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:18:28 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will answer to my own personal experience and opinions that very well may differ from any other persons here. I will step in if I see something done that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I am lucky to only have experience with one incident and that person is no longer a LEO and will have a very hard time getting another LEO job if ever. I would prefer someone to step in if I were over the line or about to cross it. I would rather be stopped from making a dumb decision or part way through one than being let go to make it worse. I am fully aware that I should be held responsible for my actions if those actions are outside of Federal, State and Local laws, and Department Policy. I was raised to take my consequences for my actions. If I get fired I get fired. There are other jobs out there. I would not expect to be rehired elsewhere nor do I know if I would even apply elsewhere for LE. In my situation of the guy who got fired. Sure it hurt the budget but the people we interact with deserved to deal with fair honest people and not this guy. The Chief and others involved in the decision, investigation, and interviews felt the same way. The only training I got on this was in the academy where they said you don't have to follow an order or condone somebody doing something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I know where my ethics are, I know my morals, and I took hours upon hours of law classes/training in school, academy, and on the department level every year. I still have a ton to learn about laws. I can say some things for absolute certain. I will not take a bribe. I will not lie about what I saw or didn't see. I will not abuse people. I will quit my job if I am asked to confiscate firearms. The other mods may think you're an asshole, but I think you seem like a pretty good dude. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:42:47 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just fishing? That's his frikkin job. He is paid to be suspicious- it's in the job description. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know... the "where ya headed" question has never really bothered me. I know what it is. I know the LE knows what it is. My answer is usually somewhere along the lines of "to <next town down the highway>." At that point, i figure Mr. LE knows that I know what the question is. We've done our dance. And the stop is over. Generally that's been my experience. Save one, which i've posted about before. /shrug. He really doesn't care where you are going. Someone who is evasive or stumbles for an answer gets closer attention. People who are not up to something have no trouble giving that answer. Someone who isn't honest usually has a real problem articulating what they are doing and where they are headed. The officer is also listening for any slurring when speaking and a lot of other things. That's right, he is just fishing. Just fishing? That's his frikkin job. He is paid to be suspicious- it's in the job description. I never said it wasn't. But why talk to them if they are just trying to find something to get you on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 2:59:33 PM EST
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:15:26 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said it wasn't. But why talk to them if they are just trying to find something to get you on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know... the "where ya headed" question has never really bothered me. I know what it is. I know the LE knows what it is. My answer is usually somewhere along the lines of "to <next town down the highway>." At that point, i figure Mr. LE knows that I know what the question is. We've done our dance. And the stop is over. Generally that's been my experience. Save one, which i've posted about before. /shrug. He really doesn't care where you are going. Someone who is evasive or stumbles for an answer gets closer attention. People who are not up to something have no trouble giving that answer. Someone who isn't honest usually has a real problem articulating what they are doing and where they are headed. The officer is also listening for any slurring when speaking and a lot of other things. That's right, he is just fishing. Just fishing? That's his frikkin job. He is paid to be suspicious- it's in the job description. I never said it wasn't. But why talk to them if they are just trying to find something to get you on? They aren't trying to find something to get you on. They are looking for criminals, and talking to you tells them that you are not up to anything so they don't need to waste your time or their time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:16:55 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will answer to my own personal experience and opinions that very well may differ from any other persons here. I will step in if I see something done that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I am lucky to only have experience with one incident and that person is no longer a LEO and will have a very hard time getting another LEO job if ever. I would prefer someone to step in if I were over the line or about to cross it. I would rather be stopped from making a dumb decision or part way through one than being let go to make it worse. I am fully aware that I should be held responsible for my actions if those actions are outside of Federal, State and Local laws, and Department Policy. I was raised to take my consequences for my actions. If I get fired I get fired. There are other jobs out there. I would not expect to be rehired elsewhere nor do I know if I would even apply elsewhere for LE. In my situation of the guy who got fired. Sure it hurt the budget but the people we interact with deserved to deal with fair honest people and not this guy. The Chief and others involved in the decision, investigation, and interviews felt the same way. The only training I got on this was in the academy where they said you don't have to follow an order or condone somebody doing something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I know where my ethics are, I know my morals, and I took hours upon hours of law classes/training in school, academy, and on the department level every year. I still have a ton to learn about laws. I can say some things for absolute certain. I will not take a bribe. I will not lie about what I saw or didn't see. I will not abuse people. I will quit my job if I am asked to confiscate firearms. I'm sorry you had to deal with that kind of situation first hand, but I'm glad that you did. I understand that you're driven by ethics, not praise. Even so, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:18:05 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The other mods may think you're an asshole, but I think you seem like a pretty good dude. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will answer to my own personal experience and opinions that very well may differ from any other persons here. I will step in if I see something done that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I am lucky to only have experience with one incident and that person is no longer a LEO and will have a very hard time getting another LEO job if ever. I would prefer someone to step in if I were over the line or about to cross it. I would rather be stopped from making a dumb decision or part way through one than being let go to make it worse. I am fully aware that I should be held responsible for my actions if those actions are outside of Federal, State and Local laws, and Department Policy. I was raised to take my consequences for my actions. If I get fired I get fired. There are other jobs out there. I would not expect to be rehired elsewhere nor do I know if I would even apply elsewhere for LE. In my situation of the guy who got fired. Sure it hurt the budget but the people we interact with deserved to deal with fair honest people and not this guy. The Chief and others involved in the decision, investigation, and interviews felt the same way. The only training I got on this was in the academy where they said you don't have to follow an order or condone somebody doing something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I know where my ethics are, I know my morals, and I took hours upon hours of law classes/training in school, academy, and on the department level every year. I still have a ton to learn about laws. I can say some things for absolute certain. I will not take a bribe. I will not lie about what I saw or didn't see. I will not abuse people. I will quit my job if I am asked to confiscate firearms. The other mods may think you're an asshole, but I think you seem like a pretty good dude.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:19:38 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry you had to deal with that kind of situation first hand, but I'm glad that you did. I understand that you're driven by ethics, not praise. Even so, thank you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will answer to my own personal experience and opinions that very well may differ from any other persons here. I will step in if I see something done that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I am lucky to only have experience with one incident and that person is no longer a LEO and will have a very hard time getting another LEO job if ever. I would prefer someone to step in if I were over the line or about to cross it. I would rather be stopped from making a dumb decision or part way through one than being let go to make it worse. I am fully aware that I should be held responsible for my actions if those actions are outside of Federal, State and Local laws, and Department Policy. I was raised to take my consequences for my actions. If I get fired I get fired. There are other jobs out there. I would not expect to be rehired elsewhere nor do I know if I would even apply elsewhere for LE. In my situation of the guy who got fired. Sure it hurt the budget but the people we interact with deserved to deal with fair honest people and not this guy. The Chief and others involved in the decision, investigation, and interviews felt the same way. The only training I got on this was in the academy where they said you don't have to follow an order or condone somebody doing something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I know where my ethics are, I know my morals, and I took hours upon hours of law classes/training in school, academy, and on the department level every year. I still have a ton to learn about laws. I can say some things for absolute certain. I will not take a bribe. I will not lie about what I saw or didn't see. I will not abuse people. I will quit my job if I am asked to confiscate firearms. I'm sorry you had to deal with that kind of situation first hand, but I'm glad that you did. I understand that you're driven by ethics, not praise. Even so, thank you. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:30:59 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:34:46 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Keep in mind the answers in red, represent my own personal beliefs and opinons. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that are presented in the same fashion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Questions to any Officers who will answer them: Have you ever prepared yourself mentally to 'step in' to prevent a fellow officer from violating a citizen's civil rights? We (people, I'm not an Officer) tell ourselves to war game any other potentially ambiguous situation, and this seems like an easy one to accidentally back the wrong horse on. Thankfully in 12 years this has never come up on any serious level. I have stopped officers who were in a suspects face screaming at them after they ran and were caught before the situation escalted to a point a possible civil rights violation occured. I'm "that guy" after I have to forcefully make an arrest and they are secured, by asking, "Are you ok? Do you need an ambulance". I am teased at times at how strong my belief is in, innocent until proven guilty. So yes, I like to think I'm mentally prepared to step in and stop civil rights violations How would stepping in be viewed? I understand it's a great deal easier to say "This guy is a bad cop" after he's waist deep in shit of his own making, but that didn't stop Joe Q. from getting reemed either. If you step in before the situation escalates, are you now a buddy fucker? I'm NOT going to risk loosing my job for no one... Supervisor, fellow officer, citizen, bad guy.. NO ONE.. So I don't care how I would be viewed by co-workers. I like to think it would be relief if there are bad apples in the mix that they know 100% were I stand and would avoid me like the plague There's the tandem goal of not screwing over the contact (and potentially your departments operating budget), and also making sure officer dipshit doesn't remain in employ to do it again. How would you balance it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. I'll go ahead an answer, but if I'm off base re-ask or PM me. I don't care about the departments budget or how a case turns out. I am employed to enforce the law, and by enforcing it I go by the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. I honestly think departments should be given training on how to specifically handle this. Are you? I wouldn't be opposed to mandated training on this I know civil rights is a loaded term, but it's the best approximation of the direction of my question, since I don't think the question even needs to be asked about blatant criminal action. Keep in mind the answers in red, represent my own personal beliefs and opinons. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that are presented in the same fashion. That question was not in the best syntax, and I probably should have joined it with one of the other questions. However you answered the intent of my questioning. Which was really how you intend you conduct yourself if you're caught in a situation where the immediate answer isn't clear, or where there may be some degree of conflict in the different aspects of your duties. Thanks for your answer. I think the discussion is better for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:44:38 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will answer to my own personal experience and opinions that very well may differ from any other persons here. I will step in if I see something done that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I am lucky to only have experience with one incident and that person is no longer a LEO and will have a very hard time getting another LEO job if ever. I would prefer someone to step in if I were over the line or about to cross it. I would rather be stopped from making a dumb decision or part way through one than being let go to make it worse. I am fully aware that I should be held responsible for my actions if those actions are outside of Federal, State and Local laws, and Department Policy. I was raised to take my consequences for my actions. If I get fired I get fired. There are other jobs out there. I would not expect to be rehired elsewhere nor do I know if I would even apply elsewhere for LE. In my situation of the guy who got fired. Sure it hurt the budget but the people we interact with deserved to deal with fair honest people and not this guy. The Chief and others involved in the decision, investigation, and interviews felt the same way. The only training I got on this was in the academy where they said you don't have to follow an order or condone somebody doing something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical. I know where my ethics are, I know my morals, and I took hours upon hours of law classes/training in school, academy, and on the department level every year. I still have a ton to learn about laws. I can say some things for absolute certain. I will not take a bribe. I will not lie about what I saw or didn't see. I will not abuse people. I will quit my job if I am asked to confiscate firearms. I'm sorry you had to deal with that kind of situation first hand, but I'm glad that you did. I understand that you're driven by ethics, not praise. Even so, thank you. Thanks. Wisconsin!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:51:03 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yes if another officer is doing something that is not allowed I will correct them. there is no "mental training" needed. the premise of your question seems to be that the person who screws up is INTENDING to fuck someone over. I have never met an officer like that. correcting another officer when they are about to screw up is not "your a buddy fucker" its "OH SHIT! I forgot, thanx!" and then its generally just new cops who are still green. "he gave us the finger! let pull em over!"," yea no, toughen up Nancy" no civil rights are not a loaded term. MOST cops hold rights in the highest regard. most cops I know carry a pocket constitution with them on duty. so in short no, we do not get extra training on it because its not something that really needs any. this ZOMG POLICE STATE MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS!!! world pretty much only exists in the minds of folks like those at cop block. always laugh my ass off (on the inside ) when I notice the kid in the car trying to hide his Iphone on a stop as he is "uploading to the cloud"...waiting for me to attack himThat makes sense, that mostly we have situations where lack of experience or wisdom can be restrained with a little of either. For these cases, there should probably be a more proactive focus for safeguarding civil rights, than on the spot peer correction, though. Not that peer correction should stop; it's the most effective mode of training any new guy. Simply because not all departments may benefit from an ethical and responsible culture. The flip side is that I'd just as soon never see another video like Dinkhelller's. Over instruction and over correction causing paralysis. Not an enviable job. It's like the barber's razor, it must be sharp and close to function, but no chafing allowed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 3:59:38 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? As far as none of them being positive, I can see your point and not saying it is the norm, but would these be negative? *Stop a driver at night for no tail lights, driver is cooperative and wasn't aware that the tail lights were out and is advised of the faulty equipment and let go? Negative outcome? *Stop driver for failing to maintain lane and stopping in the middle of an intersection, driver is drunk and is ultimately arrested for DUI. Because he got arrested, before he could possibly hurt someone else or get in even more serious legal problems, this is a negative outcome? You approach a DUI check point and as the officer makes contact with you, you roll down your window and he asks for your drivers license and registration. You provide both and he inspects them and gives them back to you and says "thank you, have a safe night" and your back on your way. This is a negative outcome? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:00:43 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's me in the linked videos in my post above, enjoying my fourth amendment rights, almost dying for it, and going to jail for it. That's me again later, enjoying my fifth amendment rights and getting my fourth amendment rights shit upon because of it. Got any video of you enjoying your rights in the face of people who hate your rights and hate that you enjoy them? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: In for the "you can film me but don't get in my way" butthurt. In before the "talk smack on the internet because that's all we ever will have the nuts to do" buthurt. That's me in the linked videos in my post above, enjoying my fourth amendment rights, almost dying for it, and going to jail for it. That's me again later, enjoying my fifth amendment rights and getting my fourth amendment rights shit upon because of it. Got any video of you enjoying your rights in the face of people who hate your rights and hate that you enjoy them? Good for you, you are one ballsy son of a gun and a good American!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:09:08 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As far as none of them being positive, I can see your point and not saying it is the norm, but would these be negative? *Stop a driver at night for no tail lights, driver is cooperative and wasn't aware that the tail lights were out and is advised of the faulty equipment and let go? Negative outcome? *Stop driver for failing to maintain lane and stopping in the middle of an intersection, driver is drunk and is ultimately arrested for DUI. Because he got arrested, before he could possibly hurt someone else or get in even more serious legal problems, this is a negative outcome? You approach a DUI check point and as the officer makes contact with you, you roll down your window and he asks for your drivers license and registration. You provide both and he inspects them and gives them back to you and says "thank you, have a safe night" and your back on your way. This is a negative outcome? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? As far as none of them being positive, I can see your point and not saying it is the norm, but would these be negative? *Stop a driver at night for no tail lights, driver is cooperative and wasn't aware that the tail lights were out and is advised of the faulty equipment and let go? Negative outcome? *Stop driver for failing to maintain lane and stopping in the middle of an intersection, driver is drunk and is ultimately arrested for DUI. Because he got arrested, before he could possibly hurt someone else or get in even more serious legal problems, this is a negative outcome? You approach a DUI check point and as the officer makes contact with you, you roll down your window and he asks for your drivers license and registration. You provide both and he inspects them and gives them back to you and says "thank you, have a safe night" and your back on your way. This is a negative outcome? IMHO Yes. My state does not allow checkpoints. They are illegal as there is no RS or PC. I agree with that mentality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:09:26 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As far as none of them being positive, I can see your point and not saying it is the norm, but would these be negative? *Stop a driver at night for no tail lights, driver is cooperative and wasn't aware that the tail lights were out and is advised of the faulty equipment and let go? Negative outcome? *Stop driver for failing to maintain lane and stopping in the middle of an intersection, driver is drunk and is ultimately arrested for DUI. Because he got arrested, before he could possibly hurt someone else or get in even more serious legal problems, this is a negative outcome? You approach a DUI check point and as the officer makes contact with you, you roll down your window and he asks for your drivers license and registration. You provide both and he inspects them and gives them back to you and says "thank you, have a safe night" and your back on your way. This is a negative outcome? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? As far as none of them being positive, I can see your point and not saying it is the norm, but would these be negative? *Stop a driver at night for no tail lights, driver is cooperative and wasn't aware that the tail lights were out and is advised of the faulty equipment and let go? Negative outcome? *Stop driver for failing to maintain lane and stopping in the middle of an intersection, driver is drunk and is ultimately arrested for DUI. Because he got arrested, before he could possibly hurt someone else or get in even more serious legal problems, this is a negative outcome? You approach a DUI check point and as the officer makes contact with you, you roll down your window and he asks for your drivers license and registration. You provide both and he inspects them and gives them back to you and says "thank you, have a safe night" and your back on your way. This is a negative outcome? All of these are considered to be a waste of time and an intrusion into their lives. It's not real crime, victimless crime, blah, blah, blah. I'm against the checkpoints though. Michigan does not allow them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:18:25 PM EST
[#45]
Regarding my above post about checkpoints, I agree they are intrusive but they are allowable in my state. That being said, the last time my agency worked one was 1995 IIRC, and with a change at the top we haven't done them since. In my area the only ones I'm aware of still doing them is the Highway Patrol, and technically the orders to conduct them come from the state level, not local agencies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:19:44 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guys foaming at the mouth have never seen one. Don't know what one would look like in the first place and have not a fucking clue about the supreme court decisions on the matter. It's all OMG!!! POLICE STATE!!! bullshit. Just "look at me" drama. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Roadblocks is one of those things the nutter types seem to trigger on. Even in this state, where they are illegal under state law, you'll get guys foaming at the mouth about them. Just an emotional Pavlovian response, nothing more. So even if they are illegal, it's ok for the cops to run them and not ok for "citizens" to tell them they are illegal? With that logic, it was also ok for the cop at the range to tell me that if I did not have a "Class 3 license" (his words) and had a suppressor, he would arrest me because it is otherwise illegal to own one? Even though I tried to explain to him that what he said was incorrect? The guys foaming at the mouth have never seen one. Don't know what one would look like in the first place and have not a fucking clue about the supreme court decisions on the matter. It's all OMG!!! POLICE STATE!!! bullshit. Just "look at me" drama. You really have no idea what you are talking about...I know life threw you a curve ball and you couldn't become a cop but damn,you really sound like you are trolling for cop cock in every single post you make. Let me save you the time,I don't think any ArfCops are into intimate encounters with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:21:44 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? A warning for violating the law isn't positive? Do you care to explain? Or are you arguing that simply being caught committing a crime is instant irreversible trauma? Out of the numerous people I have let go for all categories of crime, I am sure they would say a warning was a positive result of the stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:26:05 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really have no idea what you are talking about...I know life threw you a curve ball and you couldn't become a cop but damn,you really sound like you are trolling for cop cock in every single post you make. Let me save you the time,I don't think any ArfCops are into intimate encounters with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Roadblocks is one of those things the nutter types seem to trigger on. Even in this state, where they are illegal under state law, you'll get guys foaming at the mouth about them. Just an emotional Pavlovian response, nothing more. So even if they are illegal, it's ok for the cops to run them and not ok for "citizens" to tell them they are illegal? With that logic, it was also ok for the cop at the range to tell me that if I did not have a "Class 3 license" (his words) and had a suppressor, he would arrest me because it is otherwise illegal to own one? Even though I tried to explain to him that what he said was incorrect? The guys foaming at the mouth have never seen one. Don't know what one would look like in the first place and have not a fucking clue about the supreme court decisions on the matter. It's all OMG!!! POLICE STATE!!! bullshit. Just "look at me" drama. You really have no idea what you are talking about...I know life threw you a curve ball and you couldn't become a cop but damn,you really sound like you are trolling for cop cock in every single post you make. Let me save you the time,I don't think any ArfCops are into intimate encounters with you. Hey, hey, hey, there! Don't go speaking for all of us now!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:38:53 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey, hey, hey, there! Don't go speaking for all of us now! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Roadblocks is one of those things the nutter types seem to trigger on. Even in this state, where they are illegal under state law, you'll get guys foaming at the mouth about them. Just an emotional Pavlovian response, nothing more. So even if they are illegal, it's ok for the cops to run them and not ok for "citizens" to tell them they are illegal? With that logic, it was also ok for the cop at the range to tell me that if I did not have a "Class 3 license" (his words) and had a suppressor, he would arrest me because it is otherwise illegal to own one? Even though I tried to explain to him that what he said was incorrect? The guys foaming at the mouth have never seen one. Don't know what one would look like in the first place and have not a fucking clue about the supreme court decisions on the matter. It's all OMG!!! POLICE STATE!!! bullshit. Just "look at me" drama. You really have no idea what you are talking about...I know life threw you a curve ball and you couldn't become a cop but damn,you really sound like you are trolling for cop cock in every single post you make. Let me save you the time,I don't think any ArfCops are into intimate encounters with you. Hey, hey, hey, there! Don't go speaking for all of us now! Calm down, I don't think he herds sheep. I know how you boys are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 4:39:50 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"I don't travel on highways to communicate with goons out to do me harm, I travel to get from point A to point B. (Or in the case of motorcycling, to enjoy the ride.)" And you were harmed how? In my state, any "road block" or "check point" (which is actually the correct term in my state as a road block is used to deny access), has to be advertised to the public, not sure about if this applies in your state. In your travels have you considered choosing a different route if ones available and just not being stopped at the road block? I mean you can stop and prepare your camera and narrative with what your going to do. He didn't say that he was harmed. He said the intent of the officers is to put people in worse situations than they were before being stopped. The best you can hope for at the end of a traffic stop is to only lose fifteen minutes of your time. Every other outcome puts you in a worse situation than you were in before. So Government employees are out to do nothing but violate citizens rights? I'm not sure you meant to quote me because I neither said nor in any way implied such a thing. When a person gets stopped by the police there are three basic outcomes possible: arrest, ticket, or let go. None of them are positive and two of them will put you in a worse situation than you were before the traffic stop began. Now you care to explain where in the blue fuck your question came from? What about the guy I pulled over the other day because his snowmobile had come loose and was about to fall off the back of his trailer? He sure seemed to think it was a positive outcome that his machine didn't get destroyed hitting the highway at 60mph 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
