"I'm A Cop, Just Cooperate [or else] (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

If I get pulled over at nighttime (which I haven't in prob 6-7 years), I instantly turn all of the lights in my car on and keep my hands on the steering wheel until the cop is at my window. Instantly sets the tone that I am a law abiding citizen with zero to hide and makes the interaction as easy on both of us as possible.

This is a good starting point for not only "not starting ####" but also being easy to deal with.

This. I do the same thing. I actually had an officer notice one time. The first thing he said was "Thanks for turning your dome light on. We really appreciate that." He went on to tell me I was speeding, etc..but let me off with a warning. Doubt he'd have done the same if I had my hands in my pockets and my music up when he walked up...all of which are well within my rights to do...

Bingo... You act respectful and things like a warning happen. Cops are people too, sometimes you'll get a ####o ######## cop and he'll still give you a ticket bc he is an #######, but more than less I find they are good dudes.

 

[Dondante]

If I get pulled over at nighttime (which I haven't in prob 6-7 years), I instantly turn all of the lights in my car on and keep my hands on the steering wheel until the cop is at my window. Instantly sets the tone that I am a law abiding citizen with zero to hide and makes the interaction as easy on both of us as possible.

This is a good starting point for not only "not starting ####" but also being easy to deal with.

This. I do the same thing. I actually had an officer notice one time. The first thing he said was "Thanks for turning your dome light on. We really appreciate that." He went on to tell me I was speeding, etc..but let me off with a warning. Doubt he'd have done the same if I had my hands in my pockets and my music up when he walked up...all of which are well within my rights to do...

Why do you hate the constitution?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

 

[TobiasFunke]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

Sure, but

cops are not murderers.

is misleading at best.

Why is that misleading? His point was that cops don't go out in to the field with the intent of hoping to get to kill someone. Are you saying they do?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

My bad, misread your post. Will delete.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

It doesn't. I added that in [ ] because that is the tone that I get from the first bold paragraph. It's my opinion.

 

[Dondante]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

It doesn't. I added that in [ ] because that is the tone that I get from the first bold paragraph. It's my opinion.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

It doesn't. I added that in [ ] because that is the tone that I get from the first bold paragraph. It's my opinion.

Trying to rile up the crowd. I get it.

 

[Fat Nick]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

Seriously...that's assuming that EVERY cop is out to violate your rights and treat you like #### just because. It's naive to think that all cops act within the boundaries of their power and recognize people's rights. It's just as naive to think that every cop is out there violating rights just because.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

I've been pulled over going over 100 mph on a highway and other times interacted with LE while extremely intoxicated. I always act respectful and never have had a problem. I think it is a pretty simple cause and effect.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark but...white guy 30-50 years of age?

Do you think that it's plausible that black people, percentage-wise, are more adversarial toward the police during stops than other people because black people, percentage-wise, are more likely than others to view the police as an adversary? And because of that dynamic do you think that it's plausible that police more often take a hardline approach with black suspects not because of their skin color but because of a higher rate of beligerence?

 

[msommer]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Personally, I don't disagree...again, excluding some whacky BDSM scenario, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Why is it that your rights are "trampled on," and not just that you got searched when you shouldn't have? It's not some huge injustice in most cases. If a cop is clearly on a power trip and wants to search my car and I have nothing to hide, go ahead! I get that we all have rights. If we repeatedly had them "trampled on," maybe I'd feel more strongly...I don't understand what benefit the wrongfully accused gets from holding fast to their rights at the expense of angering someone already on a power trip instead of just saying, "I know I'm innocent, so you can search and do whatever you want."

Wouldn't it be nice if the cops obeyed by society's rules?

 

[Fat Nick]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

It doesn't. I added that in [ ] because that is the tone that I get from the first bold paragraph. It's my opinion.

Trying to rile up the crowd. I get it.

Pretty sure most of the "crowd" around here doesn't need to be riled up. That is the tone I picked up in that first paragraph.

FTR: I am not a "cop hater" in the least. I did not post this article to take pot-shots at cops in general. I just found that this particular cop's (based on what he wrote in this column) stance is rather dickish and badge-heavy.

 

[Fat Nick]

If I get pulled over at nighttime (which I haven't in prob 6-7 years), I instantly turn all of the lights in my car on and keep my hands on the steering wheel until the cop is at my window. Instantly sets the tone that I am a law abiding citizen with zero to hide and makes the interaction as easy on both of us as possible.

This is a good starting point for not only "not starting ####" but also being easy to deal with.

This. I do the same thing. I actually had an officer notice one time. The first thing he said was "Thanks for turning your dome light on. We really appreciate that." He went on to tell me I was speeding, etc..but let me off with a warning. Doubt he'd have done the same if I had my hands in my pockets and my music up when he walked up...all of which are well within my rights to do...

Why do you hate the constitution?

Mostly because of the 18th ammendment...but I don't hate them now because...the 21st.

 

[Henry Ford]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

 

[Fat Nick]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Personally, I don't disagree...again, excluding some whacky BDSM scenario, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Why is it that your rights are "trampled on," and not just that you got searched when you shouldn't have? It's not some huge injustice in most cases. If a cop is clearly on a power trip and wants to search my car and I have nothing to hide, go ahead! I get that we all have rights. If we repeatedly had them "trampled on," maybe I'd feel more strongly...I don't understand what benefit the wrongfully accused gets from holding fast to their rights at the expense of angering someone already on a power trip instead of just saying, "I know I'm innocent, so you can search and do whatever you want."

Wouldn't it be nice if the cops obeyed by society's rules?

It absolutely would...and I think MOST do. Being a #### to the ones that don't isn't going to help anything though. How's the old saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

Seriously...that's assuming that EVERY cop is out to violate your rights and treat you like #### just because. It's naive to think that all cops act within the boundaries of their power and recognize people's rights. It's just as naive to think that every cop is out there violating rights just because.

Sorry, I didn't mean to predict that the cops would do that if this was the prevailing attitude, but that they could do it, which is dangerous enough. My fault for not wording that well.

Anyway, despite my poorly worded post about the consequences, "why do you care if you have nothing to hide" is a terrible, terrible position to have. Everyone has something that's not illegal they want to keep private. Think about what that is and ask if you'd happily show it or discuss it with a police officer who asked about it in a public setting.

 

[Ilov80s]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Personally, I don't disagree...again, excluding some whacky BDSM scenario, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Why is it that your rights are "trampled on," and not just that you got searched when you shouldn't have? It's not some huge injustice in most cases. If a cop is clearly on a power trip and wants to search my car and I have nothing to hide, go ahead! I get that we all have rights. If we repeatedly had them "trampled on," maybe I'd feel more strongly...I don't understand what benefit the wrongfully accused gets from holding fast to their rights at the expense of angering someone already on a power trip instead of just saying, "I know I'm innocent, so you can search and do whatever you want."

There are plenty of things you might want to keep private other than "some whacky BDSM scenario."

More importantly, taking the "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" position is incredibly dangerous. If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

No, Tobias, that's not what would happen. My god you're a ####### loser.

Isn't that exactly what is happening now? See NSA, excessive seizure of property, mass increase of no knock raids, etc.?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pssst...

What if I told you guys that it is possible:

To be pro law and order

To support law enforcement officers

To be law abiding

While still being critical of officers that overreact or see no problem in violating our rights.

 

[Fat Nick]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

Sure. I can choose to NOT let them search...and by doing so I willingly accept that a cop might be a #### to me and make life a lot harder on me. I know I'm innocent, so I don't really care if they search, so I WILLINGLY tell them they can search.

It's no different than owning a gun. I have a constitutional right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for me. A lot of people choose not to go through the hassle of owning a gun becuase of the hoops you have to jump through. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't think the title of the article said "or else." It said if you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. And it should be noted that the guy who wrote it is very outspoken against corrupt cops and was a IA Officer.

It doesn't. I added that in [ ] because that is the tone that I get from the first bold paragraph. It's my opinion.

Trying to rile up the crowd. I get it.

Pretty sure most of the "crowd" around here doesn't need to be riled up. That is the tone I picked up in that first paragraph.

FTR: I am not a "cop hater" in the least. I did not post this article to take pot-shots at cops in general. I just found that this particular cop's (based on what he wrote in this column) stance is rather dickish and badge-heavy.

I can't argue how you feel. Obviously, that's each person's own opinion. When I first heard the report on CNN, I thought, "This guy sounds like a freaking tool." And then I read the comments from readers and it went exactly how I thought. THEN, I actually read his article. And I realized it was not how it sounded at all. I think he made some wording errors, especially in light of what is going on in MO, but overall, what he says is true.

 

[fantasycurse42]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

Seriously...that's assuming that EVERY cop is out to violate your rights and treat you like #### just because. It's naive to think that all cops act within the boundaries of their power and recognize people's rights. It's just as naive to think that every cop is out there violating rights just because.

Sorry, I didn't mean to predict that the cops would do that if this was the prevailing attitude, but that they could do it, which is dangerous enough. My fault for not wording that well.

Anyway, despite my poorly worded post about the consequences, "why do you care if you have nothing to hide" is a terrible, terrible position to have. Everyone has something that's not illegal they want to keep private. Think about what that is and ask if you'd happily show it or discuss it with a police officer who asked about it in a public setting.

My microscopic penis?

 

[Henry Ford]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

Sure. I can choose to NOT let them search...and by doing so I willingly accept that a cop might be a #### to me and make life a lot harder on me. I know I'm innocent, so I don't really care if they search, so I WILLINGLY tell them they can search.

It's no different than owning a gun. I have a constitutional right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for me. A lot of people choose not to go through the hassle of owning a gun becuase of the hoops you have to jump through. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

Yes it is. You don't have to go through hoops not have an officer's finger in your ###. That's the point.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Personally, I don't disagree...again, excluding some whacky BDSM scenario, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Why is it that your rights are "trampled on," and not just that you got searched when you shouldn't have? It's not some huge injustice in most cases. If a cop is clearly on a power trip and wants to search my car and I have nothing to hide, go ahead! I get that we all have rights. If we repeatedly had them "trampled on," maybe I'd feel more strongly...I don't understand what benefit the wrongfully accused gets from holding fast to their rights at the expense of angering someone already on a power trip instead of just saying, "I know I'm innocent, so you can search and do whatever you want."

There are plenty of things you might want to keep private other than "some whacky BDSM scenario."

More importantly, taking the "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" position is incredibly dangerous. If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

No, Tobias, that's not what would happen. My god you're a ####### loser.

Isn't that exactly what is happening now? See NSA, excessive seizure of property, mass increase of no knock raids, etc.?

Why do you care if the NSA is listening to your phone calls if you have nothing to hide?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Pssst...

What if I told you guys that it is possible:

To be pro law and order

To support law enforcement officers

To be law abiding

While still being critical of officers that overreact or see no problem in violating our rights.

I'd say you were completely right, but it'll never happen.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

How's the old saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree...

Yet we should expect, no demand, that law enforcement officers remain professional and follow their training especially when dealing with citizens that are not "cooperating" the way they would like.

 

[Fat Nick]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

Seriously...that's assuming that EVERY cop is out to violate your rights and treat you like #### just because. It's naive to think that all cops act within the boundaries of their power and recognize people's rights. It's just as naive to think that every cop is out there violating rights just because.

Sorry, I didn't mean to predict that the cops would do that if this was the prevailing attitude, but that they could do it, which is dangerous enough. My fault for not wording that well.

Anyway, despite my poorly worded post about the consequences, "why do you care if you have nothing to hide" is a terrible, terrible position to have. Everyone has something that's not illegal they want to keep private. Think about what that is and ask if you'd happily show it or discuss it with a police officer who asked about it in a public setting.

I hear you...in hypotheticals, I would agree...but again, I really don't think that all, or even close to most cops are inherently bad. Most I've encountered are good, reasonable people. Most. Not all...

Re. keeping things private - It's not like searching my car is a deep dive into my inner psyche. I bite my fingernails and spit them on my floormat...??? I know what you're saying, but honestly, there is absolutely nothing in my vehicle that I could give two ##### about someone seeing.

 

[msommer]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Personally, I don't disagree...again, excluding some whacky BDSM scenario, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Why is it that your rights are "trampled on," and not just that you got searched when you shouldn't have? It's not some huge injustice in most cases. If a cop is clearly on a power trip and wants to search my car and I have nothing to hide, go ahead! I get that we all have rights. If we repeatedly had them "trampled on," maybe I'd feel more strongly...I don't understand what benefit the wrongfully accused gets from holding fast to their rights at the expense of angering someone already on a power trip instead of just saying, "I know I'm innocent, so you can search and do whatever you want."

Wouldn't it be nice if the cops obeyed by society's rules?

It absolutely would...and I think MOST do. Being a #### to the ones that don't isn't going to help anything though. How's the old saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody said anything about being a ####. you can politely decline an illegal search. But the article - and several posters have stated that you should not be concerned about your rights at all when faced with an officer trampling on them. I assume it is because then worse things will happen, which clearly is not a very good reason for people concerned with constitutional rights

 

[TobiasFunke]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

Seriously...that's assuming that EVERY cop is out to violate your rights and treat you like #### just because. It's naive to think that all cops act within the boundaries of their power and recognize people's rights. It's just as naive to think that every cop is out there violating rights just because.

Sorry, I didn't mean to predict that the cops would do that if this was the prevailing attitude, but that they could do it, which is dangerous enough. My fault for not wording that well.

Anyway, despite my poorly worded post about the consequences, "why do you care if you have nothing to hide" is a terrible, terrible position to have. Everyone has something that's not illegal they want to keep private. Think about what that is and ask if you'd happily show it or discuss it with a police officer who asked about it in a public setting.

I hear you...in hypotheticals, I would agree...but again, I really don't think that all, or even close to most cops are inherently bad. Most I've encountered are good, reasonable people. Most. Not all...

Re. keeping things private - It's not like searching my car is a deep dive into my inner psyche. I bite my fingernails and spit them on my floormat...??? I know what you're saying, but honestly, there is absolutely nothing in my vehicle that I could give two ##### about someone seeing.

Yeah it's always easier to speak hypothetically. I've submitted to an illegal search too. Pulled over by some cops on the way to Atlantic City late at night with a couple friends, claimed they had somehow smelled alcohol in the car from across the highway. Didn't have anything to hide (miraculously) so we let them search the car and the trunk.

But just because my friends and I were ####### about it doesn't make it OK or mean that we did the right thing. They were wrong for doing it and this cop is wrong for saying we should always just shut up and submit.

 

[Fat Nick]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

Sure. I can choose to NOT let them search...and by doing so I willingly accept that a cop might be a #### to me and make life a lot harder on me. I know I'm innocent, so I don't really care if they search, so I WILLINGLY tell them they can search.

It's no different than owning a gun. I have a constitutional right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for me. A lot of people choose not to go through the hassle of owning a gun becuase of the hoops you have to jump through. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

Yes it is. You don't have to go through hoops not have an officer's finger in your ###. That's the point.

Sure you do.

You: I'd rather not give you consent to search my car [finger my ###, whatever]. It's my right."

Officer: OK. Have it your way. I'm going to ask you to pull over here for a moment while I get a K-9.

You: But I've got nothing to hide.

Officer: Then why can't we search?

You: Because 4th ammendment.

Officer: OK. Wait here.

Then, the dog scratches your car, you're late to wherever you were going, etc. But your rights are in tact! Yay!

Still think there's no hoops to jump through to avoid unlawful search and seizure in this circumstance? You avoided the proverbial finger in the ###, but you suffered a lot of other stuff to uphold your right.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pssst...

What if I told you guys that it is possible:

To be pro law and order

To support law enforcement officers

To be law abiding

While still being critical of officers that overreact or see no problem in violating our rights.

I'd say you were completely right, but it'll never happen.

You're telling me that I can't be both or all of those things?

I haven't had a negative experience with a cop in probably 20 years (middle aged white guy). My opinion isn't based on being hasseled or something.

I was pulled over a couple of years ago because somebody ripped the tags off of our plates. I was absolutely respectful, cooperative, non-confrontational, and non-threatening. Everything went great.

I also went through a DUI checkpoint last year. Same as above.

I just don't like that this cop is saying "if you don't want to get shot/tazed/sprayed...do what I say."

 

[Fat Nick]

Problem is there is a difference between "cooperating" and not consenting to a violation of your civil rights. If an officer asks to search my car and I say "No. You have no probable cause." am I being difficult or non co-operative cause I won't do exactly what I was told? Assume I have nothing to hide in the car, but I also know my rights and I won't have them trampled upon by over zealous law enforcement.

From the article:

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.

Sure sounds like he's saying you best agree to have your rights trampled, or we might end up ####ing you up.

Personally, I don't disagree...again, excluding some whacky BDSM scenario, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Why is it that your rights are "trampled on," and not just that you got searched when you shouldn't have? It's not some huge injustice in most cases. If a cop is clearly on a power trip and wants to search my car and I have nothing to hide, go ahead! I get that we all have rights. If we repeatedly had them "trampled on," maybe I'd feel more strongly...I don't understand what benefit the wrongfully accused gets from holding fast to their rights at the expense of angering someone already on a power trip instead of just saying, "I know I'm innocent, so you can search and do whatever you want."

Wouldn't it be nice if the cops obeyed by society's rules?

It absolutely would...and I think MOST do. Being a #### to the ones that don't isn't going to help anything though. How's the old saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody said anything about being a ####. you can politely decline an illegal search. But the article - and several posters have stated that you should not be concerned about your rights at all when faced with an officer trampling on them. I assume it is because then worse things will happen, which clearly is not a very good reason for people concerned with constitutional rights

I think we're starting to cross lines in the argument here. I agree that you can decline politely. I agree that you shouldn't ever feel like your rights are being trampled on.

I also feel that when you come across one of these rogue officers on a power trip, you typically know it and that sometimes, with these "types," it's easier to just say "Yes officer," and then move on.

 

[Henry Ford]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

Sure. I can choose to NOT let them search...and by doing so I willingly accept that a cop might be a #### to me and make life a lot harder on me. I know I'm innocent, so I don't really care if they search, so I WILLINGLY tell them they can search.

It's no different than owning a gun. I have a constitutional right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for me. A lot of people choose not to go through the hassle of owning a gun becuase of the hoops you have to jump through. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

Yes it is. You don't have to go through hoops not have an officer's finger in your ###. That's the point.

Sure you do.

You: I'd rather not give you consent to search my car [finger my ###, whatever]. It's my right."

Officer: OK. Have it your way. I'm going to ask you to pull over here for a moment while I get a K-9.

You: But I've got nothing to hide.

Officer: Then why can't we search?

You: Because 4th ammendment.

Officer: OK. Wait here.

Then, the dog scratches your car, you're late to wherever you were going, etc. But your rights are in tact! Yay!

Still think there's no hoops to jump through to avoid unlawful search and seizure in this circumstance? You avoided the proverbial finger in the ###, but you suffered a lot of other stuff to uphold your right.

It's possible we disconnect where you equate having a finger in your ### to having your car searched.

 

[Zow]

THE ON-PERSON CAMERA FOR POLICE OFFICERS IS THE GREATEST POLICE ENFORCEMENT DEVICE EVER AND WORTH EVERY TAXPAYER PENNY.

And yes, I used caps because that's how I feel. They are that ####### awesome.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

Sure. I can choose to NOT let them search...and by doing so I willingly accept that a cop might be a #### to me and make life a lot harder on me. I know I'm innocent, so I don't really care if they search, so I WILLINGLY tell them they can search.

It's no different than owning a gun. I have a constitutional right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for me. A lot of people choose not to go through the hassle of owning a gun becuase of the hoops you have to jump through. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

Yes it is. You don't have to go through hoops not have an officer's finger in your ###. That's the point.

Sure you do.

You: I'd rather not give you consent to search my car [finger my ###, whatever]. It's my right."

Officer: OK. Have it your way. I'm going to ask you to pull over here for a moment while I get a K-9.

You: But I've got nothing to hide.

Officer: Then why can't we search?

You: Because 4th ammendment.

Officer: OK. Wait here.

Then, the dog scratches your car, you're late to wherever you were going, etc. But your rights are in tact! Yay!

Still think there's no hoops to jump through to avoid unlawful search and seizure in this circumstance? You avoided the proverbial finger in the ###, but you suffered a lot of other stuff to uphold your right.

"Rosa Parks stood up for her rights."

"Yeah but she went to jail. Why go through that pain in the ### just to prove a point?"

 

[TheIronSheik]

Pssst...

What if I told you guys that it is possible:

To be pro law and order

To support law enforcement officers

To be law abiding

While still being critical of officers that overreact or see no problem in violating our rights.

I'd say you were completely right, but it'll never happen.

You're telling me that I can't be both or all of those things?

I haven't had a negative experience with a cop in probably 20 years (middle aged white guy). My opinion isn't based on being hasseled or something.

I was pulled over a couple of years ago because somebody ripped the tags off of our plates. I was absolutely respectful, cooperative, non-confrontational, and non-threatening. Everything went great.

I also went through a DUI checkpoint last year. Same as above.

I just don't like that this cop is saying "if you don't want to get shot/tazed/sprayed...do what I say."

I'm not saying YOU can't do it. I'm saying that almost everyone else WON'T do it. HTH

 

[fantasycurse42]

THE ON-PERSON CAMERA FOR POLICE OFFICERS IS THE GREATEST POLICE ENFORCEMENT DEVICE EVER AND WORTH EVERY TAXPAYER PENNY.

And yes, I used caps because that's how I feel. They are that ####### awesome.

I agree, those are nice, but there should be some discretionary #######/####face ticket a cop can write out for someone being a ####, just to #### with a cop bc it is on camera.

 

[timschochet]

There are two major problems with what this policeman has written:

First, he assumes, as so many conservatives tend to do, that everyone is treated equally. Denying that racism exists in our society seems to be a big deal with conservatives. You hear it when economic issues are discussed ( "I don't see why they can't just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work hard like I did!") and you hear it here ("I always follow the cops' instructions and I'm never treated badly.") The people who write this stuff are not minorities, and they refuse to concede the fact that minorities get treated differently, especially if you're black. If you're black in this society it may not matter how many instructions you follow; you're still badly treated, you're still forced to suffer indignities, sometimes on a daily basis, that most others never have to experience.

Second, even if a person is rude to a policeman, that does not justify the policeman being rude back. Just like public school teachers in regards to students, policemen have a greater responsibility to be courteous than do ordinary citizens. Most are, IMO. But to extend this rule: a policeman does not have the right to harm a citizen unless the citizen is resisting arrest, and a policeman does not have the right to shoot a citizen unless that citizen is threatening the life of that policeman. If the policeman breaks either of these rules, the policeman ought to be held accountible, no matter what the citizen might have done to provoke him.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

THE ON-PERSON CAMERA FOR POLICE OFFICERS IS THE GREATEST POLICE ENFORCEMENT DEVICE EVER AND WORTH EVERY TAXPAYER PENNY.

And yes, I used caps because that's how I feel. They are that ####### awesome.

An error occurreddondante and fat nick are buttholes

 

[mr roboto]

I think cops take the paranoid aggressive confrontational stance quickly because of all the #### they've had to deal with from John Q Public. Granted, you may not have any intention of giving the cop ####, but one can understand why the cop may not walk up to you assuming you are going to be unarmed, cooperative and polite. I would venture to guess that if you show yourself to be unarmed, cooperative and polite, their stance toward you will be much less aggressive and paranoid.

Of course someone will point out that under certain circumstances you don't have to be cooperative, or show or tell them anything. Maybe that's true. I'm not that knowledgable about the constitution and case law regarding these matters (when you are stopped by police but not under arrest or detained).

 

[Zow]

THE ON-PERSON CAMERA FOR POLICE OFFICERS IS THE GREATEST POLICE ENFORCEMENT DEVICE EVER AND WORTH EVERY TAXPAYER PENNY.

And yes, I used caps because that's how I feel. They are that ####### awesome.

I agree, those are nice, but there should be some discretionary #######/####face ticket a cop can write out for someone being a ####, just to #### with a cop bc it is on camera.

In Arizona they can be charged misdemeanor called "Failure to Obey a Lawful Command". And the evidence of such would be on camera, making the case a hell of a lot easier to litigate.

ETA: I'd note that the cameras used by the law enforcement in my jurisdiction are pretty tiny and a person probably wouldn't even realize they are being filmed.

 

[Fat Nick]

"Rosa Parks stood up for her rights."

"Yeah but she went to jail. Why go through that pain in the ### just to prove a point?"

@ even trying to equate Rosa Parks standing up for her rights to some schmuck refusing a search of his car at a sobriety check-point or something. You aren't going down in history as some great savior for that.

 

[Fat Nick]

If everyone does that then the Constitution goes out the window and cops will just stop everyone until they find the criminals, because hey, everyone else is cool with it!

This is paranoia bull####.

No, it's not. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument is frequently made by people defending incursions on privacy. Most people who advocate for our Bill of Rights find it horrifying.

I don't think anybody is DEFENDING incursions on privacy. We're saying that sometimes it's more logical to just suffer said incursion (which really has no lasting impact on an innocent person) than to deal with the potential consequences of a one-man mini-revolt against law enforcement for a moral stand for rights.

If you feel that they should be allowed to do this, do you really have the right?

Sure. I can choose to NOT let them search...and by doing so I willingly accept that a cop might be a #### to me and make life a lot harder on me. I know I'm innocent, so I don't really care if they search, so I WILLINGLY tell them they can search.

It's no different than owning a gun. I have a constitutional right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the government has to make it easy for me. A lot of people choose not to go through the hassle of owning a gun becuase of the hoops you have to jump through. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

Yes it is. You don't have to go through hoops not have an officer's finger in your ###. That's the point.

Sure you do.

You: I'd rather not give you consent to search my car [finger my ###, whatever]. It's my right."

Officer: OK. Have it your way. I'm going to ask you to pull over here for a moment while I get a K-9.

You: But I've got nothing to hide.

Officer: Then why can't we search?

You: Because 4th ammendment.

Officer: OK. Wait here.

Then, the dog scratches your car, you're late to wherever you were going, etc. But your rights are in tact! Yay!

Still think there's no hoops to jump through to avoid unlawful search and seizure in this circumstance? You avoided the proverbial finger in the ###, but you suffered a lot of other stuff to uphold your right.

It's possible we disconnect where you equate having a finger in your ### to having your car searched.

That...is possible...Both are violations of something...

 

[Henry Ford]

"Rosa Parks stood up for her rights."

"Yeah but she went to jail. Why go through that pain in the ### just to prove a point?"

@ even trying to equate Rosa Parks standing up for her rights to some schmuck refusing a search of his car at a sobriety check-point or something. You aren't going down in history as some great savior for that.

You keep talking about a car. I very clearly said "finger in your ###."

 

[Fat Nick]

"Rosa Parks stood up for her rights."

"Yeah but she went to jail. Why go through that pain in the ### just to prove a point?"

@ even trying to equate Rosa Parks standing up for her rights to some schmuck refusing a search of his car at a sobriety check-point or something. You aren't going down in history as some great savior for that.

You keep talking about a car. I very clearly said "finger in your ###."

OK...I get it. At some point above, somebody (maybe not you) was discussing this as a routine traffic stop...regardless..

@ even trying to equate Rosa Parks standing up for her rights to some schmuck refusing a finger in his #### at a sobriety check-point or something. You aren't going down in history as some great savior for that either.

I can see it now...all THESE people marching on the Capitol with signs, "Save our bums!" "End police fingering!"

 

[msommer]

This just in:

"All police trampling of constitutional rights involve searching a persons car"

 

[msommer]

"They might also include fisting"

 

[Loan Sharks]

"They might also include fisting"

For free?

 

[Limp Ditka]

"They might also include fisting"

Hands up!

Wrists wet!