Sorry to post another "Eff you COPS" thread, but I'm not really sorry at all, pigs.
05-15-2009, 01:04 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Napa
Posts: 204
Car Info: 99RS-T
i have to say i have seen cops come in pass tests and the ones that turn bad have way huge ego's and are the ones i see turn bad. I would hope to think they should have yearly evaluations and if more people turned in the bad ones maybe the city can clean them out.
I agree fully that what they did to the pastor was way way way wrong and that shows how corrupt thay can actually be. But having police officers in my family i also see the good side to it all as well.
I agree fully that what they did to the pastor was way way way wrong and that shows how corrupt thay can actually be. But having police officers in my family i also see the good side to it all as well.
05-15-2009, 01:04 AM
#17
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upper North Bay
Posts: 6,967
Car Info: '15 LE STI, '06 WRX White Wheeled Wagon, '06 B9
you cant say all cops are bad, i know personally from very close family members but **** man that **** just cant be going on... i know its ****ed up but if he wasnt white or asain ( how many asians come from mexico) i might understand probable cause but **** man that is some ****ed ****, why does this happen, i could onyl be lucky enough to have video rolling with this happens
05-15-2009, 01:06 AM
#18
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South San Jose
Posts: 751
Car Info: 2007 WRX CGM
did you guys see news this evening. where LAPD were aresting a guy after a high speed chase and the news choper was broadcasting live when the cops with guns drown came up to the guy who was laying on the ground (surrendered), and started bitting the crap out of him with legs, flashlights and so on!!! Horrrrrible!
http://tinyurl.com/o8kpt6
05-15-2009, 01:17 AM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: No Way
Posts: 6,826
Car Info: Nadda
The criminal might lose the criminal act, but the civil will make good money.
I like the late guy who came in with a dog and got a high five, wow. Great time to show joy "We got da boy coralled didn't we billy?"
05-15-2009, 01:25 AM
#22
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: No Way
Posts: 6,826
Car Info: Nadda
I'd say more, but then I don't want to cause any trouble. But I wouldn't miss him if he disappeared off this planet one day...
05-15-2009, 01:51 AM
#24
I say if your going to sit there and argue with a cop then dont be surprised to get tasered and roughed up. If you have a good argument just follow directions and do what they tell you. There is something called "COURT" where you can prove your point at.
05-15-2009, 02:10 AM
#26
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Honestly, I think its comments/mentality like "EFF you COPS" that feed into the cycle. You guys (yes, I'm including you in the group because of your remark) are filled with such hatred and anger towards the cops that they HAVE to approach a situation defensive (look at what happened in Oakland). Not all cops are bad, the majority of LEO's are NOT bad. It is ignorant to think that they are all bad, and to say such remarks. You are ignorant.
As for the video, NO ONE in that video was bright, including the pastor. They didn't have probably cause? Yes, they did. How? They had two sources of probable cause.
NO ONE in that video was bright, including the pastor. They didn't have probably cause? Yes, they did. How? They had two sources of probable cause.
1) Drug dog indicated substances in the vehicle. Probable cause.
2) When stopping him for reasonable suspicion (crossing state border late at night? really, anything, including race, qualifies as reasonable suspicion) being met with his hostile, confrontational, and non-cooperative attitude gives probably cause that something in the situation is not right.
Next issue, "arrest" is the inability to leave the situation. Once an LEO has you pulled over and you are not allowed to leave, you are technically under arrest. You are not yet in police custody, but you are under arrest. This individual was already under arrest, as the officer even said. His misunderstanding of the term seems to have lead him to most likely believe he was being put in jail, hence his reluctance to obey. Had the officer explained that, perhaps it would have diffused the situation a bit.
What was the dialogue prior to the video that we are able to see? Did he reach down to grab the camera? Reaching where an officer cannot see your hands will ALWAYS escalate the situation because they have to be prepared for you to be putting their life in danger with whatever you are grabbing. This will increase adrenaline, which isn't a good thing in this kind of situation.
The tazing. Does anybody know if these were Arizona or California LEO's? I'd like to know the protocol for dealing with resisting individuals inside a vehicle. Obviously the officer was following some sort of safety protocol when he asked the pastor to cover his eyes.
The beating. Unfortunately we cannot see what was happening on the other side of the car. What I find odd is that obviously the footage was released to the pastor, and I'm sure (for safety and liability) all angles of the car are covered by cameras. So why didn't he show the angle that shows he is peacefully surrendering as he exits the vehicle? When his video ends, he is being tazed through the passenger side window. When the surveillance footage starts, he is already out of the drivers side door, somethings missing.
Here's the issue I see with the tazing and beating. When someone has resisted that much that they need to resort to a tazer to get them into custody, obviously ****s getting crazy. When the suspect exits the car, don't the officers have to get them down on the ground and handcuffed ASAP? However, if he's being tazed, how easy is it for him to get on the ground/is he able to focus his thoughts on what he needs to do in order to show he is peacefully surrendering? What I'm getting at here is that the tazer may be whats making it difficult for him to show that he is peacefully surrendering, if thats what he's trying to do on the other side of the car.
Now I'm watching the second video. When an LEO arrests you (as defined above) it's not the brightest thing to refuse to answer the questions. Secondly, you are protected against search without warrant unless there is probably cause. As stated above, two sources of probable cause. They are allowed to search his car.
On a side note, the supreme court was deciding last week on whether your car DOES qualify as an area of expected privacy. They were leaning towards deciding that it DOESN'T, which means that it can be searched without probable cause (hood, trunk, passenger compartment) similar to requiring you take a BAC test. I'll have to look up the timing of their decision in relation to this incident, and their final decision.
He claims that the dog was a lie, and that he caught them in the lie, like so:
-Officer tells him, has he answered the initial questions, he would have been let go.
-He says "but I thought it was because of the dog smelling drugs or a body? you're lying."
He had said previously that he was questioned and refused to answer, AND THEN the dog was brought out.
Why is this happening in the United States of America?
Because of people like him. Waiving their "constitutional rights" around like it makes them higher up than an LEO, when they don't actually understand their rights. Refusing to answer questions, saying "Leave me alone, I'm going to drive home." as if you have a right to drive? Because of this arrogant *****. That is why this is happening. Answering their questions and then allowing their search after NOT answering, would not have been giving up ANY of his rights, because he had no rights protecting his actions.
I don't get why people think they can tell an LEO that is doing their job to **** off, and then expect the officer to give you flowers to pursued you to cooperate.
This are almost 100% true, but there would be no court hearing if he answered their questions or allowed them to search, because they would be doing nothing wrong. The most you could do it file a complaint and say what? That they were doing their job? That he felt their job infringed on his non-existent right to drive?
If you resist, you are not going to make them go away, and you ARE going to go to jail. If you have nothing to hide, prove to them that their dog was wrong, and let them search your car. After all, that's what those border stations are for! That's like going up to TSA at the airport and being surprised they are screening your bag. If you do have something illegal that you are trying to sneak through, then you deserve to get that for a) breaking the law, and b) making the LEO's job more difficult when you are caught.
As for the video, NO ONE in that video was bright, including the pastor. They didn't have probably cause? Yes, they did. How? They had two sources of probable cause.
NO ONE in that video was bright, including the pastor. They didn't have probably cause? Yes, they did. How? They had two sources of probable cause.
1) Drug dog indicated substances in the vehicle. Probable cause.
2) When stopping him for reasonable suspicion (crossing state border late at night? really, anything, including race, qualifies as reasonable suspicion) being met with his hostile, confrontational, and non-cooperative attitude gives probably cause that something in the situation is not right.
Next issue, "arrest" is the inability to leave the situation. Once an LEO has you pulled over and you are not allowed to leave, you are technically under arrest. You are not yet in police custody, but you are under arrest. This individual was already under arrest, as the officer even said. His misunderstanding of the term seems to have lead him to most likely believe he was being put in jail, hence his reluctance to obey. Had the officer explained that, perhaps it would have diffused the situation a bit.
What was the dialogue prior to the video that we are able to see? Did he reach down to grab the camera? Reaching where an officer cannot see your hands will ALWAYS escalate the situation because they have to be prepared for you to be putting their life in danger with whatever you are grabbing. This will increase adrenaline, which isn't a good thing in this kind of situation.
The tazing. Does anybody know if these were Arizona or California LEO's? I'd like to know the protocol for dealing with resisting individuals inside a vehicle. Obviously the officer was following some sort of safety protocol when he asked the pastor to cover his eyes.
The beating. Unfortunately we cannot see what was happening on the other side of the car. What I find odd is that obviously the footage was released to the pastor, and I'm sure (for safety and liability) all angles of the car are covered by cameras. So why didn't he show the angle that shows he is peacefully surrendering as he exits the vehicle? When his video ends, he is being tazed through the passenger side window. When the surveillance footage starts, he is already out of the drivers side door, somethings missing.
Here's the issue I see with the tazing and beating. When someone has resisted that much that they need to resort to a tazer to get them into custody, obviously ****s getting crazy. When the suspect exits the car, don't the officers have to get them down on the ground and handcuffed ASAP? However, if he's being tazed, how easy is it for him to get on the ground/is he able to focus his thoughts on what he needs to do in order to show he is peacefully surrendering? What I'm getting at here is that the tazer may be whats making it difficult for him to show that he is peacefully surrendering, if thats what he's trying to do on the other side of the car.
Now I'm watching the second video. When an LEO arrests you (as defined above) it's not the brightest thing to refuse to answer the questions. Secondly, you are protected against search without warrant unless there is probably cause. As stated above, two sources of probable cause. They are allowed to search his car.
On a side note, the supreme court was deciding last week on whether your car DOES qualify as an area of expected privacy. They were leaning towards deciding that it DOESN'T, which means that it can be searched without probable cause (hood, trunk, passenger compartment) similar to requiring you take a BAC test. I'll have to look up the timing of their decision in relation to this incident, and their final decision.
He claims that the dog was a lie, and that he caught them in the lie, like so:
-Officer tells him, has he answered the initial questions, he would have been let go.
-He says "but I thought it was because of the dog smelling drugs or a body? you're lying."
He had said previously that he was questioned and refused to answer, AND THEN the dog was brought out.
Why is this happening in the United States of America?
Because of people like him. Waiving their "constitutional rights" around like it makes them higher up than an LEO, when they don't actually understand their rights. Refusing to answer questions, saying "Leave me alone, I'm going to drive home." as if you have a right to drive? Because of this arrogant *****. That is why this is happening. Answering their questions and then allowing their search after NOT answering, would not have been giving up ANY of his rights, because he had no rights protecting his actions.
I don't get why people think they can tell an LEO that is doing their job to **** off, and then expect the officer to give you flowers to pursued you to cooperate.
If you resist, you are not going to make them go away, and you ARE going to go to jail. If you have nothing to hide, prove to them that their dog was wrong, and let them search your car. After all, that's what those border stations are for! That's like going up to TSA at the airport and being surprised they are screening your bag. If you do have something illegal that you are trying to sneak through, then you deserve to get that for a) breaking the law, and b) making the LEO's job more difficult when you are caught.
Last edited by VRT MBasile; 05-15-2009 at 02:46 AM.
05-15-2009, 02:51 AM
#28
tough S**T for this guy.
normally, i'd say, when stopped by LE you ask them either arrest me or let me go.
at that point, the dude was already told he was to be arrested and he refused to leave his car.
he didnt need to be tased or his car broken. he made his decision and now he needs to face the consequences...
normally, i'd say, when stopped by LE you ask them either arrest me or let me go.
at that point, the dude was already told he was to be arrested and he refused to leave his car.
he didnt need to be tased or his car broken. he made his decision and now he needs to face the consequences...
05-15-2009, 03:46 AM
#30
after watching the second vid...
this thing lasted over an hour. AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!
geez... get this guy the WAAAAMBULANCE.
btw he doesnt know how K9 indicates something. i've seen training vids where dogs, when they find something they have been trained to look for, they just sit. no barking, no jumping all over the place.
this guy thinks being a pastor gives him a free pass.
sheesh... cry me a friggin river.
the border patrol called the DPS probably since they didnt have a taser... or to probably take this guy to a normal jail instead of a holding place to deport illegals.
this thing lasted over an hour. AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!
geez... get this guy the WAAAAMBULANCE.
btw he doesnt know how K9 indicates something. i've seen training vids where dogs, when they find something they have been trained to look for, they just sit. no barking, no jumping all over the place.
this guy thinks being a pastor gives him a free pass.
sheesh... cry me a friggin river.
the border patrol called the DPS probably since they didnt have a taser... or to probably take this guy to a normal jail instead of a holding place to deport illegals.