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.
Yet so many on here think everyone and their mothers should have semi automatic assault rifles in case the GOVERNMENT tries to infringe on their god given rights.
Cops aren’t an occupying force in the USA. If you believe their violating your rights, I would say it’s your duty to resist. Unless we became China all of the sudden.
You apparently went out of your way to find a video that disproves your point. There's no context. All I see is a loudmouthed agitator. He has zero idea what probable cause the officer has (nor do you). The officer is under no obligation to discuss probable cause with him, which means that the best thing to do is answer basic questions like identifying yourself. This guy is the poster child for how not to handle an interaction with the police. Shame on you for sharing this nonsense. You don't understand your rights and you are propagating your ignorance. Someone is going to end up getting arrested - or worse - thanks to you.
If he is being arrested, he has the right to know why. If he is not, he's free to go. If they want to do a search, they need a warrant. That is the law.
Cops being jerks does not modify the law. Deal with it.
Yet so many on here think everyone and their mothers should have semi automatic assault rifles in case the GOVERNMENT tries to infringe on their god given rights.
Cops aren’t an occupying force in the USA. If you believe their violating your rights, I would say it’s your duty to resist. Unless we became China all of the sudden.
Every criminal, law breaker believe the cops are violating their rights.
There are laws and there are rights. God does not give us rights. Our constitution does. If there is a law against a particular action that trumps your right to engage in that action.
We have this thing called the legal system, such as it is, that determines if your rights were indeed violated.
You apparently went out of your way to find a video that disproves your point. There's no context. All I see is a loudmouthed agitator. He has zero idea what probable cause the officer has (nor do you). The officer is under no obligation to discuss probable cause with him, which means that the best thing to do is answer basic questions like identifying yourself. This guy is the poster child for how not to handle an interaction with the police. Shame on you for sharing this nonsense. You don't understand your rights and you are propagating your ignorance. Someone is going to end up getting arrested - or worse - thanks to you.
The officer has no probable cause to even talk to the passenger. Period.
He had absolutely no RAS... NONE
Germany 1930 would have been a great place for you.
The officer has no probable cause to even talk to the passenger. Period.
He had absolutely no RAS... NONE
Germany 1930 would have been a great place for you.
Of course IDK because the video did not start until sometime after the stop but the officer probably did not initiate any conversation with the passenger. My guess is the passenger started flapping his gums and escalating what would otherwise most likely been a short polite traffic stop.
Stating probable cause and discussing probable cause are not the same.
Officer only has to say suspicion.
Is that a misdemeanor or a felony?
Illegal detention, for sole reason to ID.
In Illinois, no one has to provide name and birth, except upon "lawful" arrest
Every criminal, law breaker believe the cops are violating their rights.
There are laws and there are rights. God does not give us rights. Our constitution does. If there is a law against a particular action that trumps your right to engage in that action.
We have this thing called the legal system, such as it is, that determines if your rights were indeed violated.
The 14th Amendment says due process must take place, before your rights can be taken.
These violations of civil rights were done under the color of law.
I would have asked the cop, "how does it feel, to surrender your/his qualified immunity to me?"
PAYDAY!
Oath Breakers -
Violated this mans civil rights.
They want to know who he was so badly, even though he had not committed a crime, as a passenger riding with his 75 yo. mom.
It was all about stopping to ID this guy. Not a traffic violation by the driver.
They went beyond a Terry frisk, looking for an ID.
And you wonder why cops are getting shot.
Maybe if people complied cops wouldn't be so scared they shoot people.
Stating probable cause and discussing probable cause are not the same.
Officer only has to say suspicion.
The officer must articulate his reason. Suspicion? What crime was being committed or was about to be committed in this case? That's what matters
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.
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.
