Should It Be Okay to Violate Criminal’s Rights?

[holdover]

He was saying illegals shouldn't have rights. I agree that there are *some* rights that are reserved for citizens alone (voting being the obvious one). But *most* rights shouldn't matter who you are.

But, if you can strip all of someone's rights by merely accusing them of being an illegal, then *anyone* could be so accused and shipped off with no more evidence than "I can tell just by looking at him".

Also, I've always wondered, how do they prove someone is an illegal ?

Do they track down a Somali birth certificate as proof ?

What do they do if Juan insists he was born in east LA and his parents never filed any paperwork ?

Its done with investigative techniques ,and questioning. Where were you born? Chicago. How long have you lived there? Since I was born, did you go to school there? Yes. whats the name of the school ? Jefferson high. Then I may say something like No kidding ! I went to Jefferson high too what a small world , Just to be sure , can you tell me the name of the street its on , and what part of the city its in? Was it one two or three stories high? Whats the name and address of the place you worked at?

Its fairly easy to verify the information

You cant just say , he looked Mexican and didn't speak English. That's a NO GO. Ive caught people that spoke perfect English , like you or me , I was like WTF? I asked where he learned English He said NY. WHaaaaa? He told me he has lived in NY most of his life worked as a dish washer in Manhattan . ????? He was caught in a group of twenty people in the Canyons , I said wtf are you doing here ? He said his mother was sick and he was visiting, and it never used to be a problem to cross , He used to come and go as he pleased. Now He cant go home .

 

[Acer-m14]

Ive had the experience to work with dogs several times, and I can tell you I wasn't impressed at all.

when i was in the NAVY living on base they would bring the dogs in to sniff your room .. every time the dog was more interested in what i was cooking on the hot plate then sniffing for drugs .. LOL .

wounder how they would react if you tossed beggin strips dog treats all over inside your car/truck lol ..

 

[spat]

Its done with investigative techniques ,and questioning. Where were you born? Chicago. How long have you lived there? Since I was born, did you go to school there? Yes. whats the name of the school ? Jefferson high. Then I may say something like No kidding ! I went to Jefferson high too what a small world , Just to be sure , can you tell me the name of the street its on , and what part of the city its in? Was it one two or three stories high? Whats the name and address of the place you worked at?

Its fairly easy to verify the information

And what about the person who is smart enough to say "I'm not answering anything without a lawyer".

Do you detain him until you can badger him into giving up that right ? Threaten him that "It'll go worse if you don't cooperate" ? Assume that because he isn't cooperating he must be guilty ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Whoa, back up a minute, At no point did I say or infer that ALL cops are angelic beings from heaven . I never said that theres no bad apples or that the system cant be abused or that cops never lie . Not by a long shot .Consider the number of traffic stops alone in the state of NY on a daily basis vs the number of people they falsely arrest and you will find that it is a tiny amount in comparsion. Im not trying to justify criminal actions by the police , they do happen , and even if its only one person, thats still a problem ., But once you blanket everyone , it becomes much like the democrats on gun control. they punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty .

To clarify , no, Not all cops are innocent .

I don’t think anyone is blanketing anyone. Of course not every cop abuse their authority to illegally search a car. But lots do. Lots arrest for guns. Lots threaten arrest for taking pictures and some do via other trumped charges.

I could flood this thread with YouTube videos to prove my point but it will just get closed. You can look that up yourself. Once you see the sheer number of these rights violations you may change your tune. I sure as hell did. That’s why I’m the way I’m now. I have seen
too many. And that’s just the ones that were recorded. Imagine the ones that didn’t make a camera.

Sure not all do it. But the insane amount that do so is a number that’s hard to swalllow. And if you just deal with the 2A only, it’s at damned near 100 percent.

 

[holdover]

And what about the person who is smart enough to say "I'm not answering anything without a lawyer".

Do you detain him until you can badger him into giving up that right ? Threaten him that "It'll go worse if you don't cooperate" ? Assume that because he isn't cooperating he must be guilty ?

Depends on the situation, If he was caught in a group, which is pretty normal , We would investigate a little further by printing him and see what comes up on the computer , If not, We may let him go , depends on the situation.

 

[spat]

If El Salvador is their original home...that works for Me. Rules were meant to be followed. Breaking the rules invites consequences. Being here illegally broke the immigration laws. I support sending them back.

Obviously that's the right answer for people who came here illegally from that country, but how do you identify them ?

What if it's not someone from El Salvador. What if that happened to *you*.

You piss off some ICE agent and he decides to screw you over.

Are you required to prove you live here or get sent a few thousand miles away and just dropped off ?

 

[spat]

Depends on the situation, If he was caught in a group, which is pretty normal , We would investigate a little further by printing him and see what comes up on the computer , If not, We may let him go , depends on the situation.

If there was probable cause to believe he was here illegally, then that's reasonable. What safeguards are there to ensure it stays that way ?

 

[spat]

A broken or malfunctioning tail is probable cause for a V+T stop. It does not require a search of any physical nature. Now if the driver is belligerent or threatens the Cop, the situation changes. The driver may be restrained for the Cops safety. Normally pat searched and asked if they have anything weapons on them (Or things that may injure the cop, needles, etc.) Is there further escalation? Depends on what could have been found. Anything in plain sight? No, searching ends. DWI/ DUI changes the situation again. If there is no evidence of either, wants/warrants, insurance in effect and valid, all clear? Bye, here's your fix ticket.

That's how it's *supposed* to work. But what safeguards are there to ensure that that's how it *does* work ?

Also, how is being "belligerent" evidence of anything that would justify further action ?

Some guy acts pissed that you pull him over so that's justification for further searches ?

 

[holdover]

I don’t think anyone is blanketing anyone. Of course not every cop abuse their authority to illegally search a car. But lots do. Lots arrest for guns. Lots threaten arrest for taking pictures and some do via other trumped charges.

I could flood this thread with YouTube videos to prove my point but it will just get closed. You can look that up yourself. Once you see the sheer number of these rights violations you may change your tune. I sure as hell did. That’s why I’m the way I’m now. I have seen
too many. And that’s just the ones that were recorded. Imagine the ones that didn’t make a camera.

Sure not all do it. But the insane amount that do so is a number that’s hard to swalllow. And if you just deal with the 2A only, it’s at damned near 100 percent.

Blanketing is exactly what's going on , Im not defending the bad cops, Im defending the good ones . Ive seen the videos , there's a shit ton of them . There's no denying it. Not to many of the ones where the cops do the right thing though .

How does it get fixed? That's the question.I don't think its a matter of the law, Its like having more gun laws to fix the problem. It has to be some other type of screening or something .

 

[holdover]

If there was probable cause to believe he was here illegally, then that's reasonable. What safeguards are there to ensure it stays that way ?

Can you elaborate more?

 

[spat]

You aren’t serious are you. On this forum alone, 2 people got searched due to a pot smell and a dog hit.

As far as the dog hit thing goes, I think there is a very simple solution.

If the dog is to be considered probable cause, then you better find what he claims he smelled more than half the time (i.e. it's probably there).

Some dog starts hitting for pot and 6 times out of 10 you don't find any pot, then he gets retired (and maybe his handler gets reassigned to something without a K9). And no, hitting for pot and finding a gun doesn't count.

This will of course lead to some gaming of the system (some officer who *knows* there's pot in a car will call the K9 to search anyway to boost his stats for instance), but it's still a lot better than what we have now.

The defense should have access to the stats for any dog used in the case against them. (Fido here conducted 197 searches for drugs last month, how many times did he alert that he found them, and how many of them actually found drugs after the physical search ?)

 

[spat]

Can you elaborate more?

There are countless cases out there of LEOs abusing their power, and there is very little recourse for the people abused. They are assumed to be guilty, and even when there is strong evidence that the LEO was in the wrong, their union and superiors often back them.

I realize that every perp and his brother are going to claim that they are being abused, but that doesn't mean that real abuse doesn't happen. A lot of honest people feel that they are at risk of one power tripping cop.

A lot of that is caused by the MSM narrative, and it's certainly blown out of proportion, but at the same time the LE community doesn't seem to be doing anything to counter it.

The thing that people really want so that they can feel safe around cops again is to know that if they are abused that there is a real and functioning system that looks out for their interest.


Lets say there are 1000 cops on your force, and 999 of them are good guys. But that one bad guy has abused 100 people last year. Would you want to live in that community ?

 

[spat]

I would love to hear how you would propose a system so that was not possible for police to abuse their authority in any event at any time.
Tell me how that would be done .

Give them a lot less power and the opportunity for abuse will drop as well.

If you got rid of the drug laws 99% of the abuse would go away.

If you kept the actual bad guys locked up longer, then the odds of anyone they encountered being a bad guy would drop drastically. Consequently they wouldn't be able to assume nefarious activities so easily, and the potential for abuse would also drop drastically.

 

[holdover]

The abuse would drop and your crime rates will hike when it becomes more difficult to make arrests. Its a give and take situation

Dropping Drug laws would help .

Thing is, I don't have the answers. People are going to be dirty no matter what. No matter how many rules you put in place , someone is going to break them . Gun laws for example. Making new laws or rules does pretty much nothing in stopping a criminal from committing a crime .

 

[Marine Cpl]

Blanketing is exactly what's going on , Im not defending the bad cops, Im defending the good ones . Ive seen the videos , there's a shit ton of them . There's no denying it. Not to many of the ones where the cops do the right thing though .

How does it get fixed? That's the question.I don't think its a matter of the law, Its like having more gun laws to fix the problem. It has to be some other type of screening or something .

How does it get fixed? If police chiefs and police partners who knew something was wrong actually did something about it, we wouldn’t be having this problem.

If every time a cop saw that his partner was about to violate someone’s rights and pulled him over to the side and said something to him, we wouldn’t be having these problems. If every time a chief saw or heard of a potential rights violation and investigated it legitimately and applied a proper punishment, we wouldn’t be having these issues.

But instead they stand around and let it happen. If it gets to the brass, the brass tries to spin it so that the department doesn’t look bad. The thin blue line or wall of silence is what creates these violations and why so many take place.

No police officer would ever tolerate the rape of a woman by one of their own. That’s a line that will not be crossed. Why is Rights Violations any different?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Give them a lot less power and the opportunity for abuse will drop as well.

If you got rid of the drug laws 99% of the abuse would go away.

If you kept the actual bad guys locked up longer, then the odds of anyone they encountered being a bad guy would drop drastically. Consequently they wouldn't be able to assume nefarious activities so easily, and the potential for abuse would also drop drastically.

This! The drug war is what created the police state. It’s why swat teams were born. If drugs were legal and instead they focused on real crimes committed by these drug offenders like robberies, larcenies, murders, ect. We wouldn’t be having these problems. But since they are focused on finding drugs and guns, the real crimes are mostly left unsolved.

 

[spat]

The abuse would drop and your crime rates will hike when it becomes more difficult to make arrests. Its a give and take situation

Dropping Drug laws would help .

Thing is, I don't have the answers. People are going to be dirty no matter what. No matter how many rules you put in place , someone is going to break them . Gun laws for example. Making new laws or rules does pretty much nothing in stopping a criminal from committing a crime .

I think most people recognize that there are always bad actors, and you can't eliminate 100% of them in any reasonably large group.

What people want is a system that doesn't actively support the bad actors.

We want a system where the chief has greater incentive to correct the problem than to deny it.

I read an article a while ago about a cop who got all sorts of awards for arresting drunk and high drivers (there's his motive).

A few people who knew they were wrongly accused went to the local news. They got all sorts of stats pulled, and lab tests, etc...

Turns out the majority of the people this guy pulled over tested negative. But he would go testify against them and cite all his awards and expertise and get convictions anyway and point out some subjective observations as evidence.

When confronted by the evidence his boss claimed that this officer was more reliable at identifying intoxication than a blood test, and that it was right to convict these people.

What possible evidence could they have to demonstrate that he is better than a blood test ?

 

[Mr. terzmo]

Obviously that's the right answer for people who came here illegally from that country, but how do you identify them ?

What if it's not someone from El Salvador. What if that happened to *you*.

You piss off some ICE agent and he decides to screw you over.

Are you required to prove you live here or get sent a few thousand miles away and just dropped off ?

The bottom line is a person follows the immigration laws procedures. IF not, there are consequences. My ancestors immigrated in the early 1800's. They didn't sneak in, they were counted in the Census, took care of themselves. They didn't come in looking for housing,free,food,free,and medical care...free.

I suggest a poll of all people who oppose and support illegal immigration. ALL who support it gets their taxes raised to support their approval.(300 to 500 % increase at the least)The others stay at the same far too high current rate. And build the camps for the illegals in the cities , suburbs and gated communities. See how far that goes.

 

[96coal449]

I oppose illegal immigration.

Take my taxes as usual.

 

[spat]

The bottom line is a person follows the immigration laws procedures. IF not, there are consequences. My ancestors immigrated in the early 1800's. They didn't sneak in, they were counted in the Census, took care of themselves. They didn't come in looking for housing,free,food,free,and medical care...free.

I suggest a poll of all people who oppose and support illegal immigration. ALL who support it gets their taxes raised to support their approval.(300 to 500 % increase at the least)The others stay at the same far too high current rate. And build the camps for the illegals in the cities , suburbs and gated communities. See how far that goes.

I am 100% opposed to illegal immigration. Anyone who didn't come in through proper channels and wait their turn should be sent back.

What I am afraid of though is American citizens losing their rights in the name of fighting illegal immigration.

I do not want to end up in a country where I am expected to carry my "papers" to prove my citizenship. We are pretty damn close to that now.

 

[96coal449]

I am 100% opposed to illegal immigration. Anyone who didn't come in through proper channels and wait their turn should be sent back.

What I am afraid of though is American citizens losing their rights in the name of fighting illegal immigration.

I do not want to end up in a country where I am expected to carry my "papers" to prove my citizenship. We are pretty damn close to that now.

This would not be true if illegals were not receiving DLs.

 

[spat]

This would not be true if illegals were not receiving DLs.

Well, having to carry your license around to prove your citizenship is "papers".

 

[Day444]

That's how it's *supposed* to work. But what safeguards are there to ensure that that's how it *does* work ?
Also, how is being "belligerent" evidence of anything that would justify further action ?
Some guy acts pissed that you pull him over so that's justification for further searches ?

Only safeguard that comes to mind is that the cop is doing their job the right way.
If you're being belligerent to the point where the cop feels endangered, they may restrain you for their safety. That's further action. Pat search, for their safety, further action. A search of one's person is not the same as a vehicle search.

 

[spat]

Only safeguard that comes to mind is that the cop is doing their job the right way.
If you're being belligerent to the point where the cop feels endangered, they may restrain you for their safety. That's further action. Pat search, for their safety, further action. A search of one's person is not the same as a vehicle search.

The cop doing their job the right way isn't a safeguard.

The safeguard would be a way to ensure that the cop *does* do their job the right way.

Most do, but not all. It doesn't matter if 100 cops walk by you and respect your rights, if #101 violates them you could be screwed.

 

[Day444]

The cop doing their job the right way isn't a safeguard.
The safeguard would be a way to ensure that the cop *does* do their job the right way.
Most do, but not all. It doesn't matter if 100 cops walk by you and respect your rights, if #101 violates them you could be screwed.

Ok, point made.

 

[Different Drummer]

There's a lot to unpack here. In your scenario, was the search LAWFUL ? Was it JUST ? It may have been LAWFUL, but not JUST. While I believe that MANY searches are UN-JUST and done only because the LEO is searching for a crime, there are also many times when a search IS justified.

I would NEVER CONSENT to a roadside search of myself or my vehicle. That being said, I have had my car tossed because the LEO "smelled something". He smelled his own ass, maybe, I don't know, but he definately didn't smell anything fron my vehicle that would truely provide probable cause. After being detained for an hour while he tossed my car, then his buddy showed up and went through it, then the dog arrived... finally I was released with a warning. Honestly, I FULLY EXPECTED the dog to find whatever the second guy was there to plant, ( Go ahead, tell me THAT never happens ) but the second guy and the dog handler were far more honest than the guy that pulled me over. I chalk that up to LUCK.

LEO's have wide discression in how they conduct themselves and their duties. Some are true professionals, and some are worse than the criminals they are there to protect us from. Some are hard-asses that think THEY are God. Some are decent guys that actually want to serve their community. Which one will you encounter ? Who knows ?

I don't hate cops. By the same token, I will not pretend that they are all White Knights riding a White steed while wearing shining armor. A HEALTHY amount of distrust must be applied to any authority figure.

Sums up my feelings quite well. In fact exactly!
I have not always held this opinion. Throughout my life I guess I niavely thought that any and all LEO were the good guys doing the correct thing. Must be something to say about getting wiser as one gets older.

 

[Tisto]

A broken or malfunctioning tail is probable cause for a V+T stop. It does not require a search of any physical nature. Now if the driver is belligerent or threatens the Cop, the situation changes. The driver may be restrained for the Cops safety. Normally pat searched and asked if they have anything weapons on them (Or things that may injure the cop, needles, etc.) Is there further escalation? Depends on what could have been found. Anything in plain sight? No, searching ends. DWI/ DUI changes the situation again. If there is no evidence of either, wants/warrants, insurance in effect and valid, all clear? Bye, here's your fix ticket.

Understood. In my case, however, the scenario was nothing like that. What exactly got me pulled over, you ask ? First, I'm white. Not just white, MARSHMALLO WHITE. Second, it was 3:15 am. Third, I was in "the ghetto". Well, sort-of anyway. From the exit of the expressway , I had to drive around the edge of some public housing. The projects, if you will. Fourth, I'm smart enough to avoid an obsticle in the road by maneuvering around it instead of running it over.

Ok, so late one night I'm on my way home from work. Usual time, usual route. At one particular intersection that had a history of CARJACKINGS and DRUG ACTIVITY occuring there, I stopped for the light, ( yes, a FULL STOP.) looked around, and seeing a group of what I'm sure were churchgoing youthes walking toward me, decided that I did not want to wait for the light, so I turned instead. Doing so put me directly inline to hit a very large and deep pothole. I went around it. Did I go into the oncoming lane ? Yes, but there were no road markings, and no traffic. A few hundred feet down the road, I was lit up by local PD. Several questions later, ( to which I gave honest and plausable answers ) he asked me to step out. Now I start to wonder just what is going on. He pats me down. Finds my .40 on my hip, and freaks out. Before I could offer my permit, I was cuffed. Did he ask if I had weapons on me ? NO. Did he tell me he was going to pat me down ? NO. As soon as I was cuffed and in the back of the cruiser, he started the search of my car. The dumb F didn't even finish with me first, he completely missed the 2 knives I had on me. After a while of looking around, he gets on the radio. Calls for backup. Says that he "smelled something", and that I had a weapon. A few minutes later cop #2 shows up. An older guy, probably in his 40's. They talk where I can't hear them. #2 goes to my car and begins searching. #1watches, occasionally looking over at me. #3 and his dog arrive a bit later, and they have a go at it. I can see #2 shake his head (no) to #3 a few times.after a bit, the dog goes back into the car and #3 drives away. Finally, #2 comes over to talk to me. #1 is STILL looking at stuff in my car. I explain every action I took calmly and reasonably politely, considering what just happened. #2 un-cuffs me, and I show him my pistol permit. He asks why I'm armed. IT'S 3:15 AM AND I'M DRIVING THROUGH THE GHETTO ! After doing as much of a background check as he could from a radio, he hands me my doccuments, my gun, and tells me to leave.

Now, I ask you: was ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED TO ME JUSTIFIED ? WAS ANY OF IT LEGAL ?

NO. If #1 wanted to write a ticket that he KNEW would get thrown out, he should have done so. BUT HE DIDN'T !

AND THERE-IN LIES THE PROBLEM.

 

[Day444]

...
Several questions later, ( to which I gave honest and plausible answers ) he asked me to step out. Now I start to wonder just what is going on. He pats me down. Finds my .40 on my hip, and freaks out. Before I could offer my permit, I was cuffed. Did he ask if I had weapons on me ? NO.

You could have mentioned to the cop that you were armed. (Yeah, in NY you don't have to inform.) 'I have a permit and I'm carrying.' Cop doesn't have to ask you if you have weapons on your person. He could have screwed his service weapon into the back of your head or worse shot you.

The dumb F didn't even finish with me first, he completely missed the 2 knives I had on me.

Not uncommon that cops miss dangerous items on pat searches. Cop was probably rattled by finding your gun.
Rushed his pat search.

... #1 is STILL looking at stuff in my car. I explain every action I took calmly and reasonably politely, considering what just happened. #2 un-cuffs me, and I show him my pistol permit. He asks why I'm armed. IT'S 3:15 AM AND I'M DRIVING THROUGH THE GHETTO ! After doing as much of a background check as he could from a radio, he hands me my documents, my gun, and tells me to leave.

You were profiled, 'white guy where he doesn't belong', sucks and it happens way to often.

Now, I ask you: was ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED TO ME JUSTIFIED ? WAS ANY OF IT LEGAL ?

Stop was legal, but you should have been asked why you did what you did. (avoided the pot hole.)
Were you asked/told to get out of your car? No, need for that. Pat search, at that hour in that place you could argue it was "for the Officers safety". Other than searching what is in plain sight, questionable, was he looking for more guns/weapons? P.C. was the weapon he found on you. Search of the inside of the car is justified. Dog- nope, bullshit call, fishing expedition.

NO. If #1 wanted to write a ticket that he KNEW would get thrown out, he should have done so. BUT HE DIDN'T !

More than likely the ticket for serving around the pot hole would get tossed out. Nope, copper profiled you, you gave him an excuse to pull you over. From there he went fishing, hoping to prove his profiling skills were right.

AND THERE-IN LIES THE PROBLEM.

 

[holdover]

""P.C. was the weapon he found on you. ""

The weapon was legal, The assumption by the officer that it wasn't, was his probable cause. Or he knowingly didn't ask for a permit as an excuse to search. The first question the officer should have asked is Do you have a permit for the weapon. ?No gives him PC. Yes doesn't . ( unless he runs it) If he had a trunk full of coke it would be thrown out. .

 

[Darth]

Only safeguard that comes to mind is that the cop is doing their job the right way.
If you're being belligerent to the point where the cop feels endangered, they may restrain you for their safety. That's further action. Pat search, for their safety, further action. A search of one's person is not the same as a vehicle search.

This points back to the already mentioned accountability.

If the cop does pull the "officer safety" routine and handcuffs you (and it's not some hot chick cop) and searches you/detains you that's fine. No problem with that. As long as if nothing is found, INSTANTLY the cop is arrested and charged with unlawful imprisonment, robbery, and probably threats, if any were made, and they usually are.

Just hold them accountable for their actions. Stop with this "arrest now and let the courts figure it out" crap. Sure, do that, BUT when no guilty verdict is returned, the cop is gone IMMEDIATELY. No "internal investigation", no "paid vacation", fired and banned from ever holding a public officer job for life.

Let's see how quickly their attitudes would change then. Just a dash of accountability would drive them into a tailspin.