Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
FR
Just as a matter of interest, would Joe Q US-Public go up to a policeman and ask him the time? I ask, because when an American friend visited recently, I assured him that he could do that in London. He did so. The policeman politely told him the time. My American friend was astonished. I told said American friend that a London policeman will also give directions, if asked - and will call in for advice if he doesn't know the directions personally. When you visit Bath, SW England, you can call in at the police station for directions - and they'll give you a map, with the directions traced out in pen by the desk-sergeant.
Are US police generally *heavy*? Does one just avoid talking to them, if possible?
Usually, cops on the beat are pretty tame when you're on foot. It's when they pull you over in a vehicle when they're at their worst. I'm not sure why. That's why a lot of people want more cops to walk the beat, so they can get to know the public better.
couple reasons
you are a captive audience in a car
you dont need a license for state permission to walk on the street (yet), and you shouldnt need one for a car UNLESS you are involved in a traffic accident or endangered someone as a result from failure to follow some traffic rule.
the courts ruled that you do not have as many rights in a car as you do on the street
so they take every possible opportunity to intimidate you if your answers are anything but yassa massa to their questions which are always targeted at setting you up for the fall in court.
last they are road nazis and they bring in lots of extortion revenue.
and of course you can wipe your ass with the constitution.
Despite the guy was guilty as sin, the stop was a violation of this mans constitutionally protected rights, and the case should have been dismissed with prejudice. But look who is involved and the outcome: Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary Tabor and Susan M. Crawford, Assistant Attorneys General
This guy was stopped for a loud muffler
Kinkead next argues that because he submitted evidence showing that the vehicle's muffler was in good working condition, the stop should be invalidated. We have considered this issue before and held that a mistaken basis for a stop does not necessarily render the stop invalid, but is merely a factor to consider in the reasonable suspicion analysis. See State v. Melohn, 516 N.W.2d 24, 25 (Iowa 1994) (stop of vehicle speeding away from vicinity of gunshots upheld as reasonable under the circumstances even though facts later showed the individual was not involved in the gunfire); State v. Jackson, 315 N.W.2d 766, 767 (Iowa 1982) (stop of vehicle for failure to display license plates and subsequent request for driver's license held valid even though officer later learned the vehicle was displaying paper plates issued by the department of transportation); State v. Ewoldt, 448 N.W.2d 676, 678 (Iowa App.1989) ("Information sufficient to establish reasonable cause to stop is not defeated by an after-the-fact showing that the information was false."); see also 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure ยง 9.4(b), at 147-48 (3d ed.1996) (noting that the principal function of an investigatory stop is to resolve the ambiguity as to whether criminal activity is afoot and, therefore, that the "possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion") (quoting In re Tony C., 21 Cal.3d 888, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 369, 582 P.2d 957, 960 (1978)).
Thus, the fact that the muffler on Kinkead's vehicle was later determined to be operating properly does not invalidate the otherwise lawful stop.
despite the stop was completely bogus the courts nonetheless rule by judicial fiat in favor of violating your constitutional rights to maintain their supremacy.
so agenst claim that marvin the martian said your fart stunk the place up despite not smelling anything the officer has the legal authority to look up your ass and do a full rectal examine. Not finding anything searches the rest of you and finds a joint then hauls you in for possession of a controlled substance.
Later after you proved the officer had no probable cause to do such a thing the courts simply say oh thats ok it was a reasonable violation of your rights.
the high courts have proven that even when you prove them dead wrong they will violate your rights by concocting a bullshit set of arguments that sounds good so they can justify their trespass rather than adhere to the critically important strict letter of the law to protect your rights.
of the gubblemint, by the gubblemint, for the gubblemint, keep that cash cow rollin
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 9/5/2015 7:37:09 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Another Officer down - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread