|
|
Post by msapple on Mar 11, 2014 7:28:02 GMT -5
I expect this thread to get a whole lot more attention here before long, might be a slow burn because the video is a bit long but that's okay. This is a damning piece of evidence and has all the elements within it to get full a grasp of the interconnected nature of the problem. Great job putting this up. I'd flag it 100 times if I could. No way for anyone to dispute the absolutely bullying, threatening posture of the police and the complicity of the prosecutor and the judge. Congress should see this!
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia on Mar 11, 2014 7:43:07 GMT -5
I have given some thought to this today and I feel that a key problem with so many encounters with the police is there is a general attitude many of them maintain, and it is hardened and egotistical at unhealthy proportions. This attitude that could be justified in general, given that these guys deal with our worst day in and day out. Okay, but imo each incident should be approached with a little more objective assessment. I know, when danger is present, there is little time for fair judgment and empathy, but this attitude is carried over to seemingly every incident and encounter, particularly when someone questions authority.
As it's been said here before, the best thing you can do is remain calm and not elevate the situation by yelling or pitching a fit, regardless of who is right or wrong in the moment. However, when one does this and begins to inquire(their right to do so)in a calm yet confidently assertive fashion, the police should listen and check their ego momentarily so they can make the most sense of a situation and avoid being crooked bullies. It might save the department money from avoiding lawsuits. I am speaking of cases similar to this video , where the officers have determined there is no threat but when questioned they turn up the animosity, to downright scary and yet insulting proportions!
Cam recorders for each officer should be made mandatory. Some say cameras keep people honest, well some more honesty could be injected into these scenarios occurring daily across the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia on Mar 11, 2014 7:44:01 GMT -5
I expect this thread to get a whole lot more attention here before long, might be a slow burn because the video is a bit long but that's okay. This is a damning piece of evidence and has all the elements within it to get full a grasp of the interconnected nature of the problem. Great job putting this up. I'd flag it 100 times if I could. No way for anyone to dispute the absolutely bullying, threatening posture of the police and the complicity of the prosecutor and the judge. Congress should see this! Thank you msapple, and I too hope it gets more attention and feedback. That hearing and prosecutor bit was like watching a movie, but unfortunately those were not actors and it was not fiction. "Congress should see this" All agencies should see this! I wonder how long that will stay up on youtube? |
|
|
|
Post by Olivia on Mar 11, 2014 8:04:37 GMT -5
I wonder how common this is too, and if it happens more in some states than others, relatively speaking. I suspect this will go viral in that county because it is just too over the top and such a perfect example of the whole process of unjust action and attitudes. Thanks for the replies  |
|
|
|
Post by worldmaster on Mar 11, 2014 8:44:55 GMT -5
Congress could care less. They are colluding/racketeering with Wall Street and the banksters to loot the real assets of our country.
I've met 4 judges in my region. Two of them seemed to be preoccupied with keeping money in motion thru the system. One thought his leftist opinion was more important than the law and one was just an immature, inbred good-old-boy.
I've met two sheriffs and one police chief in my region. The sheriffs were both dirty. The Chief was simply stupid. It's no wonder these jokers are running around with AR15's/M16's, APC's, camo and other military trappings. These are children in adult bodies playing "war".
If our country is defined by our justice system, we are completely and totally screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by networksolutions on Mar 11, 2014 9:05:51 GMT -5
I guess I got off lucky on Thursday. The city cop who stopped me for a seatbelt violation threatened to take me to jail. He stood right there in the street and made up law and threatened to haul me to jail. Were it not for the fact that I was taking my husband to an appointment with the doctor I probably would have let him take me---just to see his face when asked to explain why he was bringing me in. I had not violated the selt belt law. In Kentucky the selt belt is very specific in saying that it applies only to vehicles manufactured after 1981.
I know what it says because I was part of the lobbying effort when it was being debated. All my vehicles were manufactured before 1981.
When the young man informed me that he had pulled me over because I didn't have my seat belt on I politely told him that the Kentucky seat belt law does not apply to my vehicle. I pointed out to him that my registration states that my vehicle was manufactured in the 1970s and the statute he was attempting to enforce specifically limited him to vehicles manufactured after 1981. I even handed him a printed copy of the statute, which he promptly threw back at me and told me he would take me to jail.
I was polite but firm when I told him that he could go to his laptop and check the statute if he believed it was phony in some way or he could just call the district attorney for further guidance. His answer was to tell me that because my car was equipped with a seat belt the law required me to wear it.
That's when I told him, "Sir, you have the power to arrest me, you have the power to take me to jail, but you're standing there in the street making up law and you do not have that power."
I'll be contacting the appropriate people about this young man's behavior and this ignorant, arrogant young man with a gun and badge.
Still, since the jailer is a good friend of mine, it would have been a great joke to see that young man's face if he had demanded that I be incarcerated for a law that doesn't apply to my vehicle. I don't suppose I'll get the chance to see his face when the district attorney explains things like statutes to him and how if you're going to enforce one, you should have a passing knowledge of its contents.
ETA: I am in possession of 2 seat belt violations, one for me--and one for my husband despite the fact that he refused to give them his ID. This should be interesting...
|
|
|
|
Post by msapple on Mar 11, 2014 9:20:53 GMT -5
I guess the Prosecutor ADMITTING the system is corrupt wasnt proof enough for you I take it
|
|
|
|
Post by bond009 on Mar 11, 2014 9:29:01 GMT -5
exactly! this is why BADGES are REDCOATS!
ALL of them, each one.
Profiting and PERPETUATING it.. detestable.
i wish to meet each one in the ring BARE KNUCKLE> i have a few trophies in that genre, hehe 6'2 245
|
|
|
|
Post by burnnotice on Mar 11, 2014 9:40:50 GMT -5
That was a very good video, perfect example of backwoods policing. I've seen that area once traveling to Amarillo, some of the police stations out that way look like castle fortresses, now I know why they look that way!
|
|
|
|
Post by bonesmason on Mar 11, 2014 12:45:03 GMT -5
I was asked to weigh in. My comments below are based on my experience and training. As always if you have legal questions ask a lawyer and as always, keep in mind things will vary from state to state. Also, my comments are made as I watch the video. So far the one concern I have is the number of times the video seems to black out, noting portions that were removed for whatever reasons. That extends to the video inside the courtroom as well.
* - Does law enforcement have a right to check on vehicles that are stopped on public right of ways (city / County / State roads / streets / highways / etc) - Yes
(Depending on location there are laws / ordinances that prohibit a motor vehicle being stopped in that manner on the side of the road. Also, stopped vehicles can pose a danger to traffic. If you notice the vehicle is stopped on the side of the road, however it is still partially over the line, placing it in the drive lane).
Regardless if the person was stopped prior to law enforcement arrival, once on scene its a lawful detention.
* - Is a person required to produce identification upon demand by Law Enforcement? - Depends
(Check your state / local / city laws / ordinances).
* - What is an Arrest? - Depends
(Check your state laws for this) - I bring it up because in my state the law reads any lawful arrest, detention or stop. The location of the vehicle coupled with being stopped on the side of the road constitutes lawful contact, allowing the officers to investigate what is going on.
** NOTE - Other things to consider that most people do not thin about - Is the location of contact in an area where there is high crime / drug related issues / etc ***
* - Can Law Enforcement ask for identification during those contacts - Yes
Is providing verbal information allowable? - Depends on the situation / state laws in effect. (My state requires a DL be in a persons possession if they are operating a vehicle that requires it. My MDT allows me to enter verbal information and retrieve the Driver's license Photo to help determine if the person im dealing with is the same person). Absent that we let dispatch know the info is verbal only, and they give us vital stats.
* - Can a person refuse to provide Identification - Depends on State laws / Situation.
* - Is looking thru vehicle windows to see inside a vehicle a search? - Per US Supreme Court Rulings - No
Anything inside the vehicle that can be seen from the outside without assistance is fair game (IE Drugs in plain view / open alcohol containers). Plain View Contraband is an exception to the 4th.
* Does an officer require a warrant to search a motor vehicle? Depends
If Plain view contraband is located - no.
If the owner / operator gives the officer consent - no.
If a person in the vehicle has a warrant - Arizona vs. Gant - restricts search of motor vehicle as an incident to an arrest based on warrant.
If the search is based on arrest for DWI / DUI a search is valid under AZ vs. Gant (Us Supreme Court Ruling).
Can an Officer open a car door to look around like in the video? - Based on my experience and training no.
A plain view search only applies when items are in plain view. Anytime something must be manipulated, a warrant is generally required. I am not familiar with Texas Law so I am not sure if they have any court rulings that allows that down there.
* General rule of thumb - If possible, obtain a warrant.
If a search is by consent, can a person stop that search and rescind consent - yes.
If contraband is located prior to the request to stop - the search can continue.
As for the question asked about drawing the line for illegal actions (in this case a search of vehicle) -
Law Enforcement is not the judge. The reason the law requires and individual to cooperate, even if they feel actions are unlawful, is based on the premise that those arguments can be raised in court, which is the proper setting to challenge actions. If it is not done in that manner, the number of incidents where a person thinks they can prevent something, when in fact the officer actions is lawful, places both parties in unneeded danger.
The comment made about an officer looking around a house without a warrant is actually valid. The Supreme Court ruled officers can conduct a limited search of a residence in order to make sure no other persons are present than can pose a risk. The search is limited only to areas a human could possibly be located.
* - As for the attitude of the officer - To be honest I've copped an attitude back towards people that have behaved in the same manner as the vehicle owner. The number of people we encounter who think they know the law when in reality they do not is staggering. I don't mind a person giving me their opinion, but at some point I would most likely shut down the conversation and tell the person if they have issues contact a lawyer / file a complaint with my agency / bring it up in court.
* - USE of FORCE-
Excessive force - nope. Contrary to popular belief there are laws governing what is and what is not excessive force. Specifically because of people like in the video, who want to act like they know the law when in reality they do not. For Law Enforcement use of force starts at the moment of contact - first with a marked patrol vehicle and secondly with a uniform.
* - Freedom of Speech - Can be curtailed during a lawful arrest, detention or stop. Why? because the officer who makes the stop is solely responsible for all persons at that scene, including those in the vehicle as well s those who are passing by. If we have to take the time to argue it increases the likelihood of potential danger (IE other traffic / missing something over the arguing / verbal commands). As I stated before, a court is where these issues are raised, not the side of a road.
In addition to speech, the manner in which a person is standing is also taken into account. Bladed body, clenched fists, clenched jaw muscles, constantly looking around, constantly looking at where items are on the officers duty belt, breathing / the manner in which he speaks (signs of drug / alcohol / medical issue).
* Laws he is citing -
A person needs to be aware of all laws before challenging it in this manner. As an example in my state passengers in a vehicle can be in possession of open alcohol in a motor vehicle on county roads. City ordinance says no open containers, so they can be cited the moment they cross into city limits. Also, in my state failure to ID is only enforceable by municipal officers (state never passed the law) so it can only be enforced by municipal officers.
* - His contention about requiring physical ID is a separate law and applies when a person is operating a vehicle that requires a drivers license. The requirement of ID for motor vehicle operations and requiring to produce ID to an officer under required to Id laws are separate.
Issuing Citations - in this area I don't see a violation on the part of the officers. As I stated above, the laws governing identification upon request and identification for driving are separate and the requirements are different. Its possible to violate both based on the law. In this case, he only provided verbal information. In my state, a person with a valid DL who does not have it with them can actually be cited for it. The PA usually makes them show their proper ID and then dismisses the charge.
His contention on not operating a motored vehicle - He admitted that he had been driving when he stated he and his wife were switching positions. At that point there was no need to visually establish who was driving since the vehicle was stopped within their jurisdiction, specifically to change drivers. The admission was present.
Coming back to argue about the citations - he is lucky he was not taken to jail for that. while I understand he is pissed, the side of the road, actually in his case standing in the lane of travel, is not the place to make that argument. Regardless of how right he thinks (or actually is) the place to challenge the incident is in court.
His post incident commentary about receiving the video etc is conjecture as to what small town officers do. To make the comment that the PA stated that is sad to be honest. Even more so now that I got to the part where the PA is discussing that issue. The way the guy portrayed the conversation is not what was stated by the PA.
Was a search conducted? Depends on what you consider a search. As I stated, what the Supreme Court considers a search and what civilians consider a search are not the same thing. Was the door on the passenger side already opened? Was it an actual door or sliding door for minivans? Was anything manipulated?
People make the same argument for searches when in facts its a terry frisk.
His attitude towards the legal system is... interesting to say the least. I get the impression this person does not care for law enforcement / government. There is nothing wrong with that however sometimes it can cloud judgment.
Comment about his criminal trial - Would need to see if the charges are misdemeanors or infractions under Texas law. Traffic hearings are not always criminal trials and as such, different standards can apply in the setting.
His argument about the copy of the video seems to be coming from something called discovery in criminal trials. Since he I "representing himself" he is still required to follow court procedure in order to obtain documents / evidence. Sending a letter requesting it to the Pa is not a "formal request". A formal request is made with the court itself, not the PA.
Also, contrary to popular belief most court appearances are not recorded or officially recorded. the manner in which this guy speaks to the PA and the Judge is problematic. he expectation on how he thinks the system works, and in reality how the system works, are not the same.
I cant arrest him for anything he has done. while the person assumes it is in reference to his court case, its entirely possible its in regards to his actions in court itself. Secondly, depending on state law, some infractions / misdemeanors can be non arrestable (Cite and release). The other factor is the jail itself and what their policy is towards certain crimes. Our jail is joint city - county and our county population is almost half a million. Minor citations like trespassing, while arrestable, are generally cite and release at the direction of the sheriff do to inmate populations.
His actions at the end are stunning to be honest. First the PA is solely responsible for whether or not a charge goes forward, not him. Since the PA did not go forward, I don't see where this guy has standing to challenge that decision. Secondly, he is once again trying to use legal lingo that is not available at that level - with prejudice - which would prevent the PA from refilling the charges. Since no charges were filed, I don't see how his motion is even valid.
I guess this is where I get yelled at.
After watching the entire mess, I don't see anything wrong with the Officer's or their actions. That is based on my experience and training. There is no law that says an officer cant be a jack ass (although there might be departmental policy on it). There is also no law (***with exceptions***) that prevents an officer from lying to a person. the way this guy reacted to what was occurring, while he makes some good points, doesn't excuse the fact his method / manner and location is just plain wrong.
I give the guy props for taking a stand, even though I don't agree with what he is trying to present to the public. It is not enough to be able to rattle of a law. A person must know what rulings dealing with that law are in effect. They must know case law as well as federal appeals circuit rulings that affect those state laws.
Hence the reason a person is to make their argument in court and not the side of the road.
Sorry.. I just cannot agree with the guy in the video.
|
|
