or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 174

post #2596 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Well, actually, he only put that off for a few days.

So 'Turk, can you give me an example of an unlawful order a cop might give me? A situation where I do not have to listen to and immediately comply with an order? I'm sincerely interested.

In his warped mind it's an impossibility. Every order is lawful because the cop not only enforces existing law, but also can legislate on the spot.
post #2597 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Was the cop justified in asking her to put out the cigarette (cigarettes are often used to mask the odor of alcohol or drugs) or get out of the vehicle?

define often
post #2598 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

define often

Every instance from the cop's POV. Remember, it's what the cop thinks is reasonable suspicion of hiding drug activity, everyone he pulls over with a cigarette is subject to search and arrest if they should resist.

Comply or die.
post #2599 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I assume you're quite aware that this isn't an answer to the question Pio asked.

Oh, okay, sorry. If the cop orders you to shoot your wife, go ahead and refuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So if he tells me to step out of the car and do those roadside tests for alcohol I should obey him?

Step out of the car, yes, you generally don't have any choice on that. DUI is a special case and the laws vary state to state. I'm not comfortable giving advice about it beyond saying that, generally, field sobriety tests are voluntary and taking them is a terrible idea. Cops wouldn't order you to do a field sobriety test, anyway, but if one did, you should refuse to do it just like you'd refuse to answer any other incriminating question. You may not be able to refuse to do a blood or breath test without consequences, however. Again, it varies and I'm not going to try to give you advice because, frankly, I don't know the laws of all 50 states well enough to be sure of the accuracy of what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

And what if you are from a marginalized population that sees frequent abuse and unlawful orders from the police?

Maybe you should say "perceives" or "imagines" frequent abuse and unlawful orders. Ms. Bland is a pretty good example of how perception doesn't always match reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

define often

According to media reports, she had two DUI arrests and two marijuana arrests in the last couple years. Did the cop know that after calling in her license? Maybe.
post #2600 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Oh, okay, sorry. If the cop orders you to shoot your wife, go ahead and refuse.

Anything less drastic? Pee in a cup at the roadside? Allow him to commandeer my vehicle?
Quote:

Step out of the car, yes, you generally don't have any choice on that. DUI is a special case and the laws vary state to state. I'm not comfortable giving advice about it beyond saying that, generally, field sobriety tests are voluntary and taking them is a terrible idea. Cops wouldn't order you to do a field sobriety test, anyway, but if one did, you should refuse to do it just like you'd refuse to answer any other incriminating question. You may not be able to refuse to do a blood or breath test without consequences, however. Again, it varies and I'm not going to try to give you advice because, frankly, I don't know the laws of all 50 states well enough to be sure of the accuracy of what I'm saying.

If I am not under arrest why do I have to step out of my car? Serious question here.
post #2601 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Oh, okay, sorry. If the cop orders you to shoot your wife, go ahead and refuse.

You're the one who who raised complying with a "lawful order" as a key issue. Don't pout like a little girl just because people point out that it's a total canard.
post #2602 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Anything less drastic? Pee in a cup at the roadside? Allow him to commandeer my vehicle?
If I am not under arrest why do I have to step out of my car? Serious question here.

So he can taze your full body rather than just your head and shoulders (while shouting the magic words "stop resisting").
post #2603 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Anything less drastic?
You can go ahead and refuse if he says to shoot her in the foot, too.
Quote:
Pee in a cup at the roadside?
Make him hold the cup.
Quote:
Allow him to commandeer my vehicle?
It happens on TV all the time.
Quote:
If I am not under arrest why do I have to step out of my car? Serious question here.
Why'd you have to pull over your car and sit on the side of the road, produce your driver's license and proof insurance, etc.? It's not easy to explain, but there are levels of detention short of a formal arrest. Look up investigatory stop, for one. There are some things the cops can and can't legally do or make you do depending on the situation. You probably don't know what those are or how the situation would be classified by a court, which is why it's generally a good idea to obey if they tell you something is an order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

You're the one who who raised complying with a "lawful order" as a key issue. Don't pout like a little girl just because people point out that it's a total canard.

Why don't you explain what you mean by a "canard," or at least give me a better hint as to how that question exposed some flaw in what I'd said or my reasoning.
post #2604 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

According to media reports, she had two DUI arrests and two marijuana arrests in the last couple years. Did the cop know that after calling in her license? Maybe.

You said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


cigarettes are often used to mask the odor of alcohol or drugs
post #2605 of 6095
Do you want like a statistic or something, re: how often people use cigarettes to cover up the smell of dope or booze? I think they may have taken that question off the 2010 census so I'm not sure where you'd get reliable data...
post #2606 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If I am not under arrest why do I have to step out of my car? Serious question here.
I find it difficult to understand why this is not obvious but to prevent you from unloading that sawed off shotgun in your lap or grabbing that 9 mm from the center console would be my reason If it were me . I asked a CHP once why he did it to me . He told me it was required procedure anytime they stopped someone traveling in excess of 100 mph . I said " oh that makes sense " . He gave me a ticket for 75
post #2607 of 6095
Quote:
A 2009 audit of the District Attorney’s Office that represents Beaver, Cimarron, Harper and Texas counties found that a Beaver County assistant district attorney began living rent-free in a house obtained in a 2004 forfeiture. A judge had ordered the house sold at an auction, but the prosecutor lived there through 2009.

Utility bills and repairs made to the house were paid out of the district attorney’s supervision fee account, the audit states.

The audit recommended the house be sold and the supervision fee account be reimbursed.

“These conditions resulted in expenditures that were not for the enforcement of controlled dangerous substances laws, drug abuse prevention and drug abuse education,” the report stated.

The audit also found the District Attorney’s Office didn’t report the benefit as income for tax purposes.

In a 2014 audit of the DA’s office representing Washington and Nowata counties, the State Auditor’s Office found that $5,000 in forfeiture funds had been used to make payments on an assistant district attorney’s student loans.

The report said the district attorney maintained the expense was justified because most of the cases the assistant DA prosecuted were drug cases.

After the issue came to light, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council reimbursed the $5,000 using funds from its own student-loan program, the State Auditor’s report states.

An Oklahoma Watch examination of audits from 2007 to 2014 also shows at least a dozen cases of forfeited cash, guns and vehicles missing or not inventoried.
In a 2014 audit of District 21, which is Mashburn’s district and includes Cleveland County, three firearms seized and forfeited were found to be missing. The auditor cited a lack of policies and procedures in place to safeguard and track seized items.

The audit said the District Attorney’s Office disagreed it lacked proper policies and procedures to safeguard seized property but conceded that the three firearms were missing and steps had been taken to report the guns as stolen to a federal database. Mashburn could not be reached for comment on the finding.


Lol, that last one they call a "drop gun." So when a cop has to execute an unarmed suspect they drop the gun next to him. Virtually every cop has one.
post #2608 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Why don't you explain what you mean by a "canard," or at least give me a better hint as to how that question exposed some flaw in what I'd said or my reasoning.
Sure.
By a "canard" I mean a shibboleth, red herring, or smokescreen.

You suggested someone's failure to obey a "lawful order" by a police officer is justification for conduct by the officer that others might characterize as harassment or bullying. But using "lawful" as a modifier in that statement is either superfluous, an obfuscation, or a combination thereof, if what you're really saying is that there's no meaningful, non-absurd distinction between lawful and unlawful police directives in most circumstances. Your point really seems to be, for all intents and purposes, that the police are always right, or at least that people should always act that way and if they don't are just asking for whatever follows. The lawfulness of the order is basically irrelevant.
post #2609 of 6095
http://www.ebony.com/news-views/fundraiser-for-baltimore-6-to-feature-blackface-performance-053#.Va_j3_lVikq
Quote:
Fundraiser for 'Baltimore 6' to Feature Blackface Performance

A FORMER BALTIMORE POLICE OFFICER WHO PERFORMS AS AL JOLSON IS RAISING FUNDS SUPPORT THE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE DEATH OF FREDDIE GRAY

I received a photo of an invite to a fundraiser for the six Baltimore Police officers charged in the death of unarmed 25-year-old Freddie Gray. According to the flyer, a "bull roast" (a popular Maryland tradition) is scheduled to take place on November 1st at Michael's Eighth Avenue and features a pretty hearty menu for $45, including various pork dishes, cake and beer and a cash bar option.

That members of the Baltimore Police Department and/or their supporters would have a fundraiser for these cops is unsurprising and would not have warranted much of a reaction from me. The "Blue Lives Matter" phrasing, which appears twice on the invite, also fails to be shocking; we've heard that appropriation of protest language since August of last year.

However, one of the planned performances for the evening tells a more interesting story. A number of "entertainers" are also advertised, including a few lounge singers and instrumentalists, and at the end of that list is "Bobby "Al Jolson" Berger-out of retirement."

According to The Baltimore Sun, Berger was dismissed from the Baltimore Police Department in 1984 due to his off-duty performances as the late Jolson, one of history's most well-known Blackface performers. His dismissal came after 3 years of tension between the officer and his employer due to his act, with both parties spending a decade in court as a result. Ultimately, Berger settled with the city in 1991.

More at the link.

FiZG1Qi.jpg

Al Jolson for those unfamiliar with the name.

Whatever you feel about the Freddie Gray situation, this looks deliberately insulting and in incredibly poor taste.
post #2610 of 6095
One slight modification. I would say that the very fact an officer uttered it means it's "lawful."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Sure.
By a "canard" I mean a shibboleth, red herring, or smokescreen.

You suggested someone's failure to obey a "lawful order" by a police officer is justification for conduct by the officer that others might characterize as harassment or bullying. But using "lawful" as a modifier in that statement is either superfluous, an obfuscation, or a combination thereof, if what you're really saying is that there's no meaningful, non-absurd distinction between lawful and unlawful police directives in most circumstances. Your point really seems to be, for all intents and purposes, that the police are always right, or at least that people should always act that way and if they don't are just asking for whatever follows. The lawfulness of the order is basically irrelevant.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?