The cops are at my door!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
46
Ohio
I think he just stole the car, thats it. Unless he is about to hurt someone, there isn't a good reason to pin like the cops there did, its just dangerous.

Personally, I think we should put prisoners to work in their specialty, or train them in a usable specialty, and have their earnings go towards payment to the victims while serving time. But that would probably be considered cruel and unusual to some.

Stole a car, fleeing from the police, probably speeding, probably other traffic violations- there's a lot there. Any time anyone runs from the police it can cause so much danger for the general public, but you know that. I think that it's good to pin them as fast as possible so they don't have more time to think and get more desperate. The faster it is, the less time they have to decide if they want to do anything more drastic to get away.
 

SLDS181

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 11, 2009
1,325
1
Western NJ
Stole a car, fleeing from the police, probably speeding, probably other traffic violations- there's a lot there. Any time anyone runs from the police it can cause so much danger for the general public, but you know that. I think that it's good to pin them as fast as possible so they don't have more time to think and get more desperate. The faster it is, the less time they have to decide if they want to do anything more drastic to get away.

Nothing that endangers someones life though - when tactical maneuvers are used, people get hurt. Sometimes its the criminal, sometimes its a cop - and all too often, its a bystander. Unless they are smacking into cars on the road, its a really, really, really bad idea. Once you're over 35mph, most maneuvers are flat out dangerous, and bordering on deadly.

EDIT: I'm not sure if its the same name everywhere, but you learn these maneuvers in emergency vehicle operations classes, along with the dangers of using them.
 
Last edited:

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
46
Ohio
Nothing that endangers someones life though - when tactical maneuvers are used, people get hurt. Sometimes its the criminal, sometimes its a cop - and all too often, its a bystander. Unless they are smacking into cars on the road, its a really, really, really bad idea. Once you're over 35mph, most maneuvers are flat out dangerous, and bordering on deadly.

EDIT: I'm not sure if its the same name everywhere, but you learn these maneuvers in emergency vehicle operations classes, along with the dangers of using them.

Right, but with the things that guy was doing to try to get away from the police, he could have easily ran over someone. See it all of the time on shows where someone flees from the police and crashes into other cars and keeps going.

Yes, the most common tactic that they use is the PIT maneuver.
PIT maneuver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Tarzan

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2009
68
0
The police are not your friend.

Indeed. As paranoid as it sounds, it's the honest truth. Never talk to the police. You may think you've solved the situation by being reasonable and honest, but everything you said can be used against you at some point in the future - not in your defence, but against you. And if it all ends up in court, the prosecutor will try to twist and filter that policeman's testimony in any way possible to incriminate you.

So be polite, try not to come off like you have something to hide, but never cooperate by volunteering information. If you're being arrested, don't resist but always exercise your right to remain silent. Limit yourself to "am I being charged with a crime?" and "I will only speak to my lawyer" etc. If they're knocking on your door just to "check up" on you (in itself a very wrong situation to begin with), be sure to take charge of the situation; try to be the one asking the questions and keep the conversation as short as possible.
 

Tarzan

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2009
68
0
And about suspicionless drug testing; there's no such thing. Or rather, it's insane by definition. If you have no suspicion, you expect the results to be negative. That's what suspicion means - it's weaker than expectation, but no suspicion implies no expectation. "Suspicionless" tests of any sort amount to treating everyone tested as a suspect, so any way you put it, it's presumption of guilt. Which is problematic, to say the least.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
46
Ohio
Indeed. As paranoid as it sounds, it's the honest truth. Never talk to the police. You may think you've solved the situation by being reasonable and honest, but everything you said can be used against you at some point in the future - not in your defence, but against you. And if it all ends up in court, the prosecutor will try to twist and filter that policeman's testimony in any way possible to incriminate you.

So be polite, try not to come off like you have something to hide, but never cooperate by volunteering information. If you're being arrested, don't resist but always exercise your right to remain silent. Limit yourself to "am I being charged with a crime?" and "I will only speak to my lawyer" etc. If they're knocking on your door just to "check up" on you (in itself a very wrong situation to begin with), be sure to take charge of the situation; try to be the one asking the questions and keep the conversation as short as possible.

They can't use anything you say unless they have read your rights to you.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
46
Ohio
I got arrested for a dui back in 2005. They never read me my rights. Didn't matter to the judge either. Keep in mind my blood alcohol was only .08 (I was unfortunately a minor). They hung my ... out to dry.

Guess you should have been drinking underage and drinking and driving! I'm sure that you feel bad about it now, so I won't get onto you about how you could have killed someone blah blah blah.

I know that people want to keep their rights and all that stuff, but who does the "rights" end up protecting most of the time? Think about that one. I would rather have my rights violated than to have one of my friends die because of someone who got off on a technicality and reoffends. Call it Communist or whatever, but that's just my opinion. (Not speaking specifically about the person that I quoted)
 

stevo_tdo

Super Member
ECF Veteran
May 27, 2009
605
2
Missouri
Oh don't worry about offending me. I did learn a very expensive lesson. I never drove on anything but county roads when i was drinking though. I know I was at fault. It was just that there were more than a few technicalities involved with my arrest. Quite a few. But i was 20 and who you gonna believe 4 drunks in a van and 2 sober people or 1 cop? or was that 2 cops? The officer testified in court that he was the only cop on scene..lol.. oh and that I crossed the center line on a county road.. then he wrote in the report that it was on the highway. (apparently the cops in car video camera was malfunctioning that day..lol) As you can tell i'm a little bitter but it did cause me to reavalute my drinking. I do have to point out that another sheriff deputy had a dui while in his squad car... gotta love my deep rooted german drinking town.

SO anyways I do agree with you.
 
Last edited:

chad

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 6, 2009
512
101
NY, USA
cybervapor.com
I know that people want to keep their rights and all that stuff, but who does the "rights" end up protecting most of the time? Think about that one. I would rather have my rights violated than to have one of my friends die because of someone who got off on a technicality and reoffends. Call it Communist or whatever, but that's just my opinion. (Not speaking specifically about the person that I quoted)

Please don't vote.
 

RooksGambit

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 13, 2009
123
2
Lexington, Kentucky
They can't use anything you say unless they have read your rights to you.

Please don't take offense, but your assertion here is flat out untrue. Period. Ask anyone in Law Enforcement that may be present here on the forums.

I have been arrested for misdemeanor offenses, and not once was I ever Mirandized. Nor was my brother, nor friends of mine. Of course, I live in Kentucky, a Commonwealth, so perhaps things are different here. My brother stood before a judge, accused of DUI (of marijuana, not alcohol), and told him that he was never read his rights. The judge responded with, "And you assume this invalidates the prosecutor's case? I regret to inform you that you are mistaken.". And because he admitted to having previously been in possession, though he was not at the time of arrest, he was found guilty. There is no way to test for the time period during which the user was under the influence of THC. And since THC stays in the system for weeks after use, reasonable doubt is fairly easy to establish. But he opened his mouth. I know for the fact that he was not under the influence because he was arrested minutes after leaving my house, and we certainly had not smoked.

But he mentioned having been in possession that day, rather off handedly in a heightened state of stress to an officer of the law. Guilty.

From Wikipedia: "The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence). The reading of the Miranda warning might be omitted during arrest, such as if the evidence is already sufficient to indict, or if the suspect is talkative and volunteers information (without being asked). The admissibility of conversations, as evidence, is judged on a case-by-case basis, subject to appeal."

Emphasis mine.

The legal system is not in place to be friendly or understanding. It is there to prove you guilty. This is its sole purpose.

-Rook
 

Tarzan

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2009
68
0
I know that people want to keep their rights and all that stuff, but who does the "rights" end up protecting most of the time? Think about that one.

Indeed. Your rights are irrelevant as long as you:

- agree with politicians and lawmakers on all issues
- endorse the actions of all future governments
- trust all law enforcement officers to be straight and infallible
- completely trust everyone who has the power to accuse you of a crime
- have no secrets
- have never done and will never do anything illegal
- can say the same for everyone you care about

The North Koreans have it right.
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
46
Ohio
Please don't vote.

I voted for McCain, so all of this crap going on right now isn't my fault. ;) Seriously though, I vote for whomever I think it best, I do not have a political affiliation since none of the available parties are something that I agree with 100%.

Tarzan- I don't trust the government, I'm all X-files conspiracy theories in that type of way. However, as far as the local and state police goes, I trust them. I'm from a country area, so you don't see things like cops planting guns or drugs on people or any of that other crazy stuff that you see on tv.

I know that my theories are controversial but that's just the way that I feel. I don't think that the American government is working in a good way. I think that places like the Mother Country of England have a lot better systems. (Family lineage is Welsh/Irish, and I wish that we would have stayed there!)
 

Tarzan

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2009
68
0
I don't trust the government, I'm all X-files conspiracy theories in that type of way.

I doubt there are any conspiracies of X-Files proportions to worry about. And if we're about to be sold off to our new alien overlords, who knows, maybe they'll treat us better than our human overlords. What I do think is that power attracts the wrong kind of people. Not just the corruptible ones, but vain, arrogant, self-centered and more often than not incompetent people who lose perspective very easily.

This is why every single government institution in the world suffers from inefficiency, mission creep and lost perspective. We get what we deserve, of course. Or maybe we have it better than we deserve, but it can't last forever. Democracy must be nurtured and you'll lose your rights if you don't stand up for them.

However, as far as the local and state police goes, I trust them. I'm from a country area, so you don't see things like cops planting guns or drugs on people or any of that other crazy stuff that you see on tv.
Living in the UK I do have to think about Jean-Charles de Menezes, the innocent man who was shot seven times in the head with hollow-point bullets while being pinned to the ground by several police officers.

Of course, it was an "honest mistake" - they'd been tailing the wrong guy. Crap happens. But even if there existed conditions to warrant this sort of impromptu execution without as much as a warning, then the conditions weren't met in that case. And it's times like those that you learn just how unaccountable the police really are. Even after the disaster, none of the officers involved was found to be at fault, and no heads rolled over the decision to implement a shoot-to-kill policy in the first place. The mysteriously missing surveillance footage can be dismissed with "alright, maybe they did forget to reload the tapes, we'll never know."

No matter their intentions or how decent they are, no one should be beyond accountability or above the law. In reality though, the police are. If a regular citizen brutally killed an innocent man in cold blood, simply having mistaken him for a suspected terrorist would not get them off the hook. And trying to cover it up would make the whole thing even worse.

Or look at oh-so-liberal Finland with its secret, unaccountable internet censorship agency, which, it was eventually revealed, is more interested in censoring gay porn and free-speech advocates than in the issues they were meant to be tackling (kiddieporn and so on). This all happens at the police level.

Even well-intentioned cops are eager to play politicians when they have the chance, as are judges when they have to rule on issues like freedom-of-speech vs. oh-my-god-think-of-the-children. At the same time politicians are eager to use the police and the courts politically. All the branches of government gravitate towards each other this way. In many ways it's already impossible to distinguish between them.

Plus there's sort of a problem in disagreeing with the lawmakers but respecting the law enforcers. Just "doing ones job" has never been a very good excuse.

I know that my theories are controversial but that's just the way that I feel. I don't think that the American government is working in a good way. I think that places like the Mother Country of England have a lot better systems. (Family lineage is Welsh/Irish, and I wish that we would have stayed there!)
I'm not sure the UK is that much better, I'm afraid. Having been around Europe I would say go for Scandinavia, possibly Germany. Not perfect democracies, and you'll suffer an intolerable lack of appreciation for the fact that money represents time (blurring the line between taxation and slavery), but a huge improvement over the all-invasive tracking and surveillance in the UK.

But at least the UK haven't yet made any moves to ban e-cigs. :)
 

Superstargoddess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2009
863
0
46
Ohio
I doubt there are any conspiracies of X-Files proportions to worry about. And if we're about to be sold off to our new alien overlords, who knows, maybe they'll treat us better than our human overlords. What I do think is that power attracts the wrong kind of people. Not just the corruptible ones, but vain, arrogant, self-centered and more often than not incompetent people who lose perspective very easily.

This is why every single government institution in the world suffers from inefficiency, mission creep and lost perspective. We get what we deserve, of course. Or maybe we have it better than we deserve, but it can't last forever. Democracy must be nurtured and you'll lose your rights if you don't stand up for them.

Living in the UK I do have to think about Jean-Charles de Menezes, the innocent man who was shot seven times in the head with hollow-point bullets while being pinned to the ground by several police officers.

Of course, it was an "honest mistake" - they'd been tailing the wrong guy. Crap happens. But even if there existed conditions to warrant this sort of impromptu execution without as much as a warning, then the conditions weren't met in that case. And it's times like those that you learn just how unaccountable the police really are. Even after the disaster, none of the officers involved was found to be at fault, and no heads rolled over the decision to implement a shoot-to-kill policy in the first place. The mysteriously missing surveillance footage can be dismissed with "alright, maybe they did forget to reload the tapes, we'll never know."

No matter their intentions or how decent they are, no one should be beyond accountability or above the law. In reality though, the police are. If a regular citizen brutally killed an innocent man in cold blood, simply having mistaken him for a suspected terrorist would not get them off the hook. And trying to cover it up would make the whole thing even worse.

Or look at oh-so-liberal Finland with its secret, unaccountable internet censorship agency, which, it was eventually revealed, is more interested in censoring gay porn and free-speech advocates than in the issues they were meant to be tackling (kiddieporn and so on). This all happens at the police level.

Even well-intentioned cops are eager to play politicians when they have the chance, as are judges when they have to rule on issues like freedom-of-speech vs. oh-my-god-think-of-the-children. At the same time politicians are eager to use the police and the courts politically. All the branches of government gravitate towards each other this way. In many ways it's already impossible to distinguish between them.

Plus there's sort of a problem in disagreeing with the lawmakers but respecting the law enforcers. Just "doing ones job" has never been a very good excuse.

I'm not sure the UK is that much better, I'm afraid. Having been around Europe I would say go for Scandinavia, possibly Germany. Not perfect democracies, and you'll suffer an intolerable lack of appreciation for the fact that money represents time (blurring the line between taxation and slavery), but a huge improvement over the all-invasive tracking and surveillance in the UK.

But at least the UK haven't yet made any moves to ban e-cigs. :)

I'm just not sure that Democracy is very good, especially in the twisted and demented way that the government has made it.

Basically, we have the "freedom" to pick a "leader", but really- what good is that? "Picking" a president is pretty much like saying "Gee, would I rather fall into cow poop or horse poop?", since all politicians suck. The regular person never sees any benefit of anything that the government does.

I think that regular people should swoop in and take over the government and ban career politicians. I want to see my mechanic as president, my old school teacher as vice president, etc etc. Last good president we had was good old Ronnie, best president ever.
 

Tarzan

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2009
68
0
I'm just not sure that Democracy is very good, especially in the twisted and demented way that the government has made it.

Churchill had it right: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. :)

But the US version of "democracy" is a two-party system (with two more or less identical parties to choose from, just to make matters worse). There are indendent candidates to choose from, though, and any R or D vote is a vote for the current system. You could definitely use a parliamentary system based on a European (not UK) model, with a prime minister who is more of a chairman than a leader, and all decisions made by majority consensus among a dozen parties represented in proportion to their voter base.

Of course, you still have the mission creep, the rhetorical debates devoid of any reason or ethical principle, the unelected civil servants with way too much power, certain agendas (like the European Union) being shoved down the country's throat even when the electorate says no. And of course you have an ever-increasing tax burden to pay for more and more bureaucrats running around in circles.

I think that regular people should swoop in and take over the government and ban career politicians. I want to see my mechanic as president, my old school teacher as vice president, etc etc. Last good president we had was good old Ronnie, best president ever.
I personally don't mind if politicians are smart and educated. I don't want a mechanic to run the free world. Obama is an intellectual, that's the type of person the world needs, but he seems naive and overambitious, eager to extend the reach of government (FDA etc.) and blind to the consequences.

Reagan had some good ideas, but he messed up in big ways, too. Like escalating the war on drugs. What you need is a Ron Paul who plays basketball. ;)
 

jvapor

Moved On
Aug 11, 2009
162
0
Alaska
But the way it is, we'll just slap them on the wrist and maybe put them in a nice prison with food and shelter for a few years, then they can get back on the street and sell their drugs or whatever some more. Let's bring back beheading!

Save me a cage in case the FDA bans E-cigs. A nice cozy one with cable. I refuse to quit vaping. However, beheading might get me to quit.:D
 

jvapor

Moved On
Aug 11, 2009
162
0
Alaska
I voted for McCain, so all of this crap going on right now isn't my fault. ;) Seriously though, I vote for whomever I think it best, I do not have a political affiliation since none of the available parties are something that I agree with 100%.

Tarzan- I don't trust the government, I'm all X-files conspiracy theories in that type of way. However, as far as the local and state police goes, I trust them. I'm from a country area, so you don't see things like cops planting guns or drugs on people or any of that other crazy stuff that you see on tv.

I know that my theories are controversial but that's just the way that I feel. I don't think that the American government is working in a good way. I think that places like the Mother Country of England have a lot better systems. (Family lineage is Welsh/Irish, and I wish that we would have stayed there!)

I don't think the government is as much of a problem as the citizens. The people of this country have taken a rather passive position which has allowed the government to get out of control. What we all should be doing is standing up for ourselves and each other rather than wait for someone to do it for us. If the government is not working in the best interest of the country it is our duty as citizens to reign them back in or take back the country. This is stated in the opening of the Declaration of Idependance.

NARA | The National Archives Experience
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.......
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread