countryclubjoe
Regular Member
However if the so called 99% protect and stand together with the 1% and do nothing, then said 99% is just as guilty..
regards
CCJ
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Armed? Or Unarmed?
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
However if the so called 99% protect and stand together with the 1% and do nothing, then said 99% is just as guilty..
regards
CCJ
utbagpiper
Banned
So does this mean that all those DGUs by LACs each year are really "innocent persons" getting shot?
While I expect a physically fit, well trained police officer, outfitted with a full duty belt to have some non-lethal options that many LACs do not have, I also recognize that a police officer does have a right to defend himself against criminal violence. You will note that I made the distinction between "innocent" and "violent" NOT between "innocent" and "duly convicted of a crime."
When an LAC uses deadly force morally and legally to defend his life and limb against criminal violence, he is not acting as judge, jury, or executioner. He is repelling criminal violence to defend himself. Ditto when a police officer uses deadly force morally and legally to defend himself or other innocent persons.
Cops using deadly force when it isn't morally and legally justified is another story, but by all metrics I can find, is--most fortunately--rather rare once we get far enough past initial, fabricated, racial outrage to realize in how many cases of claimed "hands up, don't shoot", the deceased didn't have his hands up and had the kind of criminal record to suggest they might be prone to unwarranted violence against police officers.
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
I clarified my position on this topic. You disagree with my position, OK.
OK
A unconstitutional law enforced by cops harms a citizen. The courts hold the state accountable for their unconstitutional act, the cops enforcement action. The law is then discovered to need changing or repealing, via the courts, so the state will not harm a citizen in the future. How many cops know that many prior restraint guns laws are unconstitutional yet they enforce them anyway and harm innocent law abiding citizens.
I think that a cop shoots because he believes he fears for his life. Using deadly force to protect the public at large where his life is not in obvious peril is harder to prove as reasonable.
Utah may be different, MO has the same standards for cops & civilians when the use of deadly force is justifiable.
I agree. But, some of my reasons for having cops may be different from yours.
A jury finds for the cop, justice is served. A cop not getting to a jury is the travesty in my view. The killing of the COO of Napster is a good example. http://www.businessinsider.com/poli...harged-in-killing-of-napster-executive-2014-8
I try to focus on what the law states explicitly. Court decisions state that a infringement of your liberty is OK depending the specific circumstances. In MO your brief "inconvenience" is a arrest, a unlawful arrest given that the cop is guessing that your car looked like a suspect car.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
How could he not have time? He called it in as a possible felon BEFORE he actually made the stop. Let's stop making excuses for incompetence from anybody, it is just downright incompetent.
utbagpiper
Banned
On its face that may be true. But I'd be even in MO, an officer is empowered to stop citizens in cases where a private LAC is not. In overly simple terms, if I run around forcing drivers to stop they may well be justified in using force against me to defend themselves. But they do not get to use deadly force against a police officer making a routine traffic stop.
In other words, I get to avoid problems while officers are supposed to investigate them.
I don't know why you'd assume that. My reasons are to keep the peace and to protect the rights of citizens. Where do you differ?
In many cases, a private LAC never being charged is justice served. I expect the same is true in many of the relatively rare shooting deaths where a cop pulls the trigger. There are very rare cases of injustice where cops (and Hillary) don't get charged when they should.
What makes you think he was "guessing" when he explicitly stated that from the rear the car matched the description of a vehicle they were seeking? At what point would you concede an officer is justified in making a stop to further investigate a car and driver based on a decent description of what they are looking for?
I'm all for calling a spade a spade when a cop makes a bad stop or goes on a fishing expedition. But not every stop of an innocent person is a bad stop. There is a standard other than sure knowledge or never stopping an innocent person that must be used. What do you believe it is?
I believe you wrote in haste in claiming I was tolerating violations of my rights.
Charles
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Just imagine if he life of soldiers had been reduced to "That sucks", or any public servant. There would be cries of outrage from the same people who minimize innocent civilians loss of life, or other abuses by anybody. Let alone someone we are being told to trust. It destroys that trust which the result is only more innocent people dying. I have words to describe such people, but I am not allowed to post them.
We are going to war, and it is IMO the fault of these people who have so little regard for their fellow citizen.
utbagpiper
Banned
PUllleezee. A google search (advanced search with phrase "it sucks" and the word die, limited to this site) turns up on these forumns many uses of the phrase "it sucks" to express the same sentiment it was used to express in this thread. That same search failed to turn up many cases at all of anyone trying to make hay over it.
What we have here are a couple of folks who have no meaningful response to the sentiment expressed but wanting very much to find something over which to disagree with or attack the poster of that sentiment.
Again, had Tneedham used much stronger, more emotional-laden words to express his opposition to innocent persons sometimes getting killed, would you suddenly find his overall sentiment that there is no way to achieve 100% perfection agreeable? If not, your attacking him for his word choice is little more than diversionary.
To the extent that rights are being violated, needless problems will be created. But violence is the fault of people who have so little self control as to resort to violence at every perceived slight or offense. It is the fault of those who take offense at the "wrong" choice of words and won't let go. It is the fault of the media and professional race hustlers who propagate lies like "hands up don't shoot". It is the fault of those who can't bring themselves to use the words "personal responsibility."
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
The relevant RSMo: http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.html?&me=563 There is no distinction made between cops or civilians when using physical force in defense of themselves or others.
What makes you believe he was telling the truth regarding his justification for stopping you.
I do not think you are. The cop that stopped you did so without probable cause.
Yes, it is. The courts have manufactured QI to shield LE from their abuses no matter how minor. Terry v. Ohio eliminated probable cause. Heien eliminated the need for a cop to know the law that he is claiming I have violated. Strieff eliminated the exclusionary rule.
Bright line probable cause, it's right there in the constitution, clearly articulated. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
Did you commit a crime that would justify the stop?
Hypothetical (rhetorical?): Would I be shielded from prosecution if the roles (father stops cop) were reversed? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-tasered-dad-save-son-3-fire-suit-article-1.2155516
The Boston and Aurora Constitution Suspension Events are teachable moments for those who are willing to learn the lesson being taught.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Just to refocus folks as to what I stated.
Clarification:
Can you discern the key elements, the point, of this statement?
Clarification:
utbagpiper
Banned
Yes. Exactly the same key elements used many times across many similar situations on this forum. Unless you've made a habit of objecting to that word choice in other cases, or intend to do so now moving forward, you are hung up on the word choice used, rather than addressing the real sentiment that was expressed.
Yet again I'll ask and see if you bother to answer this time:
If Tneedham has used much stronger language to express his displeasure at the fact that some small number of innocent persons are wrongly killed by police each year, but otherwise maintained his thesis that there isn't any way to drop this number to zero, would your view of his thesis change?
That is my point. If you're upset with his thesis, argue his thesis and stop beating this dead horse of his word choice being some grave sin.
If you're not upset with his thesis and it is just his manner of expressing the thesis, then you ought to say so.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
But cops get to initiate situations that LACs don't. Or does MO allow LACs to make traffic stops for minor traffic infractions?
That puts officers into situations where their use of deadly force in self defense is entirely justified while an LAC's use might be subject to questions about whether he was an unlawful aggressor rather than innocent victim.
The totality of the situation. Occam's razor. I was there.
What, other than some rank bigotry makes you think he wasn't? You weren't even there. Go ahead and try to articulate what, from my short summary of the event gives you the slightest, rational, non-bigoted reason to think he was lying?
For the record, at the time, I was in violation of one, minor, non-moving motor vehicle violation for which he could have cited me had he wanted to. He didn't even mention it even though he clearly saw it.
Hmmm. I'm sensing small minded bigotry and rush to judgment.
Bull crap. A car matching the description of a wanted vehicle is probable cause for making a stop. Where do you get off claiming otherwise?
Wrong question. I'm not the cop and cop doesn't know me.
The correct question is: Did the cop have probable cause to believe I had committed a crime that justified the stop? I believe he did have that PC based on vehicle description and location.
Whether I had or not actually committed any crime is entirely irrelevant to the answer as evidenced by the exclusion rule if evidence of a crime is obtained improperly. That same logic cuts the other way. Lack of having committed a crime doesn't mean the cop doesn't have PC (or RAS) to make a stop or otherwise investigate further. Anyone who doesn't understand that or won't admit it, has no business presuming to lecture anyone on constitutional law and what is or isn't permissible under the 4th amd.
Your posing of the question the way you did reveals either a gross lack of understanding, or of a deliberate and deceitful attempt to mislead away from what the constitution really requires. Which is it?
How much information do you believe a cop needs to justify stopping a vehicle when it is rare, unique looking vehicle that matches the description of a vehicle involved in a crime? Did I mention there were no more than 3 cars that looked like mine in the entire State (nearly 85,000 square miles)?
You really should back off of that conclusion you jumped to and just admit maybe there are far better examples of wrongful stops than what occurred to me.
I've been the subject of a BS stop...in the same car. The difference is obvious including in the entire demeanor of the officer, not to mention my response.
Back off and give it a rest, sir.
Charles
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
You are intentionally ignoring my point to argue your point. Moving on.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It is a constant/chronic MO, I found the best way to handle is deny attention.
OC for ME
Regular Member
A traffic stop is a arrest in Missouri. I imagine I could stop a car for a traffic violation. In reality I would not, we pay cops to make traffic stops..http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000511.html?&me=563
http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000461.html?&me=563
I prefer cops to investigate and gather as many facts as possible so as to mitigate the possibility of stopping a innocent citizen needlessly and thus violating his rights.
You did not mention that you were in violation of motor vehicle laws. Changes my view of the stop. Since the cop did not state that he stopped you for a (that) violation it seems to me, a complete guess on my part, that he chose to use his discretion and not bother with a minor violation since he was looking for a criminal. We will not know one way or the other.
No, it is not. RAS, yes, not PC. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
Under RSMo a cop can arrest for a infraction. Utah may be different. I would not have asked that question if that information were available at the time I posed the question. Whether or not the cop noticed the violation is irrelevant. The stop would have been found by a judge to be justified if the cop injected the violation as his PC for detaining you.
Terry v. Ohio, Heien, Strieff.
utbagpiper
Banned
Exactly.
Again, your statement begs the question. Stopping an innocent person does not violate his rights if the officer has sufficient RAS or PC (as may be required) to legally effect the stop. On the flip side, even if a person is guilty as sin, stopping him absent RAS/PC does violate his rights.
RAS/PC is not actually dependent on whether the person actually did something wrong. It depends on whether the officer reasonably believes he did something wrong or has probable cause to believe he did something wrong. Neither RAS nor PC guarantees the person did something wrong. That is why we have the legal presumption of innocence, burden of proof on the prosecutors, and trials.
But you can't get to a trial if cops can't investigate. We require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict and impose criminal penalties. We require lower standards to take a man to trial. And yet lower standards than that (ie RAS or PC) to make stops or full blown detentions of varying lengths.
That you seem to implicitly believe that every stop or investigation of an innocent person violates his rights reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter.
As I noted previously, and you refused to accept, you jumped to a conclusion based on very limited information, including both the facts of the case and particulars of Utah law.
One more fact, I have no idea whether he saw my minor, non-moving violation prior to stopping me. In my youth, Utah did not require a front license plate on private cars. At some point, they changed the law to require a front plate. Outside our liberal capital who looked for any reason to write a ticket for revenue, it was almost never enforced. It was sufficient cause to stop a car and check paperwork. I never ran a front plate on that classic car. Now, whether the officer saw the lack of front plate before stopping me is unknown. I suspect he didn't since he inspected the front of my car after the stop to determine whether it was the car he was looking for. Once he did see the front of the car, he saw the lack of a plate. That he didn't issue a citation or even mention it, is one evidence that the stop was legit rather than some made up fishing expedition. Cops who are fishing don't usually cut you loose without even asking for paperwork.
I disagree. From your cite:
Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.
Let's see, no more than 3 cars matching a good description in a ~25,000 square mile area. No more than a couple dozen matching a typical description in that same area. Back end of the car matches. But it is the front end that will really make the determination. Sounds like there is a "fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered." Unless of course you think "fair probability" actually requires something higher than 50%.
That is not the case as pointed out by http://www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/october-2008/probably-cause.html
One of the great mysteries of American criminal procedure jurisprudence is just what probable cause means. At times, the courts have used language that suggests a “more likely than not” approach. For example, in Beck v. Ohio,6 the Supreme Court indicated that probable cause to arrest requires the police to possess information “sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” A strong argument can be made that a person does not “believe” something unless the person thinks it is more likely than not to be true. The word “probable” itself is typically used in every day conversation to mean more likely than not.
Of course, words are often given a meaning in law that is different from the way they are used in everyday conversation. In another case, the Court indicated that “probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity."7 “Substantial chance” would appear to be a standard below that of more likely than not. What’s more, common sense, as well as the Supreme Court’s application of the probable cause standard in actual cases, suggests that the standard is less than more likely than not.
...
[W]hat the standard of probable cause is designed to do is to determine when the likelihood of finding something incriminating is great enough that society’s interest in permitting the police to search exceeds the suspect’s interest to be left along by the police and not have his privacy invaded.
The "invasion of privacy" for an officer to make a 60 second stop to get a look at the front end of car being driven in public (as opposed to say following the car for a longer distance until it the office can pass the car to look at the front end without making the stop) is pretty low. And so, the standard for PC is going to be lowered accordingly.
Furthermore, even if the officer only had RAS, we read this elsewhere at your linked site (Cornell Law) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It is looser than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search. When determining reasonable suspicion, courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and a decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion.
Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.
No court in Utah or elsewhere in the nation is going to rule that the stop of my car, for the reason stated by the officer, was a violation of rights. That is true regardless of whether I had or had not engaged in some violation of motor vehicle laws, unbeknownst to the officer. Maybe you think the MO courts should rule a violation of rights under these conditions. And if you can provide a citation of such a ruling in a materially similar case, I'll concede you are correct. But I don't think you'll find such a case. A 60 second stop, not even asking for paperwork, is a very, very minor intrusion. But do feel free to prove me wrong if you can.
Charles
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
What is your point then?
As well you should have several posts ago rather than harping on word choice.
Make your case about the basic assertion that the number of innocent deaths cannot be reduced to zero rather than harping on word choice to express that sentiment.
My quick internet searches reveal somewhere between 400 and maybe 1000 deaths a year directly from police. I wonder how many of these are unnecessary or unjustified by any reasonable standard.
I know of one in Utah a couple of years back ruled unjustified. We didn't get a conviction as the prosecutor somehow failed to convince the judge there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. It did cost the cop his career.
I know of another a year later, that was ruled justified that a lot of folks thought was borderline, at least.
A third one in another year was ruled justified and probably was, but again, some folks figured differently.
Assume all three were bad and could or should have been avoided.
That is 3 in about 10 years that I know of here in Utah, or about 0.3 per year unjustified. Between 2010 and 2014 Utah police officers killed 45 persons or about 11 per year. 0.3 / 11 = ~2.7% of shootings (if we believe all the questionable ones were really unjustified).
That is between 11 and 27 unjustified police killings a year in a nation of 320 million. These are horrible tragedies. We ought to work to reduce the numbers. They are not the blood bath, racial genocide some would like to claim.
Or maybe, the cops in your State are way more likely to kill someone needlessly than are the cops in mine and so my numbers are way off. But I'd never want to suggest such a thing lacking solid evidence.
Charles
directed towards you mate.
confirming your identified behaviour and his handling of it.
mate, further confirmation of your MO of degrading those who disagree or challenge you and but to then throw slanderous accusations against WW & past co-workers of racial abuse is truly astonishing and actually boggles my mind since the tactic is so despicable and beyond reprehensive, especially coming from such an allegedly educated individual.
Charles, your continued tirades continue to spew misinformation which shows a very real lack of focus on your part, which to be honest is extremely bothersome and i am wondering if and how it is affecting you in your personal and work environments.
again, i hope your support network has been organized and in place for you if not...please get them together sooner rather than later.
best with your event, mate
ipse
since9
Campaign Veteran
By "Not innocent Americans. Not by a long shot," I was referring to the fact that the overwhelming majority of police shootings, by roughly 20 to 1, are NOT of "innocent Americans." Earlier this evening, I was discussing this very issue with a retired law enforcement officer and old friend. The statistic he cited was "94% good shoots," and added, "that's probably a tad low."
As I've yet to find solid avenues for such figures from other sources, having known him for twenty-six years, and having heard of roughly similar figures from others over the years, I'm inclined to believe the figure is reasonably accurate.
Put simply, cops are not in the habit of shooting innocent Americans. Far from it.
However, when someone is in the process of being stopped, detained, or apprehended by law enforcement, and behaves in a violent, threatening or otherwise aberrant manner well outside of expected norms, they greatly increase the likelihood of a "false positive" identification by the police. While we would like the police to be perfect, they are not. They are human. Therefore, it is ill-advised to give them a reason to think you're someone dangerous to them when you're not.
Clearly, however, there are times when the police make some really bonehead errors, like the time two Orange County policemen shot and killed an intoxicated man sitting in a chair in his friend's back yard while playing with a metal water "pistol" nozzle. That was indeed very stupid on the part of those two police officers.
Meanwhile, I have OC'd in the midst of dozens of police officers. Never had a problem.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Solus, I have been invited to join NAAGA by Mr Smith. I do believe I will get more respect, and fair debates there than here. I love our site, but one member has special privileges to break the rules anytime he wants. He is the most divisive member on our site. His recent tirades are intent on me responding to him, none have worked and they will not work. I keep hoping our mod will step up on this issue, yet he has failed every time.
My main issue with LE is everybody is treated the same, including LE. The law applies equally to those elite as well as those who on the bottom of the power structure. I would expect the rules to be equally applied here as well. I am not surprised at the antics of one or two, I am surprised that that go without scrutiny.
My main issue with LE is everybody is treated the same, including LE. The law applies equally to those elite as well as those who on the bottom of the power structure. I would expect the rules to be equally applied here as well. I am not surprised at the antics of one or two, I am surprised that that go without scrutiny.