Refusing to state Probable Cause allows for fabricating one after the illegal search.

You mean the "smell" or "visual" aka (in plain sight) is fabricating?

They will tell you what they are looking for. Sure, they can say contraband, and if you don't have them be a little more specific, it becomes the drivers problem.

So, what if there were no unfair laws? That would not change the job description of a LEO in any way.

Probably not. The U.S. department of transportation will still sponsor "click it or ticket" and "no refusal" (DWI enforcement).

Click it or ticket is advertised as to when and the latest one for this year, from what I hear, the number of tickets dropped substantially.

Whose fault is it if the driver doesn't know which jurisdiction they are egressing? The cop writing the ticket or the operator of the motor vehicle?

It's like the western northern border of Oklahoma that butts up to Colorado. The hunters are required to know which state they are hunting. There are no markings.

Which laws do you want them to enforce? I don't recall the oath as saying the officer gets to pick and choose which ones they will enforce.

 

I'm sure everyone has seen this ....

Dashcam video:

 

You mean the "smell" or "visual" aka (in plain sight) is fabricating?

How about they refuse to state their probable cause until they run your name and find out you were convicted of drug possession. The PC will then become suspicion of drugs instead of, "I just had a hunch but I couldn't say that out loud because there might have been a recording device somewhere." It doesn't matter if you don't have any drugs. You are still going to jail on trumped up charges. If you can't afford a lawyer, you will be guilty. I've seen it happen.

They will tell you what they are looking for.

I'm calling B.S. I've seen a dozen videos of a cop refusing to state his probable cause a dozen times while his victim repeated his demand for a statement of probable cause a dozen times. I repeat, as if you can't read this Thread: I have personally experienced, "Why do you think I pulled you over?"

Whose fault is it if the driver doesn't know which jurisdiction they are egressing?

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with refusing to state their PC or whether their job is to find crimes or infractions. Trying to change the subject? Making up straw man arguments? Checking to see if I'm stupid enough to fall for that?

Which laws do you want them to enforce? I don't recall the oath as saying the officer gets to pick and choose which ones they will enforce.

Apparently the oath says they can make up laws to fit the situation. How about LEOs enforce actual laws instead of, "It's illegal to operate a camera on public property." or, "You must present I.D. when I can't name any reasonable articulable suspicion"? Or in my personal experience: "If you make me give your neighbor a trespassing warning I will have to arrest you for trimming branches (that were scraping your car in your driveway)." And again I post as if you can't read this Thread: "I'm going to write you a ticket for obstructing traffic (because you were going exactly the speed limit)."

There is no law against using a camera in public places (as adjudicated in several cases by several courts). There are some states that require I.D. without suspicion. There is no law against trimming an overhanging tree. Going the speed limit on a beautiful, sunny morning with no traffic in sight except my girlfriend following me to breakfast is not obstructing traffic.

"If you can't keep up with the conversation, better not try to join at all."
Hannibal Lecter

 

@#12, your experience has been my experience for the most part. If I remember correctly JJ has a child that is a LEO, and that may be clouding his views on how they operate.

 

If I remember correctly JJ has a child that is a LEO, and that may be clouding his views on how they operate.

It's important to remember that both sides can be correct with even a small fraction of bad actors. Suppose 90+% of cops work out their careers with dignity and without ever being involved in one of the incidents highlighted by @#12. That still leaves plenty of cops and a lot of incidents. Every institution I've ever seen has, at any one moment, 5-10% of its people that really should have been let go.

 

It's important to remember that both sides can be correct with even a small fraction of bad actors. Suppose 90+% of cops work out their careers with dignity and without ever being involved in one of the incidents highlighted by @#12. That still leaves plenty of cops and a lot of incidents. Every institution I've ever seen has, at any one moment, 5-10% of its people that really should have been let go.

Normally the rate is about 2%, but I agree that police institutions have a much higher one.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/20...onvicted-of-lurid-crimes-that-never-happened/

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS after they were convicted of a crime that never happened, Fran and Dan Keller were formally exonerated on June 20 in Austin, Texas.

The couple’s prosecution in 1992 was part of a wave of cases across the country amid an episode of mass hysteria known as the Satanic Panic. Beginning in the 1980s, accusations flew that the childcare industry had been infiltrated by bands of Satanists hell-bent on brainwashing and sexually abusing young children. The Kellers’ exoneration closes a decades long chapter of profound injustice for a couple that paid an exceptionally high price for the credulousness of local law enforcement.

 

Suppose 90+% of cops work out their careers with dignity

With 660,000 badge bearing people, 10% is a lot bigger number than I like. Let's give them 99%. That only leaves 6600 bad actors (132 per state).
I think the number is higher because an average of 5.4 cops are going down PER DAY!
That's almost 2000 per year, and those are only the ones that behaved so badly their Brothers in Blue, the Attorneys General, and the Police Unions won't protect them.
If there are only 6600 bad cops, there is only a 3 year supply of convictable cops employed right now. I suppose a person who is good at statistical analysis could determine how probable those numbers are.
https://www.policemisconduct.net/

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/20...onvicted-of-lurid-crimes-that-never-happened/

That resembles the Salem Witch Trials.
One evil, young girl with a fanciful imagination and you're doomed.
One of my beliefs right now is: "Any woman can put any man in jail at any time, with nothing but her words."*
Any result can happen, from the charges didn't stick, to life w/o parole, but once you're, "in the system" you can be hounded for the rest of your life. Even if some bad cop doesn't target you, any future interaction will show that you're a, "bad guy" and you will be treated as such.

*I have always been smart and lucky. I have never been arrested or convicted of anything. That doesn't mean it can't happen today or tomorrow when I go to the bank or the grocery store.

 

How about they refuse to state their probable cause until they run your name and find out you were convicted of drug possession.

They can run your plates while sitting at a red light. The results of that search could be probable cause.

I'm calling B.S. I've seen a dozen videos of a cop refusing to state his probable cause a dozen times while his victim repeated his demand for a statement of probable cause a dozen times.

And what was the tone of the "victim"? A screaming match does not increase the chance of any side getting their way. It only escalates the situation ... and one of the people involved carries a gun and when their life is threatened ... they can shoot. You can't deescalate something if one of the parties wants to escalate it. A dozen videos ... nice figure. That means only a dozen departments and a very minuscule number of officers. Your thread is an attempt to paint all officers based on videos that rarely if any, capture the moments from the beginning of the action.

I have personally experienced, "Why do you think I pulled you over?"

How did you respond? Were they looking for donations to buy some donuts?

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with refusing to state their PC or whether their job is to find crimes or infractions. Trying to change the subject? Making up straw man arguments? Checking to see if I'm stupid enough to fall for that?

That was a continuation of the click it or ticket. Some offenders could not believe they were in the officer's jurisdiction and even stated they weren't. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Apparently the oath says they can make up laws to fit the situation.

You know damn well that's (moderator's note: impolite expression removed). Of course you can provide a cite to support your position.

 

If I remember correctly JJ has a child that is a LEO, and that may be clouding his views on how they operate.

He does not cloud my judgement.

Your accusation is pure bovine excrement.

on edit:

As far as my Son's department goes, here were five that were fired: http://www.theshapirolawfirm.com/Ne...ficers-Fired-They-Are-Not-Above-the-Law.shtml


Find the bad cops and convict them. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that.

As far as their department regulations, go to the department and see if they will post them online for the viewing public.

then again ...

on the other hand ... go for a ride along on a shift.

 

very institution I've ever seen has, at any one moment, 5-10% of its people that really should have been let go.

Got a cite?

Normally the rate is about 2%, but I agree that police institutions have a much higher one.

Got a cite?

Almost a year old ... but still relevant.

https://www.thebalance.com/top-reasons-for-getting-fired-2060732

A 2014 WP article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...fdbc612bff8_story.html?utm_term=.1569347f28c4

 

Got a cite?

Don't need one. By definition, a small percentage will fall more than 2 standard deviations below the mean.

 

Every institution I've ever seen has, at any one moment, 5-10% of its people that really should have been let go.

Don't need one. By definition, a small percentage will fall more than 2 standard deviations below the mean.

Your 5 to 10 percent will be an incorrect figure by that standard. At best, there's approximately 2.28 percent of the population more than two deviations on the lower side.

 

At best, there's approximately 2.28 percent of the population more than two deviations on the lower side.

that's more or less what I meant to say...

 

that's more or less what I meant to say...

You compounded it when you stated

...but I agree that police institutions have a much higher one.

Is that based on some empirical data or a WAG? That is the reason I asked for a cite.

 

If I remember correctly JJ has a child that is a LEO, and that may be clouding his views on how they operate.

That explains a lot. Having a vested interest can make a person blind to the obvious, overly defensive, and commit logical fallacies.

 

You compounded it when you stated

Is that based on some empirical data or a WAG? That is the reason I asked for a cite.

I meant to say that too... in my opinion, some lines of work attract people that have a natural desire for power. Such is the obvious case of politicians, but it applies LEOs as well. Now don't take me wrong, it's not my intention to use a broad brush to judge them all. I personally know quite a few good cops out there (and Mexican cops at that!) and it's of course unfair to bundle them all into a single category. But I'm trying to be objective here. There's a general perception that cops are more prone to make use of unwarranted violence in stressful situations. They're also human after all. And after all the nasty stuff that they have to deal with routinely, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

That's my opinion, but then again, your demand to produce "a cite" is also reasonable. I'm trying to keep an open mind as possible on this subject.

 

That explains a lot. Having a vested interest can make a person blind to the obvious, overly defensive, and commit logical fallacies.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Blind to the obvious ... how many were adjudicated and what were the results? When did the police lose their rights?

I've said many times, if you find a bad cop, prosecute them. No one will disagree with that.

Logical fallacies, now there is a nice one. Your post, the War on Cops, is not about addressing the bad cops. It's about failure to allow an investigation by a competent authority and file charges when necessary. You deny them their fourth amendment rights to satisfy some silly ass videos recording an incomplete record.

 

I meant to say that too... in my opinion, some lines of work attract people that have a natural desire for power. Such is the obvious case of politicians, but it applies LEOs as well. Now don't take me wrong, it's not my intention to use a broad brush to judge them all. I personally know quite a few good cops out there (and Mexican cops at that!) and it's of course unfair to bundle them all into a single category. But I'm trying to be objective here. There's a general perception that cops are more prone to make use of unwarranted violence in stressful situations. They're also human after all. And after all the nasty stuff that they have to deal with routinely, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

That's my opinion, but then again, your demand to produce "a cite" is also reasonable. I'm trying to keep an open mind as possible on this subject.

Abuse of power is as wrong as any other crimes. Abuse of power can fall under the generic, Conduct unbecoming. Prosecute those that need prosecuting. If you local DA don't want to do that, work against them in the next election. Write op eds, challenging them. Complaining on an internet forum is taking zero action.

 

They can run your plates while sitting at a red light. The results of that search could be probable cause.

So why refuse to obey the law and state that probable cause? That would demonstrate a difference between good cops and bad cops.

And what was the tone of the "victim"?

I think you mean hundreds of thousands of victims. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" is as well known as, "The check is in the mail." No matter how they acted, it doesn't relieve an officer of any obligation to obey the law.

A dozen videos ... nice figure. That means only a dozen departments and a very minuscule number of officers.

Another straw man argument. You are pretending that no misbehavior exists besides what I have seen.

Your thread is an attempt to paint all officers based on videos that rarely if any, capture the moments from the beginning of the action.

I call B.S. I don't have a Thread on this subject and my contributions here are an attempt to show people that there is a problem, but it isn't a War on Cops. You can deny that 1000+ kills per year and the highest number of prisoners of any country on the planet is a problem, but you will never convince me, just as I think I will never convince you.

How did you respond? Were they looking for donations to buy some donuts?

Irrelevant.

That was a continuation of the click it or ticket.

You should have addressed whomever brought up that subject.

You know damn well that's bullshit. Of course you can provide a cite to support your position.

We already did this conversation, and it was only 22 hours ago. Memory problems? Or psychiatric?.

Apparently the oath says they can make up laws to fit the situation. How about LEOs enforce actual laws instead of, "It's illegal to operate a camera on public property." or, "You must present I.D. when I can't name any reasonable articulable suspicion"? Or in my personal experience: "If you make me give your neighbor a trespassing warning I will have to arrest you for trimming branches (that were scraping your car in your driveway)." And again I post as if you can't read this Thread: "I'm going to write you a ticket for obstructing traffic (because you were going exactly the speed limit)."

Edit: Fixed a couple of spelling errors and a double negative.