TheMarkFrost
Administrator 
Uncovering The Inconvenient Truth
Posts: 241
|
Post by TheMarkFrost on Mar 12, 2014 11:21:47 GMT -5
That's the intedned use. Its also the reason law enforcement has begun using more camera technology in their jobs, from dash cams, to audio recording, the body cameras / audio, to Tasers recording video / audio and now, in California, several agencies are testing out duty weapon cameras.
I like the Cameras - They work in both directions. I have had accusations / complaints made against me by people I've dealt with and the cameras / audio have shown the person either left out pertinent information or outright lied. In this area im all for video / audio use, on both sides.
With all due respect, im a bit tired of people blaming government in this area. Get involved and fire those who don't represent the people. If you identify a problem, the next step is to find solutions to fix it. People don't ever seem to get to the fixing part, just talking, and in most cases, blaming (not you, in general).
Secondly US Supreme Court rulings do not support the expansion of police powers. If you can give me some examples I would be more than happy to take a look.
The generality above is problematic
* - harder Sentencing - states are moving to decriminalize marijuana in addition to pre diversion programs for those who were convicted. The Feds are looking at changing their mandatory minimums when it comes to the SCA. The war on drugs was around looong before 9/11.
secondly, going back to the separate sovereign comment -
The sentencing guidelines in one state are not the same in another are not the same in the federal system. Trying to compare an incident that occurred in California to an incident that occurred in Louisiana is like trying to compare pregnant Rhinos to a rock.
Voting, to a large extent, has not worked because people, well, don't vote. they have a mindset that either A - nothing will change or B - Someone else is voting so I don't need to worry about it.
Giving up before actually trying, respectfully, is not an acceptable answer. if the people are outraged about our government, and people claim they are in the majority, then why have they not capitalized on that and worked together to elect different people with different backgrounds who are of different parties outside of Reps / Dems?
All due respect,
Directly supporting government incompetence is shameful.
Indirectly supporting government incompetence thru inaction is shameful.
For starters the comment about charging the guy when the chief came to court. Was that comment made about the 2 citations or the fact the guy was pretty much in contempt of court?
Secondly the PA is the final authority on whether something is prosecuted or not.
The PA also mentioned the use of video / audio recording, comparing it today to back when it did not exist.
Finally - and I don't think people understand this part - The PA does not represent the defendant. The PA has the authority to discuss the charges and offer plea deals etc. If a person is going to represent themselves, that is on them. If they don't understand the court system / procedures, that is not the fault of the court or the PA.
In that regard, did the court not uphold his rights?
Final thought - Could it have been possible that if the accused sat with the PA and watched the video, that it may have resulted in the charges being dismissed? While understand the guys point behind not talking with the PA, he made an assumption about the motives of the PA from the start.
There are problems, but the only way we can fix them is to identify the problems and develop solutions while working together on both sides for the common good of all.
Yes? no?
|
|
|
|
Post by wonderqueen on Mar 12, 2014 11:30:21 GMT -5
I blame the people. The people elect them. The people allow laws to pass. The governments fault in this is in pushing the idea of nothing to hide, then nothing to fear and in general launching a campaign to push security over freedom. The people are the ones who either choose to accept that or not however.
And it's more than just drugs. A couple decades ago you couldn't get a life sentence for stealing a bicycle.
People stopped voting because the only choices the media informs them of are Republican and Democrat and the two are one in the same. Look at Obama, in speech he was different but in policies put forward he hasn't been all that different from Bush, McCain, or Romney. People see this and it makes them give up on the system all together. There's not one segment of the population to blame here either. The media has distorted our view, the politicians have let us down, and the people haven't looked for alternatives. It's a failure on every level.
Also I don't have a problem with how anyone acted at the hearing. The PA seemed mostly honest (though he wasn't upfront that his job description is to get a conviction), the judge acted fine, and the police did what they were supposed to do. If anything the guy was to blame, if he simply told the PA that he wants to review the footage privately first to make sure it's usable in his defense things would have gone over much different I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by superxsoldier on Mar 12, 2014 11:45:20 GMT -5
I walked away from a career as a FEDERAL OFFICER with DHS.. dont patronize, I was also a US Marine before that and went to college between military and LE.
I truly DID walk away because the corruption disgusted me. Agents doing the drugs seized from people, accepting bribes (judges, DA's, deputies, CHP, etc)
I also worked as part of a Border Tactical Unit -- combined ops involving the Sheriff Dept, BATFE, USCS, USBP, FBI, USCG, Harbor Police, SDPD, etc..
I DO know what I talk about. and without being given a T&C I will say that with confidence our resumes are at least equal in weight.
Oh, also I was a Govt Contractor for a time. AND worked in Central and South America as part of my history. Coordinating through Joint Task Forces.
KNOW YOUR ROLL>
|
|
|
|
Post by lucky4u on Mar 12, 2014 12:53:37 GMT -5
i feel that the only way to defeat the corrupt system is to walk away, not participate in it. I feel that when something is beneath you, walk away.
And I did bring down 2 people that each had 17 and 14 years service, were supervisory. But the 'big fish' were unscathed, and I was accused of heinous acts to discredit.
I knew going into the gambit of snakes, this would happen but was so repulsed by the hypocrisy and graft could not sleep.
If the big fish could always scapegoat and get away, the system from Governors, Senators, and their rich connections run the entire system.
at least I left with my life intact. And brought down 2 guys. 2 for 1. If all the decent cops would follow suit instead of 'laying low' and sacrifice their own financial well being for the greater good and take out 2 snakes, we would be in a much better nation
|
|
|
|
Post by supremegod on Mar 12, 2014 13:03:14 GMT -5
"I guess when the US Supreme Court defined a lawful arrest, detention or stop, they meant for the driver to be able to act like a verbal ass hat while screaming at the cops right? A traffic stop falls under the 4th amendment, which means a persons actions can be curtailed, including speech."
Could you please give me a citation on this? When did the Black Dress Tribe say that the First didn't apply during a traffic stop? Just a link to the decision will be much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackHawk on Mar 12, 2014 15:00:01 GMT -5
I really wish people would stop saying that. If your getting to the point that, seeing evil and not doing anything is just as evil type of thing; I get it, but come on man. Pretty broad statement.
Not the point. I am not saying this because the guy was out of line, nor outside of his rights. I am saying this because YOU O NOT give cops a reason. I have seen countless videos of people who have done way less and received way worse. Guess what!? In most cases, the cops got away with it. If I'm not mistaken, he can get the cops badge number upon request, right?
JUST SHOW YOUR ID- If your scared of that, you're too paranoid or you have warrants. If its the later, take care of it and quit putting people around you in a position to go down with you.
Ask the thousands harassed/beat by police who get ZERO justice. When someone is kicking your arse, your rights are nill. Also, when cops are bad enough to do something like that, they are bad enough to lie and cheat their way out of it/cover it up. Probably stick you wit an extra charge while they're at it. Resisting or assault most likely.
I get what your saying, though. Also, I probably didn't word that in the best way. What I was trying to say was, he could have taken his bogus violations to court with absolutely NO confrontation with officers on the side of the road. Hell, they might not have given him any citations, if he had cooperated in the first place. Before anybody starts, NO he didn't cooperate.
"Can I see your I.D. real quick?" ----As he is turning away, with hand at his pockets/belt line, turns around with the bear claws up, with an attitude "I'm sorry! Am I under arrest for something?"
"No, nah. We're just checking to make sure everythings OK"
"Yep, we're good." ----Then just turns around like he's going to get back in the car and leave.
What did this guy expect?
I mean, look at how he "verbally objects" to the cop searching his van......
He goes int the drivers side door when the other cop wasn't looking at him (cops fault)
Look at the guys hands in the beginning. Look at his posture later on.
As one poster said before, this video is highly edited. Notably , the time before Woods opened the passenger door. Keep in mind this is the dummy's editing. He looks like a fool in the parts he keeps in. I can only imagine the directors cut.
If I was a cop, I would definitely think this guy had something to hide.
Bottom Line. This was AVOIDABLE. BUT
All that being said. This idiot happens to be a hero, for confronting the world with an example of a criminally unjust justice system.
|
|
|
|
Post by voltaire on Mar 12, 2014 15:18:47 GMT -5
United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.
Sean KING, Plaintif-Appellant, v. Kevin AMBS, Columbia Township Police Officer, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-2054. Argued: April 17, 2007. -- March 21, 2008Towards the end of the brief are US Supreme Court case law dealing with various incidents where argumentative speech can be construed as interference in an investigation and that an arrest for obstruction is not a violation of the 4th amendment nor the 1st amendment. In essence, local and state laws dealing with obstructing an officer are valid and are not constitutional violations in certain situations. Traffic stops being one of those situations. The burden, as always, falls on the officer and specific articulation of the elements (actions) that violated the law. The US Supreme Court has ruled an officer must have a thicker skin when it comes to belligerent speech directed towards them. However the use of the 1st amendment in an effort to obstruct an investigation is not protected speech. Also, the manner in which a person speaks is also a consideration (does the statements come across as a threat). EX: A - I don't give consent to search my vehicle B - I didn't tell you that you could search my vehicle jack ass so get the hell away or ill move you away. The definition of obstruction will depend on what state you reside in, however its based off the appeals ruling (precedent). As an example a case in Florida where a person was cited for obstruction. The court ruled that the distraction was insufficient for speech to constitute interference, and the obstruction charge was tossed. There are various side rulings (term I use) that also deal with passengers in vehicles in addition to 3rd parties in the area who are not a part of the stop. IE apply common sense. In this case, after an officer tells a person they are free to leave, and that person wants to argue with the officers on the side of the road, based on totality of circumstances, the person was moving into an area of speech that would not be protected. In addition he moved into an area where he is failing to obey a lawful command (no trouble with his vehicle while refusing to remove his vehicle from a public right of way where part of his vehicle is obstructing the flow of traffic. The court is the setting to challenge officer actions, not the side of the road. The slang term for this area is "contempt of cop", where the officer perceives the individuals argumentative nature as being disrespectful towards the officer / officer's authority. Hence the narrow rulings coming from these incidents. the court is trying to balance things out. The reason for that is the Us Supreme Court has established general guidelines for length of traffic stops. The longer the stop, the more the officer is required to justify the delay. Arguing with police, and then getting pissed on how long you were out with them, can cause issues. A final note - A traffic stop is a technical seizure. The officer is responsible for all parties involved. The longer a traffic stop is dragged out on the side of the road, the larger the liability. Police actions are measured against public safety. Also, the officer could just ignore the person and leave. That is certainly one option (I have used it before). Hope this is what you were looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by flipthecoin on Mar 12, 2014 15:45:10 GMT -5
Houston v Hill. A LEO cannot bring charges of obstruction or interference for you speaking to him when he'd rather you shut up, excluding fighting words.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondaxgirl on Mar 26, 2014 9:41:46 GMT -5
Hence the reason I noted that its based on state law and the criteria established. The Supreme Court ruling allows it, state law defines it. The ruling does not prohibit the act, it requires it to be specific.
In the Hill case the Supreme Court found the ordinance overly broad. It also noted the ordinance itself did not define an assault to include verbal language. Hill had been arrested 3 times prior, under the same ordinance. In those cases the application of the law was valid. The Court also noted that the Houston ordinance was pre-empted by a state law in the manner it was used in the last incident.
Also - I note that in the Hill case his actions were as a 3rd party. In the discussion above, the focus is on the driver / passengers in the vehicle and their ability to "argue" with law enforcement during a traffic stop, where the driver / passenger freedoms are temporarily curtailed under the 4th amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by patriotgames on Mar 31, 2014 16:40:56 GMT -5
Semper Fi to you. I spent 5 years in as well. Best 5 years of my life. There are 2 careers paths I contemplated in the years since I left: LE and politics. Both because I wanted to effect change.
I made an attempt to join the local City Police force 5 or 6 years ago. I came away from the experience disgusted. I actually failed one of the tests during the physical portion of the "tryouts." I failed the vertical jump. As you most likely know they use this to determine whether or not a candidate could scale a wall. As you also know from our time in the O-course, merely jumping won't get you over a wall. Pretty stupid failure, considering I was among the fastest out there as well.
What really turned me off though was doing well on the written test, and getting yanked aside with a group of other candidates and having an overweight jerk tell us that we were "worthless and pathetic and %90 of the world population could kick our asses." Pretty much killed LE for me.
As for politics, I got sick of how stuff was going in my district, and seriously considered running until the guy that would have been my campaign manager wanted to you use my then-imminent wedding as a campaign platform. Awesome.
I said all of that to get across that though I agree with Xcathdra with all of the finer points of the law, I agree with you in regards to corruption and an overall complex with the people in power. The way the jerks at the Academy treated people who weren't even in Academy yet was disgusting. Had no place outside the Academy, just like a Marine recruiter wouldn't be a jackass to a poolee. The "I'm better than you even though my fat rump couldn't be forklifted over a wall" mentality actually extends to the vast majority of black and whites on the road here. Lousy.
|
|
