U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2013, 03:26 PM
 
1,877 posts, read 4,304,561 times
Reputation: 1243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069 View Post
I laughed out loud reading that "there are guns shaped like phones, cigars, and celery sticks" as justification for being drawn on in broad day light. The length at which the "police do no wrong" cheerleaders go to defend the actions of the police is impressive from just a creativity point of view. However I'm sure those same cheerleaders are feeling justified because the other side being the "cops are all crooks" draw from the same creative well.

The classic "fitting the description..." is a tried and true way of saying the police screwed up. Interestingly enough, from the same article linked by the OP:



Oh so we will never really know what happened that caused the original manhunt? How convenient.

This guy should get himself a good attorney and pursue a wrongful stop and detainment by CPMD. Since CPMD can't produce any evidence as to the original motive of the stop, it should be pretty cut and dry. He can then get a couple hundred thousand of tax payer money as compensation.
LMAO! You watch too many movies, pal. "Wrongful stop and detainment?" Really? It's not illegal to detain someone, when there is reasonable suspicion, that the individual being detained was involved in a crime. No court in the country would award a penny to our protagonist, because other than the inconvenience of a few minutes in handcuffs, there was no wronging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2013, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,769 posts, read 6,753,253 times
Reputation: 2109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoagie58 View Post
LMAO! You watch too many movies, pal. "Wrongful stop and detainment?" Really? It's not illegal to detain someone, when there is reasonable suspicion, that the individual being detained was involved in a crime. No court in the country would award a penny to our protagonist, because other than the inconvenience of a few minutes in handcuffs, there was no wronging.
I wouldn't describe being wrongfully handcuffed as an inconvenience.

I know some people are accepting of giving up due process, the right to know what your being charged with, and other basic guarantees of the bill of rights - as long it doesn't happen to the them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 05:41 PM
 
8,402 posts, read 20,281,574 times
Reputation: 6774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069 View Post
I wouldn't describe being wrongfully handcuffed as an inconvenience.

I know some people are accepting of giving up due process, the right to know what your being charged with, and other basic guarantees of the bill of rights - as long it doesn't happen to the them.
Where is it written that any of the actions described are in violation of the Bill of Rights, especially in the process of a rightful traffic stop of a possible armed robbery suspect? The guy wasn't wrongfully handcuffed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,769 posts, read 6,753,253 times
Reputation: 2109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
Where is it written that any of the actions described are in violation of the Bill of Rights, especially in the process of a rightful traffic stop of a possible armed robbery suspect? The guy wasn't wrongfully handcuffed.
It's written in the constitution....

So you actual still believe that there was an armed robbery that occurred in light of no evidence to the fact?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 06:02 PM
 
557 posts, read 568,853 times
Reputation: 1052
The thug actually should have been arrested for § 14-223. Resisting officers.
If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1889, c. 51, s. 1; Rev., s. 3700; C.S., s. 4378; 1969, c. 1224, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 136; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

The thug delayed and obstructed the officer by refusing lawful commands and refusing to comply. CMPD nees to get some charges filed on this thug. It will demonstrate to the other thugs what happens when you obstruct the police during an investigation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 06:10 PM
 
557 posts, read 568,853 times
Reputation: 1052
Did the stop justify handcuffing according to Graham vs Connor Supreme Court of our land well lets see


The severity of the suspected crime

Whether the detainee is the subject of the investigation

Whether the detainee poses an immediate threat to the safety and security of the officers

Whether the person threatens the ability of the police to conduct the search

Whether the person is resisting or attempting to flee32


The detainee was the subject of an armed robbery investigation a severe crime, he didnt comply threatening the officers ability to conduct the search, by not complying posed an immediate threat to the officer. Winner winner chicken dinner, the thug fit all the criteria for Graham vs Connor to be handcuffed. The thug will sue and get nothing because the officers acted in good faith. All he will have to show for it is a one minute video of him acting like an idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,769 posts, read 6,753,253 times
Reputation: 2109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phxrider View Post
Did the stop justify handcuffing according to Graham vs Connor Supreme Court of our land well lets see


The severity of the suspected crime

Whether the detainee is the subject of the investigation

Whether the detainee poses an immediate threat to the safety and security of the officers

Whether the person threatens the ability of the police to conduct the search

Whether the person is resisting or attempting to flee32


The detainee was the subject of an armed robbery investigation a severe crime, he didnt comply threatening the officers ability to conduct the search, by not complying posed an immediate threat to the officer. Winner winner chicken dinner, the thug fit all the criteria for Graham vs Connor to be handcuffed. The thug will sue and get nothing because the officers acted in good faith. All he will have to show for it is a one minute video of him acting like an idiot.
I doubt if he'll sue...however for the sake of this merry-go-round discussion, what evidence is there to support the basis of all this? Possibly you have access to information that CMPD doesn't have...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 11:26 PM
 
557 posts, read 568,853 times
Reputation: 1052
"CMPD told WBTV that officers received a 911 call for an armed man who had assaulted a woman before getting into a Mercury Grand Marquis."

This is the basis as to what was said in the news article. Again I don't understand why he wasn't arrested. I would love to see his history of prior police contacts for this guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2013, 11:33 PM
 
557 posts, read 568,853 times
Reputation: 1052
Also the car had tinted windows so how could the officer have seen the race of the driver? Unless the officer had a driving while black detector in his car like all cops do. This is all part of the conspiracy to imprison innocent black man to keeps the prison system funded
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2013, 01:42 AM
 
557 posts, read 568,853 times
Reputation: 1052
If the driver had tinted windows why wasn't charged ? Here is the law, he should have been arrested

§ 20-127. Windows and windshield wipers.
(a) Windshield Wipers. - A vehicle that is operated on a highway and has a windshield shall have a windshield wiper to clear rain or other substances from the windshield in front of the driver of the vehicle and the windshield wiper shall be in good working order. If a vehicle has more than one windshield wiper to clear substances from the windshield, all the windshield wipers shall be in good working order.
(b) Window Tinting Restrictions. - A window of a vehicle that is operated on a highway or a public vehicular area shall comply with this subsection. The windshield of the vehicle may be tinted only along the top of the windshield and the tinting may not extend more than five inches below the top of the windshield or below the AS1 line of the windshield, whichever measurement is longer. Provided, however, an untinted clear film which does not obstruct vision but which reduces or eliminates ultraviolet radiation from entering a vehicle may be applied to the windshield. Any other window of the vehicle may be tinted in accordance with the following restrictions:
(1) The total light transmission of the tinted window shall be at least thirty-five percent (35%). A vehicle window that, by use of a light meter approved by the Commissioner, measures a total light transmission of more than thirty-two percent (32%) is conclusively presumed to meet this restriction.
(2) The light reflectance of the tinted window shall be twenty percent (20%) or less.
(3) Tinted film or another material used to tint the window shall be nonreflective and shall not be red, yellow, or amber.
(b1) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a window of a vehicle that is operated on a public street or highway and which is subject to the provisions of Part 393 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall comply with the provisions of that Part.
(c) Tinting Exceptions. - The window tinting restrictions in subsection (b) of this section apply without exception to the windshield of a vehicle. The window tinting restrictions in subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section do not apply to any of the following vehicle windows:
(1) A window of an excursion passenger vehicle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)a.
(2) (3) Repealed by Session Laws 2012-78, s. 8, effective December 1, 2012. For applicability, see Editor's notes.
(4) A window of a motor home, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d2.
(5) A window of an ambulance, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)f.
(6) The rear window of a property-hauling vehicle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(31).
(7) A window of a limousine.
(8) A window of a law enforcement vehicle.
(9) A window of a multipurpose vehicle that is behind the driver of the vehicle. A multipurpose vehicle is a passenger vehicle that is designed to carry 10 or fewer passengers and either is constructed on a truck chassis or has special features designed for occasional off-road operation. A minivan and a pickup truck are multipurpose vehicles.
(10) A window of a vehicle that is registered in another state and meets the requirements of the state in which it is registered.
(11) A window of a vehicle for which the Division has issued a medical exception permit under subsection (f) of this section.
(d) Violations. - A person who does any of the following commits a misdemeanor of the class set in G.S. 20-176:
(1) Applies tinting to the window of a vehicle that is subject to a safety inspection in this State and the resulting tinted window does not meet the window tinting restrictions set in this section.
(2) Drives on a highway or a public vehicular area a vehicle that has a window that does not meet the window tinting restrictions set in this section.
(e) Defense. - It is a defense to a charge of driving a vehicle with an unlawfully tinted window that the tinting was removed within 15 days after the charge and the window now meets the window tinting restrictions. To assert this defense, the person charged shall produce in court, or submit to the prosecuting attorney before trial, a certificate from the Division of Motor Vehicles or the Highway Patrol showing that the window complies with the restrictions.
(f) Medical Exception. - A person who suffers from a medical condition that causes the person to be photosensitive to visible light may obtain a medical exception permit. To obtain a permit, an applicant shall apply in writing to the Drivers Medical Evaluation Program and have his or her doctor complete the required medical evaluation form provided by the Division. The permit shall be valid for five years from the date of issue, unless a shorter time is directed by the Drivers Medical Evaluation Program. The renewal shall require a medical recertification that the person continues to suffer from a medical condition requiring tinting.
A person may receive no more than two medical exception permits that are valid at any one time. A permit issued under this subsection shall specify the vehicle to which it applies, the windows that may be tinted, and the permitted levels of tinting. The permit shall be carried in the vehicle to which it applies when the vehicle is driven on a highway.
The Division shall give a person who receives a medical exception permit a sticker to place on the lower left-hand corner of the rear window of the vehicle to which it applies. The sticker shall be designed to give prospective purchasers of the vehicle notice that the windows of the vehicle do not meet the requirements of G.S. 20-127(b), and shall be placed between the window and the tinting when the tinting is installed. The Division shall adopt rules regarding the specifications of the medical exception sticker. Failure to display the sticker is an infraction punishable by a two hundred dollar ($200.00) fine. (1937, c. 407, s. 90; 1953, c. 1254; 1955, c. 1157, s. 2; 1959, c. 1264, s. 7; 1967, c. 1077; 1985, c. 789; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 997; 1987, c. 567; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1082, ss. 7-8.1; 1989, c. 770, s. 66; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 1007, s. 34; 1993, c. 539, s. 360; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 683, s. 1; c. 754, s. 4; 1995, c. 14, s. 1; c. 473, s. 1; 2000-75, s. 1; 2012-78, s. 8.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:19 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top