supreme court ruling: pigs can arrest you for anything!

[theflash]

What do you expect in a state like Texas? Not for nothing, but that just wouldn't happen in NJ or NY!

If you've ever been to Texas you know what I'm talking about.

------------------

[stacychase]

Originally posted by theflash:

What do you expect in a state like Texas? Not for nothing, but that just wouldn't happen in NJ or NY!

If you've ever been to Texas you know what I'm talking about.

Back up jack, I am from Texas... Not that it is perfect, however you have NEVER heard of a cop shooting someone 41 times for holding their WALLET!! Bad things happen everywhere.

------------------

Life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward.

[playboychick]

Originally posted by stacychase:

Back up jack, I am from Texas... Not that it is perfect, however you have NEVER heard of a cop shooting someone 41 times for holding their WALLET!! Bad things happen everywhere.

I agree with you that bad things happen everywhere.

But I do believe it was 4 cops that shot Diallo 41 times...not one cop.

(Only reason why I clarify that is b/c one cop shooting someone 41 times is a whole different story as opposed to 4 cops shooting some 41 times simulataneously. And that's not too say that either story would be justified.)

[This message has been edited by playboychick (edited 04-26-2001).]

[stacychase]

Originally posted by playboychick:

I agree with you that bad things happen everywhere.

But I do believe it was 4 cops that shot Diallo 41 times...not one cop.

(Only reason why I clarify that is b/c one cop shooting someone 41 times is a whole different story as opposed to 4 cops shooting some 41 times simulataneously. And that's not too say that either story would be justified.)

[This message has been edited by playboychick (edited 04-26-2001).]

Agreed it was 4 cops, however does that justify 41 bullets? 4 divided by 41, still means that 10 bullets were fired from each gun.... That is still alot of ammo pumped into one person. I guess it goes back to, bad things happen everywhere...

------------------

Life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward.

[playboychick]

Originally posted by stacychase:

Agreed it was 4 cops, however does that justify 41 bullets? 4 divided by 41, still means that 10 bullets were fired from each gun.... That is still alot of ammo pumped into one person. I guess it goes back to, bad things happen everywhere...

He was actually hit with 19 bullets.

I don't know if you're familiar with police training, but you're taught to fire more than once b/c the odds of 1 bullet actually hitting the target is against you (As in this case with 41 shots fired w/19 hits). You're also told that if you're gonna pull the trigger (b/c your life and/or others is/are in danger), you better intend to kill...not wound.

I know this whole subject is getting off of the intended topic so I'll end my posting with like you said,

"Bad things happen everywhere."

[mjr203]

'cept if you're on the turnpike. then the jersey state police do target practice on your car.

-mjr

Originally posted by theflash:

What do you expect in a state like Texas? Not for nothing, but that just wouldn't happen in NJ or NY!

If you've ever been to Texas you know what I'm talking about.

------------------

In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the entire universe is composed of

only two basic substances: Magic and bullshit.

[playboychick]

Originally posted by mjr203:

'cept if you're on the turnpike. then the jersey state police do target practice on your car.

-mjr

Not anymore. Jersey Troopers have backed off. Only 8 searches so far this year. Now the media is b*tchin' cause there's not enough.

Catch 22 for those guys.

[stacychase]

Damned if you do... Damned if you don't...

------------------

Life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward.

[weyes]

just wanted to point the liberties that cops take. almost every time i see a cop car drive by that DOESN'T have its lights going and ISN'T going fast (meaning that it's not going to a crime scene or on its way to stop a crime in progress) it's driving the wrong way on a one-way street. oh boy! it's so much fun to be a cop! they do shit like that just 'cause they can. nevermind that that's incredibly dangerous.

*don't give me that "there are good cops, too, crap, 'cause i've heard enough of that bullshit to last me a lifetime.

[msoprano]

one word

ridiculous

------------------

"don't get attached to anything you're not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat coming around the corner"

Robert Deniro

TUNNEL SATURDAY'S "SOPRANO GUEST LIST"

AIM:MSOPRANO13

Email: msoprano13@yahoo.com

[playboychick]

Originally posted by weyes:

just wanted to point the liberties that cops take. almost every time i see a cop car drive by that DOESN'T have its lights going and ISN'T going fast (meaning that it's not going to a crime scene or on its way to stop a crime in progress) it's driving the wrong way on a one-way street. oh boy! it's so much fun to be a cop! they do shit like that just 'cause they can. nevermind that that's incredibly dangerous.

*don't give me that "there are good cops, too, crap, 'cause i've heard enough of that bullshit to last me a lifetime.

First of all....just because a cop does not have his/her lights on and is not driving fast does not mean they are not answering a call.

Not all cops want to annouce to a potential suspect that they are coming. For all you know, the cop could have been answering a call for domestic abuse, chose not to put his lights on so as not to make the suspect aware (therefore he won't flee the scene), and even though it's wrong, chose to go down a one-way street the wrong way b/c it's faster (instead of speeding around blocks which can be difficult & just as dangerous in NYC).

I'm not gonna say that cops don't do that for other reasons, but sometimes they have a valid excuse.

What worries me is that many people seem not to recognize the good things that cops do. The things that go unheard of. The things they do day in and day out because it's there job. People tend to focus on the bad all the time. No wonder why NYPD (and other LE angencies) can't get any recruits. As soon as you throw on a uniform, you're automatically hated based on a few INDIVIDUALS.

[roadrunner]

Originally posted by playboychick:

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You guys act as if a new law was put into effect. Cops are not going to be out arresting people for not wearing seat belts and the like. The court ruled that Atwater's 4th amendment protection was not violated. And yes, they claim the cop overdid it when he arressted Atwater but,

the court decided not to make a constitutional change that that would prevent officers from make warrantless arrests & searches. That's all. Nothing has changed.

Did you read the article? You can get arrested now for a fineable offense, and be legally given bail that is 6 times the amount of the fine. FOR A TRAFFIC OFFENSE!

AND this isw legal grounds for a search and seizure. That's totally different. This is not about cops at all. I don't know why anyone is mentioning that. This is LAW, and of course the cops and DAs and every other agent of the law is at liberty to enforce it to a degree they feel necessary, BUT the supreme court has basically said, "Hey if you want to arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt, that's fine, go ahead. While you're at it, you might as well search their car for weed. You don't need consent or a warrant. Youa lready have probable cause in the eye of the law."

BTW I think NYC cops are the coolest cops in the world. Never had trouble with 'em. They do theirjob with dignity and fairness. But, like I said, now the potential is legally there for another administration to do some ugly shit. Look at how Giuliani resurrected the cabaret laws. As long as its on the books, you should be scared, even if it's not being presently enforced.

------------------

*i'm in love with the modern world*

[playboychick]

Originally posted by roadrunner:

Did you read the article? You can get arrested now for a fineable offense, and be legally given bail that is 6 times the amount of the fine. FOR A TRAFFIC OFFENSE!

You could be arrested BEFORE for a fineable offense. The article stated that the court was not willing to amend the constition/laws. They did not want to put restrictions on the law b/c they felt it was a case by case decision.

Originally posted by roadrunner:

AND this isw legal grounds for a search and seizure. That's totally different. This is not about cops at all. I don't know why anyone is mentioning that. This is LAW, and of course the cops and DAs and every other agent of the law is at liberty to enforce it to a degree they feel necessary, BUT the supreme court has basically said, "Hey if you want to arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt, that's fine, go ahead. While you're at it, you might as well search their car for weed. You don't need consent or a warrant. Youa lready have probable cause in the eye of the law."

The court did not say it was "ok to arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt." They felt the officer was wrong under those circumstances. What they did say was that they didn't feel Atwater's case warrented a change in the law. They would rather continue to leave it to the officer's discretion. And this is not to say that every officer is going to be out arresting everyone b/c he can. If an officer was able to do it before and didn't, what would possess him/her to do it now...especially with commanding officers looking over your shoulder!?!

Unfortunately I don't know the circumstances of Atwater's case. In my mind, there had to be a reason, other than not wearing a seatbelt, for her arrest. She may have given the officer a hard time about the situation. Based on the facts presented, clearly she was in the wrong...Atwater NOR her children were wearing seatbelts.

If anybody knows where there is a transcript from the court case, I'd be interested in reading it. (Just for my own curiosity.)

[This message has been edited by playboychick (edited 04-26-2001).]

[sirdante]

Originally posted by playboychick:

The court did not say it was "ok to arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt." They felt the officer was wrong under those circumstances. What they did say was that they didn't feel Atwater's case warrented a change in the law. They would rather continue to leave it to the officer's discretion. And this is not to say that every officer is going to be out arresting everyone b/c he can. If an officer was able to do it before and didn't, what would possess him/her to do it now...especially with commanding officers looking over your shoulder!?!

well technically you are correct. however, now that the *supreme* court of the land has passed down its *ruling*, things have indeed changed.

with this ruling, a cop no longer has to think twice when arresting someone with probable cause. before, when making such arrests, the police and the DAs would want to be *very* sure they had a criminal on their hands. now, the following hypothetical scenario has no legal ambiguity:

- you are driving a vehicle with a bumper sticker that says "WARNING: NYPD cops are hazardous to your health" or some other equally protected free speech statement.

- a cop, who doesnt agree with your politics, pulls you over for a minor infraction, such as "failure to stay in marked lanes." (perhaps you crossed the middle line while trying to avoid the cop car that was illegally parked in the road).

- you have a brand new hemp hat on, are burning hemp fuel in the engine, and have hemp seat covers, but have never smoked a joint in your life. (you are one of those of *crazy hippies*).

- the cop says he smells marijuanna, you insist its just the nifty, new "hemp saves" air freshener, but he pulls you out of the car anyway.

- after searching the car and finding nothing, the cop still has probable cause to suspect that those new hemp seat covers are really an ingeniously devised way to smuggle a half a bale thru the the 5 burroughs.

- while your car is taken to "crime lab," you are arrrested and held in jail for 48 hours.

- two days later, you are released and your car is returned to you. no charges are filed as no crime was commited. have a nice day, "citizen."

- the only way for you to avoid arrest and detainment in the above situation is to change your political behavior. so much for free speech.

------------------

i love music!

[a_jenkins]

Another negative effect of this ruling is the anger/fear/hysteria that it is causing, evidenced on this thread for example. You can argue that the po could lock you up without reason before, but certainly the general public was not as pissed off or scared about it as they are now.

[sirdante]

Originally posted by a_jenkins:

Another negative effect of this ruling is the anger/fear/hysteria that it is causing, evidenced on this thread for example. You can argue that the po could lock you up without reason before, but certainly the general public was not as pissed off or scared about it as they are now.

yep. unfortunately the general public has an attention span of... about... um... uh...

------------------

i love music!