| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/11/2006 11:49:05 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
My guess is you'll end up doing what 99.9% of everyone else would do. Forget it and get on with your life.
No matter what anyone writes or says they will do, people do not want to become tied down with lengthy time consuming and costly litigation.
Even if you were financially able and had nothing better to do with your time.... you would be surprised by the number of people that end up on juries that believe the police should have the right to search with or without warrant and with or without cause. Most people believe that you wouldn't have been stopped and searched if you weren't doing something wrong. Also the policeman probably is well respected. Think for a few minutes about how many drug dealers and abusers he's likely to catch using these methods. The community would likely stand behind him. |
So, the ends justifies the means?? Maybe next time the cop will club some innocent guy into a coma because he "fits the profile". Is that OK too? I'm sure the community wants results, but NOTHING excuses violating the rights of an innocent person.
If everyone did as you suggest and just sat back and "let it go" as you suggest, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things.
Complaceny about the violation of rights by those who are supposed to protect them is a sure path to the loss of those rights. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 11:51:46 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by fstopstigmata:
Think about it this way: This cop could have just saved you from a much worse situation. Drug trafficing, more often than not, is going to include firearms, especially in a part of town that is so bad they have a cop stake it out. If you had just wandered around the building you could have easily been shot or at least gotten into a rough situation, if someone in the drug business had seen you. They would immediately think that you were involved with the law, or at least the news, and think that you were taking pictures for evidence. People who are willing to take the risk of selling drugs are obviously going to be a bit paranoid, and if someone shows up out of the blue snapping pictures of their place, things can get drastic pretty quickly. |
That situation warrants a warning about the dangers of being in a dangerous location, not getting interrogated and stuffed in the backseat of a cop car while the officer conducts an illegal search. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:16:34 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That situation warrants a warning about the dangers of being in a dangerous location, not getting interrogated and stuffed in the backseat of a cop car while the officer conducts an illegal search. |
Very true. Most likely he was just a prick with a power-trip. I persoanlly have absolutely no respect for individuals that use thier positions to harrass others.
Real law enforcement has no room for "Dirty Harry".
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:22:19 PM · #79 |
Quoting otisXmike:
His next sentence... "You're not here to buy drugs?" Oh crap I think to myself... I'm not even going to start to try to explain to this guy why I'd like to take pics of old dirty stuff, so I just leave it at that. No, I'm just here to take pics. He really looks at me like I'm smoking crack now... He has me get out of the car, hands on the hood, pats me down. Puts me in the back seat of his car (woo hoo, first time seeing that) He was nice enough to open up his little sliding window so I could get some a/c though. He goes back to my truck and spends the next 10-15 minutes going through everything to try to find some drugs or any kind of sign of them. I'm not too nervous cause I know there's no reason to be... but you never know if you're going to get a crooked cop planting something.
Unquote.
There are some HUGE gaps in what otisXmike says here and what really would have happened in a “real” motor vehicle stop, including the officer asking permission to search the vehicle. As well as some major assumptions on his part about “how the officer was looking at him”.
There are times that officers make mistakes and there are bad officers, but they are in the minority. Most officers are hard working, honest mothers and fathers, with families they want to go home to, at the end of their shifts. But during their shift, they are sworn to “Protect & Serve”, and that includes the suppression of drug activity and the protection of life and property, such as preventing someone from “casing” a building who intends to break into it. Based on the officers training and experience, how do we know what it looked like otisXmike was doing? We only have one side of a story and not ALL of it, at that.
It’s unfortunate that the press is so intent on pushing “its” station/newspaper/whatever, that they only go for the sensational and report the “bad” or ‘horrific” about anything. You don’t read about all the good that so many police officers do, day in and day out, that make our cities and towns as safe as they are.
IMAGINE, no police officer to call, when you NEED one!
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:24:04 PM · #80 |
This conversation has a definite "theoretical" portion and a definite "practical" portion.
Theoretically we can all talk about our rights and the police state we increasingly find ourselves part of. I am first in line to speak out against that. The fight against drugs is a little less "in the news" as terror, but we all have rights our country is built upon and stamping on those is wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Practically, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong if you wind up dead or maimed or framed or whatever. Mike did the totally correct thing by rolling over and playing dead. I doubt anybody on this forum is going to get the better of a cop verbally or physically. If you want to raise hell, etc, do it AFTER the incident down at the precinct. Be calm, be collected. If you are dealing with a good cop, you don't want to make their life hard anyway. If you are dealing with a bad cop, getting "up in their face" is your ticket to a world of pain. So the 'tude is a lose-lose proposition.
Just some practical advice from someone who has never been in the situation.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:40:57 PM · #81 |
| Wise words DrAchoo, and for what it's worth, it DOES do good to complain about police misconduct. It may take more than one complaint, but bad apples do get weeded out. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:44:32 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by PhotoArt:
Quoting otisXmike:
There are some HUGE gaps in what otisXmike says here and what really would have happened in a “real” motor vehicle stop, including the officer asking permission to search the vehicle. As well as some major assumptions on his part about “how the officer was looking at him”. |
you know what... , as I have no reason to lie about this, I was simply tellin my story for the benefit of sharing and so others will maybe think about this stuff in their shooing trips.
Edit ** Sorry if you weren't attacking my character there... but that's how it sounds. I'm starting to get more worked up about this the more I think about it.
EDITED again... cause I don't want DPC to think I'm that big of a jerk
Message edited by author 2006-07-11 13:13:47. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:53:10 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just some practical advice from someone who has never been in the situation. |
I was sort of in a situation like this and you give good advice indeed. I was pulled over for speeding and the cop saw my bloodshot eyes (college student, late at night) and he decided to give me the breathalyzer test. I had been drinking hours earlier but wasn't legally drunk at the time. When the numbers started moving he called on the radio to his buddy, "Looks like we got another one!".
When the test was over and he was satisfied that I wasn't drunk, he gave me the ticket. Since I was in college as a chemistry major, I made the mistake of asking the cop a technical question about the instrument he gave me the test with. It was totally innocent. Bad move. His not-so-nice-to-begin-with attitude went sour real quick. He kept asking me rudely, "ARE YOU GETTING SMART WITH ME??" I repeatedly told him that I wasn't and I tried to explain it was just a technical question and I was curious since I was a chemistry major. He then got a non-urgent call and rushed me to get out of the car with the ticket, although I did try to quickly read through the fine print.
If ever in a situation like that again I will indeed play dead and address the situation later.
Edit to correct cop quote
Message edited by author 2006-07-11 13:07:38. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 12:58:12 PM · #84 |
I never accused you of LYING, I just said that there were large gaps of missing information that logically would have had to have occurred between, "You're not here to buy drugs?" and you ending up in the back of the police car. That’s all.
Edited post after reading edited post, no character aspersions intended.
Message edited by author 2006-07-11 13:01:37. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:04:36 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by PhotoArt:
I never accused you of LYING, I just said that there were large gaps of missing information that logically would have had to have occurred between, "You're not here to buy drugs?" and you ending up in the back of the police car. That’s all.
Edited post after reading edited post, no character aspersions intended. |
yea... sorry, I guess I misinterperted it, like I said... the more I think about it the more I'm getting worked up about it.. that is how it went though... Last night cause of the adrenaline I could do not much other than laugh about it. Now I'm not finding it too funny. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:06:17 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by otisXmike:
What real reason would he have these things stuck there? |
Could be he uses them like pushpins to post notes on the dash...
 |
Now the real trick is to find a way to edit EXIF info onto that pic and make it so your camera can view the .jpg...
And keep it as picture number one in the camera....
"sure officer, want to see the pictures?"
***Beatdown***
:)
|
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:11:26 PM · #87 |
| Thanks for quoting that pic eschelar... now I'm laughing again. Art Roflmao made my night with that thing. I was still laughing when I woke up this morning! |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:17:23 PM · #88 |
He's a funny guy.
PS. Don't get yourself too worked up about it... the good news is that the problem has passed. You might find that worrying about it and stirring the pot again will just get you all riled up, accomplishing nothing...
As was mentioned before, it might have been a guy who was just doing his best and was a bit jumpy because of the area...
It sounds like little more than your pride stands to be hurt...
It's a simple matter for you to not allow that...
If you walk away with pride intact, you win.
If you get all riled up, you just waste time and more importantly your energy.
Worth it? I doubt it.
SMILE!
Oh and go back and review some pics of your hot wife (or just go ogle her for a bit if she's still around)...
I heard from a very good source (actually rather spurious) that it'll do you nothing but good!
10 minutes is what the Doctor (*note, the doctor in the above spurious article MIGHT have made his diploma in Photoshop, but that's really unimportant I think) orders for ogling per day...
If you are feeling crummy, I say take two doses and call her again in the morning!
Message edited by author 2006-07-11 13:20:18. |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 01:23:42 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Oh and go back and review some pics of your hot wife (or just go ogle her for a bit if she's still around)... |
Yup... she's still stickin around. Sorry man, not lettin that one go! |
|
|
|
07/11/2006 11:31:20 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
My guess is you'll end up doing what 99.9% of everyone else would do. Forget it and get on with your life.
No matter what anyone writes or says they will do, people do not want to become tied down with lengthy time consuming and costly litigation.
Even if you were financially able and had nothing better to do with your time.... you would be surprised by the number of people that end up on juries that believe the police should have the right to search with or without warrant and with or without cause. Most people believe that you wouldn't have been stopped and searched if you weren't doing something wrong. Also the policeman probably is well respected. Think for a few minutes about how many drug dealers and abusers he's likely to catch using these methods. The community would likely stand behind him. |
So, the ends justifies the means?? Maybe next time the cop will club some innocent guy into a coma because he "fits the profile". Is that OK too? I'm sure the community wants results, but NOTHING excuses violating the rights of an innocent person.
If everyone did as you suggest and just sat back and "let it go" as you suggest, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things.
Complaceny about the violation of rights by those who are supposed to protect them is a sure path to the loss of those rights. |
Either I write poorly or you don't read well. Never did I come close to saying "just sat back and let it go" as you state that I have. Regardless I will admit my writing could have been composed differently and perhaps more clear.
I only point out no matter how many people suggest that they would find recourse, the vast majority will sit idle, do nothing, and attempt a return to enjoying their lives. People with nothing to lose will often boast upon how they would react to a given situation, but when dealt with the situation themselves they fall incredibly short of their expectations of others.
To the conclusion that "we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things if everyone was complacent", I politely disagree. Some of which involves a political process that makes for a separate topic.
What is pivotal is the fact that Mike was not charged with a crime. Had he been charged with a crime involving evidence obtained via an unlawful search, his attorneys would be seeking dismissal of charges.
Those charged with crimes have a vested interest, their immediate freedom. The interest of the innocent is usually a swift return to a normal, happy life. The irony is that in order to protect and preserve the rights of the innocent, you must also protect the rights of the accused many of which may be guilty.
Mike need not feel like a martyr either. There are tens of thousands of prisoners with 4th amendment search and seizure cases before the courts. Mike is very unlikely to be raising any new issues.
Rather than suggesting what action Mike should take; I would offer to those who have time, to communicate with your local, county, state, and federal officials of your interest in preserving the protections from unlawful search and seizure promised in the federal constitution and most state constitutions. I have done so but I also accept that most people won't. They simply want to get on with enjoying their lives.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 12:21:32 PM · #91 |
sorry, read this last night and am at work now so, I dont have time to go back over this thread to see if this has been posted already but wanted to put it out there.
Your Rights as a Photographer
There are always extenuating circumstances to take into consideration from both perspectives Law vs. Civilian. I would have been pretty pissed though regardless of what I look like or drive.
This is just food for thought.
Cheers,
Vince |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 12:26:03 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by otisXmike:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Oh and go back and review some pics of your hot wife (or just go ogle her for a bit if she's still around)... |
Yup... she's still stickin around. Sorry man, not lettin that one go! |
:)
Don't be sorry.
What I meant by 'if she's still around' was if she hadn't gone out for the day... you mentioned that it was morning... For me, mornings involve two steps... getting up and leaving the house for the day's activities.
She looks like she is quite a source of joy for you. Capitalize on that as often as you can. Not everyone gets the chance. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 12:52:38 PM · #93 |
If y'all bunch of rabble rousers keep it up, we're going to rename this $*%& place to //www.anarchy.com or //www.wehatecops.com.
Profiling may piss you off personally, but it's not illegal everywhere, and it didn't actually cause any harm in this case. As well, the DA could have well told the police department that "stopping in a drug neighborhood" would be regarded as acceptable "probable cause".
Nobody here knows the facts. You're just all up in arms because of what you feel it violates.
Strange that none of you give a crap about my SECOND amendment rights... In fact, I would bet money that most of you think I don't have any.
Hmmph. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 01:11:17 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Strange that none of you give a crap about my SECOND amendment rights... In fact, I would bet money that most of you think I don't have any.
Hmmph. |
How can you possibly make that presumption when the topic hasn't even been broached here? You are characterizing people feeling on one issue based on your interpretation of their statements on another issue ... talk about profiling -- or as we used to say in the pre-NewSpeak days -- stereotyping. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 05:07:04 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nards656:
Strange that none of you give a crap about my SECOND amendment rights... In fact, I would bet money that most of you think I don't have any.
Hmmph. |
How can you possibly make that presumption when the topic hasn't even been broached here? You are characterizing people feeling on one issue based on your interpretation of their statements on another issue ... talk about profiling -- or as we used to say in the pre-NewSpeak days -- stereotyping. |
Oh boy. There's no need to continue this conversation.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 06:13:16 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
My guess is you'll end up doing what 99.9% of everyone else would do. Forget it and get on with your life.
No matter what anyone writes or says they will do, people do not want to become tied down with lengthy time consuming and costly litigation.
Even if you were financially able and had nothing better to do with your time.... you would be surprised by the number of people that end up on juries that believe the police should have the right to search with or without warrant and with or without cause. Most people believe that you wouldn't have been stopped and searched if you weren't doing something wrong. Also the policeman probably is well respected. Think for a few minutes about how many drug dealers and abusers he's likely to catch using these methods. The community would likely stand behind him. |
So, the ends justifies the means?? Maybe next time the cop will club some innocent guy into a coma because he "fits the profile". Is that OK too? I'm sure the community wants results, but NOTHING excuses violating the rights of an innocent person.
If everyone did as you suggest and just sat back and "let it go" as you suggest, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things.
Complaceny about the violation of rights by those who are supposed to protect them is a sure path to the loss of those rights. |
Either I write poorly or you don't read well. Never did I come close to saying "just sat back and let it go" as you state that I have. Regardless I will admit my writing could have been composed differently and perhaps more clear.
I only point out no matter how many people suggest that they would find recourse, the vast majority will sit idle, do nothing, and attempt a return to enjoying their lives. People with nothing to lose will often boast upon how they would react to a given situation, but when dealt with the situation themselves they fall incredibly short of their expectations of others.
To the conclusion that "we'd still have Jim Crow laws, legal segregation and all manner of very unpleasant things if everyone was complacent", I politely disagree. Some of which involves a political process that makes for a separate topic.
What is pivotal is the fact that Mike was not charged with a crime. Had he been charged with a crime involving evidence obtained via an unlawful search, his attorneys would be seeking dismissal of charges.
Those charged with crimes have a vested interest, their immediate freedom. The interest of the innocent is usually a swift return to a normal, happy life. The irony is that in order to protect and preserve the rights of the innocent, you must also protect the rights of the accused many of which may be guilty.
Mike need not feel like a martyr either. There are tens of thousands of prisoners with 4th amendment search and seizure cases before the courts. Mike is very unlikely to be raising any new issues.
Rather than suggesting what action Mike should take; I would offer to those who have time, to communicate with your local, county, state, and federal officials of your interest in preserving the protections from unlawful search and seizure promised in the federal constitution and most state constitutions. I have done so but I also accept that most people won't. They simply want to get on with enjoying their lives. |
So, maybe Rosa should have just given up her seat on the bus that day...
Message edited by author 2006-07-12 18:14:36. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 07:18:16 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Profiling may piss you off personally, but it's not illegal everywhere, and it didn't actually cause any harm in this case. As well, the DA could have well told the police department that "stopping in a drug neighborhood" would be regarded as acceptable "probable cause".
|
Didn't cause harm? The OP said he was sitting in a police car for 15 minutes while the cop searched his vehicle. That means that he probably lost a half-hour of time, which directly converts to money for consultants and other self-employed people. It also means that the OP may have not been able to take a money-making picture or two.
The bigger issue is having someone paw through expensive camera equipment (did the cop take the lens off and finger the mirror? or even toss the camera around?) What other items in the car were damaged or destroyed? Remember, the courts have said that cops don't have to be all that bright (see Robert Jordan vs New London //www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/10.15/p&p.html ) |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 08:58:52 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by hankk:
The bigger issue is having someone paw through expensive camera equipment (did the cop take the lens off and finger the mirror? or even toss the camera around?) What other items in the car were damaged or destroyed? Remember, the courts have said that cops don't have to be all that bright (see Robert Jordan vs New London //www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/10.15/p&p.html ) |
Oh, good grief. Let's all make up stories now. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 10:04:37 PM · #99 |
| Didn't have time to read every post here, but did you by chance get a photo of him illegally rummaging thru your stuff??? |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 10:12:46 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by hankk:
The bigger issue is having someone paw through expensive camera equipment (did the cop take the lens off and finger the mirror? or even toss the camera around?) What other items in the car were damaged or destroyed? Remember, the courts have said that cops don't have to be all that bright (see Robert Jordan vs New London //www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/2000/10.15/p&p.html ) |
Oh, good grief. Let's all make up stories now. |
It's just an example, what's wrong with that? And what does your second amendment rights have to do with any of this discussion? |
|
