Why good cops can't turn in bad cops

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
KD, "fishing for drunks" is what they do. That's happened to me a number of times. I believe they watch and take note as to how long cars are parked at the bar.


I wonder if that falls under the reasonable suspicion definition to stop a vehicle, you would think it could.

 

[Shannow]

I'd consider it fair and reasonable personally.

As opposed to closing down a highway for a day (or 5)...

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2953842/Papers_Please#Post2953842

50,000 drivers stopped for 3 drug offences and 10DUI.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Everybody must have a license. They have carte Blanche in that they can pull over anyone they please. Not carte Blanche to do other things after that. You guys are experts at twisting stuff.

No one was trying to twist anything. I had a legitimate different view of the term than you did, and you clarified it.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Here when they do stops looking for drunk drivers they must stop everybody or nobody. Its a fairness thing.

I already pointed out that this is a little more murky up here, even. Just stopping someone in the hope that they might possibly be drunk isn't exactly going to cut it. It would, at the very minimum, make the officer's case much more difficult. With respect to the big traffic stops, it's the same as you mentioned, where you stop everyone, at least as far is as logistically reasonable.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
If a cop finds something after the fact its still an invalid stop here. We have a constitution. We have a bill of rights. So there are standards.

That's the same here, and I also know you have the plain site doctrine there. If I get pulled over for failing to signal in the States and I've got a bag of weed on the dash and leave it there in plain view when the officer comes up, I would assume that I'd be in big trouble. On the other hand, I would gather that in the States, just like up here, if I get pulled over for speeding, he cannot check my trunk simply because he wants to. Of course, if someone is screaming from the trunk and pounding on lid, that's another matter altogether.

You can call it "asking for papers," but at least it's honest. As we've seen already, we know that if a law enforcement officer wishes to pull you over in the States, he will do so. There's no temptation to concoct a reason or "sell" a reason when you're already given a basic reason that doesn't result in detention of the motorist. Also, driving is a privilege, not a right, and that plays into it as well. There is freedom of movement and freedom from search and seizure, but as I've pointed out, a 3000 lbs chunk of metal wipes out more property and lives than a certain little chunk of metal that fires projectiles, so one can argue that there is a justifiable reason to infringe upon those freedoms, to a limited point.

Being pulled over isn't being searched, nothing is being seized, and it's already been legally decided that it's not detention or arrest.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Garak, how does a police officer stop a "random" driver for a proper drivers license & insurance without profiling????

I never said there is no profiling. If it's at an odd hour and no one is out and about, profiling happens less. If you see a junker, you pull it over. You see a sports car full of kids, you check it. You see a minivan leaving the senior's centre bingo, you look elsewhere.

And we do have busy places for police and dead places for police, just like you have in the States. Chicago isn't the only city in the States. As for picking up a scanner, go pick up a scanner and sit in Bismark on a -40 F night. Tell me how busy they are. Oh, and yes, police officers do take note of how long a car is sitting at the bar.

As for traffic enforcement, do recall that most big police forces have dedicated traffic units.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Garak
[ Also, driving is a privilege, not a right, and that plays into it as well.


I'm really tired of hearing that. That's [censored] semantics. In practice its a right. People have a right to travel to work and such. Eventually a court case will clarify it.

 

[qwerty1234]

Garak, you see a junker and they pull you over?? Wow. Basically, you are saying that if you are "low income" the police have a right to pull you over?? I think your lack of regard for innocent gun violence victims is sad. Of course, most of the gun violence occurs in the poor sections of urban America. Although I disagree, I am getting a better understanding of you.

 

[Astro14]

The real tragedy of gun violence is that you want to disarm the potential victims. You want to trample their rights, even though doing so will not improve their safety, or yours.

You must really hate the inner city, poor people of color that comprise the preponderance of victims of violence.

You rally to the cause of gun control in your posts, by bringing up all the white victims in shootings like Oregon, while ignoring the painful fact that as many minorities died in Chicago that same week. They just happened to be killed one at a time, though they're just as dead, and have families that mourn their loss.

I am getting an understanding of you, although I'm shocked by it...as I'm certain Garak is...

 

[Mystic]

+1

I am getting very tired of people who scream to the skies whenever there is a mass shooting like occurred in Oregon, but they say NOTHING about the never ending slaughter of people in various poor neighborhoods of cities like Chicago. And most of the people who die in shootings in cities like Chicago are minority group people. Poor people.

What happened in Oregon is terrible. But what happens in cities like Chicago every year is like dozens of shootings like Oregon taking place in each of those cities every year.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the USA.

Go after the CRIMINALS who are murdering people. There are plenty of gun laws. What gun laws there are need to be enforced.

Taking guns away from innocent citizens is counter-productive. Disarming the innocent merely makes them even more so potential victims. Disarming the criminals will achieve much more. Make it a very serious offense with long prison time to use a gun in the commission of a crime. Get the ILLEGAL guns off the streets. Not the legal guns owned by ordinary citizens.

How hard is it to figure this out? It is common sense.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
There are plenty of gun laws.

........................

Make it a very serious offense with long prison time to use a gun in the commission of a crime


Your second statement contradicts your first one.

Also, I thought you supported a national gun registry. That would require a law to set up.

 

[yeti]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Checking for licenses dam sure is. Take some basic law courses at your local community college.

Better yet, how about you explain it to me? It isn't carte blanche at all. I'm well aware of Canadian search and seizure laws. I've been through this before. I used to apply them.


Turtlevette hasn't figured out that the US and Canada have different legal frameworks...both are derived from English common law, of course, but you can't throw US understanding at Canadian situations and make any reasonable judgements...

TV, how about spending three months in Alberta, take some courses, research provincial law in addition to Canadian law and report back once you've answered your own question?


They keep telling us they are more free and a better place than the US. There are a lot of snobby European countries that have the same attitude. The ones that tried to take the worlds freedoms away less than 100 years ago. Now all of a sudden they are liberal bastions of democracy.

I have no interest in their system. They need to learn our system.

Once you start accepting the loss of some liberties, they keep creeping more restrictions in. The fact that garak thinks this stuff is legal and is he is comfortable with it is scary.



astro -- here you go again, using logic and facts in your posts, to some that don't understand these words.

turtle -- you state "they keep telling us... . they meaning canucks. there are only 3 or 4 canucks that post on a regular basis.since they is plural, that could mean all 3 or 4 state the above quote. would you please give the names of the accused canucks? garak asked you, but you did not respond.
or, it could be just be one of the many internet exaggerations on bitog.
have a good night.

 

[Mystic]

Astro14 has some of the best posts of anybody here at bitgo. That makes him a target for certIn individuals.

 

[dishdude]

Just because someone offers a dissenting opinion it doesn't mean they are targeting an individual. It appears most here at bitgo agree with Astro14, so I really do not see where you are coming from with this post. To be honest, I really enjoy a good back and forth discussion where I get to hear from people that are passionate on both sides of an issue.

 

[Mystic]

There are certain posters here who have agendas. A few posters here are extremely anti-gun, anti-police, etc.

Anybody should be able to see if somebody has an agenda. For example, if somebody has one anti-cop post after another, that poster obviously has a issue with police. Any logical person should realize that all police are not bad anymore than all teachers are bad, or all auto mechanics are bad, etc. There are some bad cops, but most cops are just trying to do their jobs.

I think various posters here have had good posts explaining why it is logical to go after criminals and illegal guns and not ordinary law-abiding citizens who own guns. Some would like to have ALL GUNS taken away from law abiding citizens. That would probably actually be impossible because of the number of guns in this country, how many places guns and ammo could be concealed, and the fact that illegal guns could be manufactured. Heck, I hear that in Australia there are crimes being committed with handguns such as Glock .40 cal guns. With the gun laws in Australia, where are the handguns coming from?

Criminals do not obey laws. We need to go after the criminals and illegal weapons and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

Beyond all of that, I become very angry that some make a big deal of every mass shooting like occurred recently in Oregon, but say NOTHING about the slaughter of people, often minority group people, in various locations such as the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. I have no respect for somebody who will make a big deal of a mass shooting in Oregon but will ignore what is taking place ALL YEAR ROUND in various cities like Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

The various mass shooting incidents like what occurred in Oregon take very few lives compared to the continuous slaughter of human beings in Chicago, Baltimore, etc. I am not trying to downplay the mass shooting in Oregon. It was terrible. But if somebody is going to make a big deal about a shooting like that, they should also be willing to say that something must be done in cities like Chicago. But many of those who do go crazy after every mass shooting incident are strangely silent about what is happening in cities like Chicago.

That makes me very suspect of their true motives.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

There are certain posters here who have agendas. A few posters here are extremely anti-gun, anti-police, etc.

Anybody should be able to see if somebody has an agenda. For example, if somebody has one anti-cop post after another, that poster obviously has a issue with police.


Is it an agenda, or an opinion? We have many pro-gun and pro-police posters here too and I enjoy hearing from both. I believe most things in life are a gray area, and drawing lines where everything is black or white is silly.

Originally Posted By: Mystic

Criminals do not obey laws. We need to go after the criminals and illegal weapons and leave the law abiding citizens alone.


With the amount of homicides by firearms that are occurring in this country, we obviously need to do something different. What we are doing currently is not working and I haven't seen anything proposed by anyone currently holding office or running for office that impacts law abiding citizens. I think our restrictive drug laws are to blame for much of what is happening in the inner cities.

 

[Mystic]

Much of the mass killing that is taking place in cities like Chicago are gangs and gang violence and also the sale of drugs by gangs involved in selling drugs. I happen to know what drugs can do to human beings. I have seen what happens to human beings who are using meth and heroin. There was a time when many drugs were legal in this country. There was a time when opium was legal, and when morphine was legal, and when cocaine was legal, and a lot of people became addicted to hard drugs. There are reasons why those various drugs were made illegal, except for various medical use. People say: 'Make drugs legal.' Apparently those people have no knowledge of history. Because there were major problems when various drugs WERE legal.

And I can tell when somebody has an agenda. There was a poster here in the past, I think he used the user name of 'hotwheels,' who have one anti-cop video after another. He must have been searching everywhere for every video he could find that would show the cops in a negative manner. But about the time he was doing that, I saw a video on TV about a cop risking his own life to save a man in a burning car. How come 'hotwheels' did not find that video? I saw a video on the news just recently where a man actually shot a cop (hitting the cop in his bullet proof vest) and the cop STILL DID NOT SHOOT THAT MAN! The cop tried to reason with him and the guy was not shot dead until he then pointed the gun again at police. Exactly how far are the cops supposed to go to avoid shooting somebody?

If I were to post one video after another showing mechanics in a bad light, people would think I had some sort of major issue with mechanics. It would be kind of obvious that I did not like mechanics very much.

I would like to see something done about homicides in this country. But I know that to achieve results we have to go after the criminals and illegal guns, not harass law-abiding people who legally own guns. If people would work together on stuff that would actually work, maybe we could reduce homicides in this country.

And in the case of many of these mass murderers, people knew in advance that the guy had mental health issues. In some cases the guy was actually under the care of a mental health worker. Or people had observed strange behavior. Sure, somebody has a right to act strange. But other people have rights also including the right to not be shot by somebody with mental health issues.

Some people here have made a big deal of the police stopping a car with a headlight out, or talking to a couple of guys walking around at 3:00 AM. The cops have to have the right to do their jobs.

 

[Benito]

A lot of these mass shooters are on drugs - prescription drugs.

Why not prevent people on prescription drugs from owning firearms?

Seems a better option compared to banning the prescription drugs.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Any logical person should realize that all police are not bad anymore than all teachers are bad, or all auto mechanics are bad, etc.


Any logical person should realize that the issue is with the size of the minority and whether the system does enough to do something about them.

And the majority of logical people here don't trust most mechanics and certainly don't trust most car dealers.

Why not complain about them too?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Benito
A lot of these mass shooters are on drugs - prescription drugs.

Why not prevent people on prescription drugs from owning firearms?

Seems a better option compared to banning the prescription drugs.


This is an interesting idea, one that I've considered before and one that I support.

The counter, of course, is the rights of those who are so prescribed. If their condition is "treated", then the law, in many cases, views them as whole...not restricted in any way.

So, restricting one selected right, of their many rights, becomes a challenge...

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some people here have made a big deal of the police stopping a car with a headlight out, or talking to a couple of guys walking around at 3:00 AM. The cops have to have the right to do their jobs.


I think what you see are people standing up for their constitutional rights. Rarely do we agree with all of them, but they are rights granted to us by our founding fathers. You appear to hold the second amendment in high regards, others hold the fourth very highly. All are rights that should be vigorously defended against an overbearing government. I see the same people that resist an infringement on the second amendment have no problem restricting voting rights, abortion while at the same time supporting mass collection of data on law abiding citizens.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some people here have made a big deal of the police stopping a car with a headlight out, or talking to a couple of guys walking around at 3:00 AM. The cops have to have the right to do their jobs.


I think what you see are people standing up for their constitutional rights. Rarely do we agree with all of them, but they are rights granted to us by our founding fathers. You appear to hold the second amendment in high regards, others hold the fourth very highly. All are rights that should be vigorously defended against an overbearing government. I see the same people that resist an infringement on the second amendment have no problem restricting voting rights, abortion while at the same time supporting mass collection of data on law abiding citizens.


Are you suggesting they have an agenda?