GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
A Word to My Fellow Law Enforcement Officers
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
Keep talking out your ass because today's policing methods are in direct violation with the constitution. I'm still searching the constitution for the term "reasonable suspicion" I haven't been able to find it. WHY you ask because it doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Glad I am not the only one that fails to see that.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
another one to get put on admin leave / fired ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Since you edited I will say it. I guarantee that this man has made gun arrests unlawfully against the constitution one time or another in his career. I guarantee that he has used a perversion of a SCOTUS ruling and searched a car in a car stop unlawfully against the constitution. If he did, he did so whether knowingly or unknowingly.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
You have to read all the way down to the forth amendment .
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
""unreasonable searches and seizures"" The constitution protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures"
Which means reasonable searches are constitutional .
Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.
I wish they were right. Imagine policing without having to actually try to catch criminals? Fuck I’d never retire.
I mean we’re pretty much there now. You really don’t want to know what my work day looks like lately... but still.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
I have read the 4th and I repeat show me the part where it states a suspicion is grounds for search? its not their, it doesn't exist. It was created from vapor, the criteria for search is clearly listed ... "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No where in the entirety of the constitution does any level of suspicion justify a search and it didn't until 1968 Terry vs Ohio.
Prior to 1968 any evidence obtained would have been tossed at trial on the basis of unlawful search. But hey I guess they must have misread the 4th amendment from 1791-1968 what a bunch of uneducated framers.
If you agree with Terry vs Ohio then you must agree with all gun restrictions because your pulling shit out of your ass to make an amendment mean something it doesn't say. Take it a step further lets say they did have over whelming suspicion someone was armed, it has since been diluted to an ever lower standard. Now a pat down is OK because hey its not that evasive, its for your safety and officers safety. Yep the framers definitely wrote the 4th with the intent of officer safety, you know they wanted to keep those beat cops that didn't even exist when the constitution was written safe.
QUOTE="holdover, post: 724213, member: 83"]
You have to read all the way down to the forth amendment .
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
""unreasonable searches and seizures"" The constitution protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures"
Which means reasonable searches are constitutional .
Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.
[/QUOTE]
No where in the entirety of the constitution does any level of suspicion justify a search and it didn't until 1968 Terry vs Ohio.
Prior to 1968 any evidence obtained would have been tossed at trial on the basis of unlawful search. But hey I guess they must have misread the 4th amendment from 1791-1968 what a bunch of uneducated framers.
If you agree with Terry vs Ohio then you must agree with all gun restrictions because your pulling shit out of your ass to make an amendment mean something it doesn't say. Take it a step further lets say they did have over whelming suspicion someone was armed, it has since been diluted to an ever lower standard. Now a pat down is OK because hey its not that evasive, its for your safety and officers safety. Yep the framers definitely wrote the 4th with the intent of officer safety, you know they wanted to keep those beat cops that didn't even exist when the constitution was written safe.
QUOTE="holdover, post: 724213, member: 83"]
You have to read all the way down to the forth amendment .
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
""unreasonable searches and seizures"" The constitution protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures"
Which means reasonable searches are constitutional .
Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
I think what you meant to say was imagine what policing would be like If I actually had to have some sort of proof a crime was being committed.
Amazingly It was this far fetch legal standard that was required for the first 160 plus years of our countries history. It usually required actual visual confirmation something illegal was happening and not just a reasonable suspicion to find investigate and find out something was happening, and hey for both our safety i have to frisk you. Don't be upset its reasonable that i violate you. Its for safety. Anything in the name of safety is reasonable if you think otherwise you must not be a reasonable person.
Last edited:
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
The core of stripping people rights, nice and slowly so those who remember what freedom was die and you indoctrinate a entire generation of fucking retards.
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I have read the 4th and I repeat show me the part where it states a suspicion is grounds for search? its not their, it doesn't exist. It was created from vapor, the criteria for search is clearly listed ... "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You cant cherry pick words,
no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Warrants are referring to arrests . No arrests can be made without probable cause. Which is still in place today.
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Police need ""probable cause"" to search your home or car .
Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for ""investigatory purposes ""and frisk the outside of their clothing for"" weapons,"" but not drugs. The reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.[citation needed]
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).[citation needed]
he Terry case involved an incident that took place on October 31, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio. A local policeman named Martin McFadden was on duty in downtown Cleveland and noticed two men standing on a street corner. He watched one of the men, John W. Terry, walk down the street, stop in front of a certain store, look through its window, then briefly continue on before turning around and returning to where he started, stopping on his way back to look in the store window again. Then the other man, Richard Chilton, did the same thing. McFadden watched the pair repeat this routine about a dozen times, then a third man joined them and the three walked up the street together toward the store. McFadden suspected that the men were "casing" the store in preparation for robbing it, so he followed and confronted them. He asked the men's names, and they gave noncommittal mumbling answers. McFadden then grabbed the two men, spun them around, and patted down their exterior clothing and discovered that they both had pistols in their jacket pockets.[7]
After discovering the pistols, McFadden arrested Terry and Chilton, and they were both charged with illegally carrying concealed weapons. At trial, Terry's lawyer made a motion to suppress the evidence of the discovered pistol, arguing that the "frisk" by which McFadden had discovered it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore that the judge should be exclude the pistol from evidence per the exclusionary rule. The trial judge denied his motion on the basis that the "stop-and-frisk" was generally presumed legal, and Terry was convicted. He appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed his appeal.[8] He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case and granted certiorari.
Under the circumstances, the judge did not find the officers search ""Unreasonable"" that is the key operating word in the forth amendment
Under the circumstances , The officer had reasonable "'suspicion"" that the men were about to commit a crime
""The reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.""
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Now your correct it does not explicitly state ""reasonable suspicion to search"" It states unreasonable searches. which infers that a reasonable search for weapons are acceptable.
If an officer gets a call that shots were fired at a 7-11 and upon approaching the scene, a block away he sees a man running from the direction of the 7-11 , who sees the officer and changes course into the back yards , Your saying the officer has no reasonable cause to suspect the man is armed and is not allowed to search the man until its proven that he committed the crime.
Those are the rules you expect an officer to do his job with? Under your rules , The officer did not have a description of the man , had no reason to believe he just robbed the 7-11, and has no reasonable expectation that the man has a weapon , nor does he have any probable cause to search .
That's just not realistic. Under the circumstances, it is very reasonable to believe the man has commited a crime and he may be armed .
Remember, officers do not have to prove somebody is guilty of a crime to arrest them. The courts determine guilt or innocence.
The founding fathers intent was to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
You cant cherry pick words,
no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Warrants are referring to arrests . No arrests can be made without probable cause. Which is still in place today.
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Police need ""probable cause"" to search your home or car .
Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for ""investigatory purposes ""and frisk the outside of their clothing for"" weapons,"" but not drugs. The reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.[citation needed]
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).[citation needed]
he Terry case involved an incident that took place on October 31, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio. A local policeman named Martin McFadden was on duty in downtown Cleveland and noticed two men standing on a street corner. He watched one of the men, John W. Terry, walk down the street, stop in front of a certain store, look through its window, then briefly continue on before turning around and returning to where he started, stopping on his way back to look in the store window again. Then the other man, Richard Chilton, did the same thing. McFadden watched the pair repeat this routine about a dozen times, then a third man joined them and the three walked up the street together toward the store. McFadden suspected that the men were "casing" the store in preparation for robbing it, so he followed and confronted them. He asked the men's names, and they gave noncommittal mumbling answers. McFadden then grabbed the two men, spun them around, and patted down their exterior clothing and discovered that they both had pistols in their jacket pockets.[7]
After discovering the pistols, McFadden arrested Terry and Chilton, and they were both charged with illegally carrying concealed weapons. At trial, Terry's lawyer made a motion to suppress the evidence of the discovered pistol, arguing that the "frisk" by which McFadden had discovered it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore that the judge should be exclude the pistol from evidence per the exclusionary rule. The trial judge denied his motion on the basis that the "stop-and-frisk" was generally presumed legal, and Terry was convicted. He appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed his appeal.[8] He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case and granted certiorari.
Under the circumstances, the judge did not find the officers search ""Unreasonable"" that is the key operating word in the forth amendment
Under the circumstances , The officer had reasonable "'suspicion"" that the men were about to commit a crime
""The reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.""
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Now your correct it does not explicitly state ""reasonable suspicion to search"" It states unreasonable searches. which infers that a reasonable search for weapons are acceptable.
If an officer gets a call that shots were fired at a 7-11 and upon approaching the scene, a block away he sees a man running from the direction of the 7-11 , who sees the officer and changes course into the back yards , Your saying the officer has no reasonable cause to suspect the man is armed and is not allowed to search the man until its proven that he committed the crime.
Those are the rules you expect an officer to do his job with? Under your rules , The officer did not have a description of the man , had no reason to believe he just robbed the 7-11, and has no reasonable expectation that the man has a weapon , nor does he have any probable cause to search .
That's just not realistic. Under the circumstances, it is very reasonable to believe the man has commited a crime and he may be armed .
Remember, officers do not have to prove somebody is guilty of a crime to arrest them. The courts determine guilt or innocence.
The founding fathers intent was to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
But now we have whole forums full of people who empathize with perps for some strange reason. They see police activity getting real bad guys through the lense of paranoia.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Whole forums and the majority of YouTube. That’s got to tell you something.
You’re the best example.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Bottom line, people are waking up to right’s violations and you don’t like it. It isn’t just the educated random dude anymore. Thousands of videos on YouTube with millions of comments in support of this shit stopping. Cameras have brought light to this and that’s why the police do not support them. Millions of people cannot be wrong and cameras do not lie.
lololololololololololololo
...but your schtick has an friendly audience here so there's no sense in wasting my time pointing out how wrong you are.
I will say this though. Your honesty in your first post on this thread perfectly highlights why I think these videos are dumb as shit. This guy thinks he's making people like you happy. He's not. And why does he feel the need to genuflect anyway?
It's stupid. He should just do his thing however he does it and shut up about it. Stop giving in to the millennial-like need to gain other's acceptance.
He has a YouTube channel and is trying in his own way to appeal to the "gun culture ".
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
Infringed ? LOL......Come up to NY-a-stan
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Shtick? Yep. So which is it? The whole forum? Or shtick not working? Wish you would just be honest.
The people do not want this. These guys conducted a search in your neighborhood. If it happens to a skell, it happens to us.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I am a law-abiding citizen. I work for a living. I do not sell drugs. I’m not a skell, hood, perp, or criminal. If I took the chance and carried a firearm in in your jurisdiction without a license , I would be arrested. That applies in any jurisdiction. Even free states would arrest me if I carried something illegal like a silencer or full auto.
So when the police come online and say that they took an oath and will follow it, I call BS.
So when the police come online and say that they took an oath and will follow it, I call BS.
DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
This is just one out a few incidents. NYPD aren’t going to held responsible they’ll just face “disciplinary actions” they’re a fucking joke. I knew they were no good when they stopped supporting the constitution, you know the one you swore to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
And away we go 
I just go to work. I do what is bare minimum to keep said job. I care about the paycheck, I keep politics and my personal thoughts off the job.
My job is a paycheck and bennies, nothing more and nothing less. If I were to win the lottery, I would quit. I work for money to take care of my family and self.
I like this shutdown; we are doing very little these days. Crims are everywhere committing all kinds of crimes and infractions upon the people.
I compare my current occupation to my time in the Military in many ways. I kept politics and personal thoughts out of my Army time and I do also with this job.
This guy, go ahead, say what you want, make your cute little videos; being very careful of the words you use. I'll keep my opinions to myself while working and never worry about a paycheck. Instead of making these videos, just do your job. Do your job in a fashion that fits with your ideas of what the Oath you took means to you. If your co-workers suck, tell them that. Hold their feet to the fire and call them out for the wrongs they do.
This is what I do each and everyday. Call them out, to include your bosses.
My job is a paycheck and bennies, nothing more and nothing less. If I were to win the lottery, I would quit. I work for money to take care of my family and self.
I like this shutdown; we are doing very little these days. Crims are everywhere committing all kinds of crimes and infractions upon the people.
I compare my current occupation to my time in the Military in many ways. I kept politics and personal thoughts out of my Army time and I do also with this job.
This guy, go ahead, say what you want, make your cute little videos; being very careful of the words you use. I'll keep my opinions to myself while working and never worry about a paycheck. Instead of making these videos, just do your job. Do your job in a fashion that fits with your ideas of what the Oath you took means to you. If your co-workers suck, tell them that. Hold their feet to the fire and call them out for the wrongs they do.
This is what I do each and everyday. Call them out, to include your bosses.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Cameras on cops are the best thing since sliced bread.
They have shown, exactly as I knew they would, gross levels of incompetence, abuse, idiocy, illegality by cops. And the cops often get away with it.
They also have shown, surprising to me due to naivete, what a load of shit bags police deal with on a regular basis. It's still surprising to me somebody's life could have gone so wrong that they act the way they do around police. Some police are beyond salvation, but the huge majority of interactions that go south between cops and civilians are not due to illegal behavior by the cop but by these so-called victims acting like pure idiots.
I loathe police abuse and yet have no problem at all concluding that the vast majority of violence confrontations between police and none-police are the none-police's fault; inviting it on themselves through despicable behavior and just being a general level piece of shit. I do think cameras should be mandatory on cops and let the chips fall where they lay.
Love, love, love the cemeras. I think cameras should be instituted on every single public employee.
You should google the ending to that story...
I’ve never seen someone identify as closely with perps as you do.
Same here. I’ve never done so little to earn my paycheck. Tomorrow I have to cover the desk for a little while. I had to dig through my locker today to make sure I had a uniform in there!