Nah, leave it open...it's like an all night Bitch-o-Rama...![]()
Nah, leave it open...it's like an all night Bitch-o-Rama...![]()
Light a fire for a man, and he'll be warm for a day, light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life...
Discussion is an exchange of intelligence. Argument is an exchange of
ignorance. Ever found a liberal that you can have a discussion with?
This thread ripe to be whored, now.
Thomas, very good post. I agree with pretty much everything that you said. Without knowing the full circumstances of the case I make myself to comment only think about what I would potentially do in the event I were in the same circumstances that have been provided for by the media and by this thread.
I advocate compliance with the lawful orders of peace officers, if for no other reason than there are laws against failure to comply. However, it irritates me that we as a society have allowed ourselves to be indoctrinated that the only time to question whether or not an order is lawful is after the fact (submit first, question in court). Of course, the reason we do this is because we KNOW that police officers are armed, and willing to escalate force to the point of compliance, being backed by force of law, so it makes good sense to "go with the flow" and sort things out later. I'm not sure I have a better solution, but the idea that just because someone is a police officer, they have a right to seize control of me at any time just irks me. And Ronin brings up a good point: Where does the line get drawn between asserting one's rights, and "resisting a police officer"?
Light a fire for a man, and he'll be warm for a day, light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life...
Discussion is an exchange of intelligence. Argument is an exchange of
ignorance. Ever found a liberal that you can have a discussion with?
Here's my prediction: The bankrobber is going to get all evidence found in his car thrown out because it's fruit of the poisoned tree.
If they can’t find some other way to pin the robbery on him, he’ll walk.
Versus [assuming the presence of a GPS unit, which in my mind is a certainty] the police mixing in with the cars until via the GPS tracking information one car differentiated itself from the others. Now stop him (hopefully in a relatively safe area), get a warrant (now you have probable cause) and nail the bad guy.
All the while using less police officers, endangering fewer people and you don’t have to cuff innocent people in the process either.
Total win-win. I think someone got excited by the technology at hand (makes me think that this is the first time they had GPS data on a robbery) and jumped the gun, so to speak.
O2
Last edited by O2HeN2; 06-08-2012 at 08:46.
I like that this point has been made, as I don't think it can be stressed enough.
Do not get into a confrontation with uniformed cops on the street. It will not go well for you.
As a non-uniformed LE, I follow that same rule. Yes, officer. No, officer. You do not have my consent officer. When you would like to see it, I can identify myself officer.
Save the civil rights fight for a safe place, like a courtroom or administrative hearing.
Sometimes it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion.
If you have the right of way, and clearly have the legal right to cross the street; to do so in front of a tractor trailer (to defend your rights) is not just wrong, but foolish.
Be safe.
Great point. At the end of the day, that "tractor trailer" could be very damaging and I don't think it's worth it.
If a cop does something stupid that I don't agree with and I work with, I will tell him later in a safe place. Causing a fight in the middle of a call is also not the place...and if he doesn't change his ways, well he can give up his house and all his money in court because I'll still have mine.
Some folks get detained for a short time. The bad guy gets caught and everyone goes home safe to their families. Sounds to me like a win/win for all involved.