Because it involves a cop. It is a hot topic nowadays
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Police Palaver
- Thread starter Hydrocarbon302
- Start date
- Status
Well at least there is one rational person who sees that as a bit strange that the cops might wanna stop and interview him.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Wearing a ski mask in August is not a crime.
Reasonable suspicion would be if it's an attire for robbery or to commit crimes.
They could tell the dispatcher to clear with a supervisor as this suspicion needs to be justified.
The 911 transcript:
"Juan: (01:53)
And then when I passed by him, he puts his hands up and does all these kinds of signs. I don’t know. He looks sketchy.
911 Operator: (02:25)
Okay. Don’t approach him, okay. If you need to, just drive away. I don’t want you to go near him. Were any weapons involved or mentioned?
Juan: (02:34)
No."
The patrol needs to clarify why "no" to weapon a crime? Why "hands up and does all these kinds of signs" a crime?
Even if the patrol skipped that clearance step, when approach the suspect, and the suspect refused to comply with the command:
"Cop 1: (04:14)
[inaudible 00:04:14] Stop right there. Hey, stop right there. Stop. Stop.
Elijah McClain: (04:21)
I have a right [crosstalk 00:04:22]
Cop 1: (04:21)
Stop. Stop. I have a right to stop you, because you’re being suspicious."
the patrol needed to let the suspect go: People have the right to use their hands to gesture any signs they like even if it's profanity but it's not a crime. If reported by 911 that there's no weapon, then it is not a crime to walk without a weapon in America.
The police job is to enforce the law not what they feel. If there's no crime, they should walk away and they should not follow their emotion that it's weird why would someone wear a ski mask, "puts his hands up and does all these kinds of signs" and have no "weapons".
But no! They have to prove that they are powerful enough to command a pedestrian to stop just because they feel they can get respect and those who don't show them respect must be penalized with "resisting arrest".
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
Elijah Mcclain did and many people do dress and look different and yes, it can be a crime to dress or look different in other countries but in America, it's not a crime.
Gotta love the disagree without providing solution with what have should have been done.
Wearing a ski mask in August is not a crime.
Reasonable suspicion would be if it's an attire for robbery or to commit crimes.
I assume you are kidding. A ski mask is EXACTLY the attire used to commit crimes. If you arent, exactly what does a robbery attire look like??
NOLADriver said: ↑
...I do have a question for you. What should the cops have done in your eyes. They get a 911 call. They get dispatched to it. What would you have the responding Officers do ? Should they just decide its not good enough to look into and not go at all. Should they tell dispatch no...
They could tell the dispatcher to clear with a supervisor as this suspicion needs to be justified.
Their entire job is to go out there and investigate.
The 911 transcript:
"Juan: (01:53)
And then when I passed by him, he puts his hands up and does all these kinds of signs. I don’t know. He looks sketchy.
911 Operator: (02:25)
Okay. Don’t approach him, okay. If you need to, just drive away. I don’t want you to go near him. Were any weapons involved or mentioned?
Juan: (02:34)
No."
The patrol needs to clarify why "no" to weapon a crime? Why "hands up and does all these kinds of signs" a crime?
You seem to be stuck on this weapon thing. A weapon is not needed for a crime.
Even if the patrol skipped that clearance step, when approach the suspect, and the suspect refused to comply with the command:
Correct, and you know they have a name for "refusing to comply with the command"....the word is "resisting"
"Cop 1: (04:14)
[inaudible 00:04:14] Stop right there. Hey, stop right there. Stop. Stop.
And there is your crime. Happy now ? Colorado is a must identify state. If they requested he stop and identify himself and he refused, which he did, that is actually a crime in Colorado. (Colo. Rev. Stat. 16-3-103(1))
Elijah McClain: (04:21)
I have a right [crosstalk 00:04:22]
Cop 1: (04:21)
Stop. Stop. I have a right to stop you, because you’re being suspicious."
the patrol needed to let the suspect go: People have the right to use their hands to gesture any signs they like even if it's profanity but it's not a crime. If reported by 911 that there's no weapon, then it is not a crime to walk without a weapon in America.
You are severely stuck on this notion that a weapon must be involved for them to stop him. Its not. Merely reasonable suspicion. They were sent to this call. This was not their choice to randomly stop him. They are paid to do a job.
The police job is to enforce the law not what they feel. If there's no crime, they should walk away and they should not follow their emotion that it's weird why would someone wear a ski mask, "puts his hands up and does all these kinds of signs" and have no "weapons".
But no! They have to prove that they are powerful enough to command a pedestrian to stop just because they feel they can get respect and those who don't show them respect must be penalized with "resisting arrest".
I see nowhere in any of the reports mentioned that they spoke of wanting respect. Thats completely your imagined opinion.
My opinion still stands...Dont fight them, dont run from them, and dont try to take their gun, and none of this will happen. Remember your first point was that they just go out randomly killing people on stops and used McClain as your example. When confronted with the fact he tried to disarm one of them and then was shot, you moved the goalposts and now are saying they should have ignored their job and not gone out there to see what was going on. What if he was diabetic and his blood sugar was so low, he was acting crazy, then he passed out and died because they chose not to go to the call. Then its their fault he died and they didnt go render aid.
This is my last post on the discussion. We have both said our point, and I appreciate yours despite it being wrong. You look at every Law Enforcement interaction thru the lens of presumptively disapproving of their actions. I have a feeling you would be unhappy no matter what they do.
Reasonable suspicion would be if it's an attire for robbery or to commit crimes.
I assume you are kidding. A ski mask is EXACTLY the attire used to commit crimes. If you arent, exactly what does a robbery attire look like??
NOLADriver said: ↑
...I do have a question for you. What should the cops have done in your eyes. They get a 911 call. They get dispatched to it. What would you have the responding Officers do ? Should they just decide its not good enough to look into and not go at all. Should they tell dispatch no...
They could tell the dispatcher to clear with a supervisor as this suspicion needs to be justified.
Their entire job is to go out there and investigate.
The 911 transcript:
"Juan: (01:53)
And then when I passed by him, he puts his hands up and does all these kinds of signs. I don’t know. He looks sketchy.
911 Operator: (02:25)
Okay. Don’t approach him, okay. If you need to, just drive away. I don’t want you to go near him. Were any weapons involved or mentioned?
Juan: (02:34)
No."
The patrol needs to clarify why "no" to weapon a crime? Why "hands up and does all these kinds of signs" a crime?
You seem to be stuck on this weapon thing. A weapon is not needed for a crime.
Even if the patrol skipped that clearance step, when approach the suspect, and the suspect refused to comply with the command:
Correct, and you know they have a name for "refusing to comply with the command"....the word is "resisting"
"Cop 1: (04:14)
[inaudible 00:04:14] Stop right there. Hey, stop right there. Stop. Stop.
And there is your crime. Happy now ? Colorado is a must identify state. If they requested he stop and identify himself and he refused, which he did, that is actually a crime in Colorado. (Colo. Rev. Stat. 16-3-103(1))
Elijah McClain: (04:21)
I have a right [crosstalk 00:04:22]
Cop 1: (04:21)
Stop. Stop. I have a right to stop you, because you’re being suspicious."
the patrol needed to let the suspect go: People have the right to use their hands to gesture any signs they like even if it's profanity but it's not a crime. If reported by 911 that there's no weapon, then it is not a crime to walk without a weapon in America.
You are severely stuck on this notion that a weapon must be involved for them to stop him. Its not. Merely reasonable suspicion. They were sent to this call. This was not their choice to randomly stop him. They are paid to do a job.
The police job is to enforce the law not what they feel. If there's no crime, they should walk away and they should not follow their emotion that it's weird why would someone wear a ski mask, "puts his hands up and does all these kinds of signs" and have no "weapons".
But no! They have to prove that they are powerful enough to command a pedestrian to stop just because they feel they can get respect and those who don't show them respect must be penalized with "resisting arrest".
I see nowhere in any of the reports mentioned that they spoke of wanting respect. Thats completely your imagined opinion.
My opinion still stands...Dont fight them, dont run from them, and dont try to take their gun, and none of this will happen. Remember your first point was that they just go out randomly killing people on stops and used McClain as your example. When confronted with the fact he tried to disarm one of them and then was shot, you moved the goalposts and now are saying they should have ignored their job and not gone out there to see what was going on. What if he was diabetic and his blood sugar was so low, he was acting crazy, then he passed out and died because they chose not to go to the call. Then its their fault he died and they didnt go render aid.
This is my last post on the discussion. We have both said our point, and I appreciate yours despite it being wrong. You look at every Law Enforcement interaction thru the lens of presumptively disapproving of their actions. I have a feeling you would be unhappy no matter what they do.
Atari2600
Active Member
There are longer lists that do have cops on it but they are in the 18th spot. I agree there is no reason for the OP to show special respect for workplace hazards of police officers.
I hope you don't tell your kids to wear ski mask in August and go buy something at a store.
Tam
Well-Known Member
It is not a crime but I do agree with you that my advice to my kids would be to blend in and don't be "the nail that sticks out gets hammered."
That's why we need police who are well trained in professionalism that is disciplined enough to not act on personal emotions or personal big ego but to follow the law.
Walk away when there's no crime even they are being disrespected and not obeyed.
Just like in this thread, the video shows it's a very safe lane change so there's no need to issue a "MOVED FROM LANE UNSAFELY" ticket after a heated argument about masks or no masks unless there's a need to satisfy self-ego to penalize the driver for reminding the police of the duty to wear mask!
Ok, so I don’t live in the UK and I’ve only been there once, but the law is you must wear a SKI MASK?
You must wear a face covering. I.e something that covers your mouth and nose, "Virginian" or "Lone Ranger" style, you can tell how old I am..You're discouraged from using medical masks. I'm pretty sure when the cold kicks in balaclavas will be back in style. 
cpa
Active Member
It appears to me that this debate boils down to the fact that some people feel that law enforcement pretty much has carte blanche to do their jobs as they see fit, while others feel that there should be more accountability and responsibility and honesty. We civilians are essentially ignorant of proper procedures by officers. We are supposed to believe that cops always do their jobs right: They follow correct procedures; they honor their oaths of office; they make reasonable and proper judgments that are supportable by the facts and circumstances in that particular situation, etc.
It is very hard to ignore the fact that of the hundreds of officer-involved shootings and other dangerous acts that in nearly all of the cases, the officers are exonerated of any and all wrongdoing. Cops are human; cops make mistakes. Law enforcement is given advantages over ordinary citizens either through departmental procedure or statute to get their stories straight before they are interviewed about the sequence of events. There are perceived conflicts of interest between the internal investigators and the local prosecuting attorney. Police personnel records are sacrosanct.
In short, law enforcement enjoys quite the advantage over ordinary citizens. And, yes, we need to cut law enforcement some slack.
With regard to this thread, the officers were clearly within their rights and obligations to determine if the driver were DUI if their reasons for stopping him were lawful. The mere fact that they "claim" that his lane change cut them off is a question of fact for the judge or jury to decide. The video to me provides reasonable doubt unless the camera in the patrol car has a better view. The continued flashing of the turn signal served to validate their suspicions, so on come the red lights. They could tell after two minutes that this driver was not impaired, so they should have done enough testing to confirm that their assumptions were wrong. And then they should have let him go. Period. Never mind that the driver's umbrage on their failure to wear masks pissed them off. Once they determined that really no law had been broken, and their reason for stopping him was specious, end of story.
The driver said that he was detained over an hour. This is excessive for a routine traffic stop and even excessive for a possible DUI. There could be a 4A issue here, but a lawyer would know better than I. I would ask for any report that was filed by one or more of the responding officers in discovery.
If cops permit citizens to get under their skin, they probably should be in another line of work. If cops permit themselves to become emotionally charged and retaliate against the public, they probably should be in another line of work. If the driver's complaints combined with a futile DUI stop pissed her off to the point that she had to get even by citing him, could you imagine this officer's reactions or retaliations if the situation she were in were more exigent?
Some smart person once wrote that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the United States, law enforcement enjoys near absolute power. Maybe it is time we revisit just how much power the police have.
It is very hard to ignore the fact that of the hundreds of officer-involved shootings and other dangerous acts that in nearly all of the cases, the officers are exonerated of any and all wrongdoing. Cops are human; cops make mistakes. Law enforcement is given advantages over ordinary citizens either through departmental procedure or statute to get their stories straight before they are interviewed about the sequence of events. There are perceived conflicts of interest between the internal investigators and the local prosecuting attorney. Police personnel records are sacrosanct.
In short, law enforcement enjoys quite the advantage over ordinary citizens. And, yes, we need to cut law enforcement some slack.
With regard to this thread, the officers were clearly within their rights and obligations to determine if the driver were DUI if their reasons for stopping him were lawful. The mere fact that they "claim" that his lane change cut them off is a question of fact for the judge or jury to decide. The video to me provides reasonable doubt unless the camera in the patrol car has a better view. The continued flashing of the turn signal served to validate their suspicions, so on come the red lights. They could tell after two minutes that this driver was not impaired, so they should have done enough testing to confirm that their assumptions were wrong. And then they should have let him go. Period. Never mind that the driver's umbrage on their failure to wear masks pissed them off. Once they determined that really no law had been broken, and their reason for stopping him was specious, end of story.
The driver said that he was detained over an hour. This is excessive for a routine traffic stop and even excessive for a possible DUI. There could be a 4A issue here, but a lawyer would know better than I. I would ask for any report that was filed by one or more of the responding officers in discovery.
If cops permit citizens to get under their skin, they probably should be in another line of work. If cops permit themselves to become emotionally charged and retaliate against the public, they probably should be in another line of work. If the driver's complaints combined with a futile DUI stop pissed her off to the point that she had to get even by citing him, could you imagine this officer's reactions or retaliations if the situation she were in were more exigent?
Some smart person once wrote that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the United States, law enforcement enjoys near absolute power. Maybe it is time we revisit just how much power the police have.
They loved a recent post so after 10 pages of posts we've finally gotten him.
Loving that post contradicted all his disagrees on posts that pointed out that NoA a delay issue with unconfirmed lane changes. It's one of the reason I don't use it, and instead use confirmed lane changes that happen much faster without a stupid 5 second delay.
The OP story was great because it allows us to see the full consequence of using NoA when the driver isn't constantly telling it no. Like when I drive with NoA I overrule things fairly often. Sometimes its the fault of NoA, and sometimes I simply don't feel comfortable allowing it to drive with the current traffic situation. So I can't fully evaluate it like the OP did by just letting it do its thing despite a cop prowling behind him. So the OP got bitten, but the OP will get the last laugh when he has his time in court.
linux-works
Active Member
today's example of why we can't trust the police:
Butler County sheriff: 'I am not the mask police'
“I want to make everybody understand, I am not the mask police. I am not going to enforce any mask wearing. That is not my responsibility. That is not my job. People should be able to make that choice themselves,” he said in a video posted on Facebook.
the phrase many of us grew up with - 'protect and serve' - has been thrown out a long time ago; it was decided at the SC (supreme court, not supercharger, lol) that the police are under no obligation to protect you. they clearly don't serve you, either.
and here, the low-IQ SHERIFF (not some beat cop but the head of the cop shop) is saying he does not understand why masks are important, he will not help protect his own community and in fact, he's acting as a negative role model for the rest of the town. he now gives everyone who wants to make a statement, an excuse to help spread this pandemic. the same one that is the worst in 100 years, maybe since the black death in the middle ages.
he's not only not qualified to make judgement calls like this, he's actually disobeying direct orders. he's refusing to follow the rules and he's putting lives at risk.
THESE are the people we're supposed to trust with our lives (during traffic stops and any other encounter) ?
time and time again, they are failures at what they do.
defund them all. start all over again. the whole culture is broken by design. we're taking the first steps, we're discussing it and some cities are actually making real changes. its not an imaginary problem. authoritarianism has been raging out of control in this country and we're finally starting to admit it.
Butler County sheriff: 'I am not the mask police'
“I want to make everybody understand, I am not the mask police. I am not going to enforce any mask wearing. That is not my responsibility. That is not my job. People should be able to make that choice themselves,” he said in a video posted on Facebook.
the phrase many of us grew up with - 'protect and serve' - has been thrown out a long time ago; it was decided at the SC (supreme court, not supercharger, lol) that the police are under no obligation to protect you. they clearly don't serve you, either.
and here, the low-IQ SHERIFF (not some beat cop but the head of the cop shop) is saying he does not understand why masks are important, he will not help protect his own community and in fact, he's acting as a negative role model for the rest of the town. he now gives everyone who wants to make a statement, an excuse to help spread this pandemic. the same one that is the worst in 100 years, maybe since the black death in the middle ages.
he's not only not qualified to make judgement calls like this, he's actually disobeying direct orders. he's refusing to follow the rules and he's putting lives at risk.
THESE are the people we're supposed to trust with our lives (during traffic stops and any other encounter) ?
time and time again, they are failures at what they do.
defund them all. start all over again. the whole culture is broken by design. we're taking the first steps, we're discussing it and some cities are actually making real changes. its not an imaginary problem. authoritarianism has been raging out of control in this country and we're finally starting to admit it.
This here is why this covid crisis in America will keep dragging on until we develop a cure/vaccine. 3-4 months of shutdowns and we are back where we started. Economy in shambles, unemployment sky high, and all for nothing. What a waste.
MacGreiner
5YJ
Bloody hell. Sorting through these 'posts' to find the link to the actually footage is time I want back. Don't you people realize that any online format is the very worst medium to try and rationally discuss any issue of import?
Atari2600
Active Member
I live close to this county and I agree. Keep in mind this person is elected though so the voters win the prize.
And when you elect someone like this their policies flow down to the rest of the people in the Sheriff's office.
- Status
Similar threads
