Why aren't we raising hell about this?

[BlackSnake]

My dad was a cop and in my twenties, so was I.

My assessment. First remove the dramatics, then get to the facts. Had it been me, I would have arrested her, and not released her with tickets.

The failure I see is simple. Failure to comply with an officer's instructions is called obstruction. Loop hole, directly to jail. End of story.

Does she have a complaint? Of course. Had it been me, I would have shown my ID. Simple fact, you may win in court, but you will never win on the street. File your complaint from a safe distance. Don't think that you are safe on the street.

Here's a short story.

Early morning rush hour at an intersection. Investigation showed that in heavy traffic, some vehicles were traveling on the wrong side of the road to by pass other vehicles stopped at the traffic light. Over thirty vehicles in an hour between approx 0715 hours and approx 0815 hours. The danger of motor vehicle accidents was clear. After filing approx. 14 reports, I was charged with handling the traffic situation at that intersection.

I preformed a motor vehicle stop on a vehicle which had traveled approx 500 feet in the North bound lane while traveling South. I advised the driver that I stopped him for driving on the wrong side of the road, and asked for his driver's license and proof of insurance. I took note of the driver's aggressive out bursts (i.e., "Shit!", "Motherfucker!"). I returned to my vehicle and began writing a citation under Title 40 of the O.C.G.A. Upon returning to the subject's vehicle, I began to explain to him the provisions of the law (i.e., told him where he could find out how much the fine would be and what he needed to do if he decided to challange the citation)....This clown said, "%^&^##%! You are a disgrace to your uniform"...

Things went south for the guy. YOU CAN NOT WIN ON THE STREET AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER! See, traffic stops are dangerous. Besides the danger of approaching a vehicle you stop, the other fools still on the road act like they want to run you over (Check how many police officers have been killed in traffic...my dad was one for starters.). The other thing, most states have enough laws still on the books to allow an officer to arrest you for breathing, almost.

I asked the subject to step out of his vehicle and placed him under arrest for approx 7 motor vehicle violations, 1 count of "use of fighting words", 1 count felony obstruction. Found guilty on all counts!

Big reason not to mess with the police on the street, they are taught the criminal and traffic codes. Note the "use of fighting words". If you say something in a manner that would make me want to hit you, a judge will find you guilty...if I don't hit you

FIGHT YOUR BATTLES IN COURT. PRACTICE CIVIL DISOBENANCE ON THE STREET.

 

[amicus]

Blacksnake.....interest post...with a personal touch.

I think as we grow older we begin to understand the necessity for law enforcement and the individuals that choose that walk in life. It is a proud and courageous task to become a 'guardian' of rights, life and property and I applaud those who take on the risks.

On the other hand, law enforcement officials at all levels, are just that 'law enforcement...' paid to enforce the laws made by public bodies.

By definition if you, as a police officer, are ordered to tack up a yellow star on the front door of every abode housing a Jewish person, you would, enforce the law.

That is the objection of many, and the thread starter, perhaps, some of those 'laws' you enforce, invade our privacy and violate our rights.

And when we lose, both on the streets and in the courts, then we all have a much bigger problem.

As with many laws, they can not be challenged on principle. One must in fact violate or 'break' that law to have a valid cause for court action.

It can be a confusing issue.


amicus...

 

[LadyJeanne]

Excellent post my friend, excellent!

And I offer no justifications, apologies or rationalizations. I feel quite the same way about the war on drugs and the right of authorities to demand identification. I have personally refused several times and in some instances, paid the price.

I wish the ACLU would get off the left wing hobby horse and address some of these basic constitutional issues with as much energy as the exert on the gay rights issue. Perhaps we need another organization?

amicus...

2003: ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act

2005: ACLU Campaign to defend the Constitution

2002: ACLU files 24 lawsuits since 9/11

2005: ACLU and ISP challenge FBI's use of Patriot Act

 

[rgraham666]

Damn it LadyJ!

What are you doing bringing facts into an argument?

 

[LadyJeanne]

Damn it LadyJ!

What are you doing bringing facts into an argument?

I don't know what I was thinking

That's it for today's quota, though. Everything else will be slander, innuendo, and unfounded assertions.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't know what I was thinking

That's it for today's quota, though. Everything else will be slander, innuendo, and unfounded assertions.

LOL.

 

[Belegon]

Bravo LadyJ for pointing out that it is not that the ACLU only fights for certain causes, it is that people are often only aware of certain fights.

I've seen the Patriot Act create all kinds of interesting red tape. It certainly has made it harder to do my job. But I have not seen it catch a single terrorist.

If you are stopped by an officer while driving I think the officer has every right and obligation to ask for your license. The use of a deadly weapon as a mode of transportation is a legitimate case of government taking an interest in your daily activities.

If I am walking into a sporting event where I am going to be with tens of thousands of others, I have no problem with them checking the contents of my backpack.

But getting on a bus with no probable cause and doing ID checks? And hey, what if you weren't doing anything wrong but had left your wallet on the table next to the front door because you were running late? I've done that before...

 

[amicus]

Well, Lady Jeanne...nice comeback...I do not claim to be and expert or even a fan of the ACLU as from my point of view that organization does not support issues that do in fact match mine.

That is not to say that one can not interpret what they do as in some perverted way, support the constitution, it is more like their 'view' of the constititution, which is a very liberal, left wing interpretation.

They fight for abortion rights under the privacy clause but not for gun ownership.

They fight for gay and lesbian rights, not as a part of the constitution, but as an 'equal rights' argument.

I tend to support their efforts to keep religion out of public schools and other public institutions, but they do so from the foundation that there are no 'absolute' objective standards of value, only secular humanism.

amicus...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I tend to support their efforts to keep religion out of public schools and other public institutions, but they do so from the foundation that there are no 'absolute' objective standards of value, only secular humanism.

whatever supports the greater good, right? That's logical <wink>

 

[amicus]

Ahem, are you flirting with the ole Amicus with that wink...or just a friendly jab in the absolute rib cage?

You have to stand in line, Cloudy and Colleen Thomas are there before you.

chuckles....amicus

 

[Somme]

whatever supports the greater good, right? That's logical <wink>

Isn't this currently a blatant heresy?

 

[shereads]

Just had an amusing thought.

I wonder how quiet the reaction would be if the government suddenly became 'left wing' and the police started harassing people in chauffeured limousines?

There's the rub. When we allow a few people to be targeted and denied their rights, we implicitly agree that those rights are not guaranteed to anyone whose profile makes him a potential threat to society. Who and what might be considered a threat is a determination of the majority in power, and that can change radically over time.

I asked a question similar to yours of a Christian friend at the office who defended the Patriot Act by saying, "I don't have anything to hide." I asked how she'd feel about having relinguished the right to privacy, if the government is someday dominated by an anti-religious majority who consider Christians a threat to society. She said that wouldn't ever happen. Yeah, tell that to Pontius Pilate.

-----

In Greece, the id cards that citizens carry for the sake of security are now required to list the person's religion.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Well, Lady Jeanne...nice comeback...I do not claim to be and expert or even a fan of the ACLU as from my point of view that organization does not support issues that do in fact match mine.

That is not to say that one can not interpret what they do as in some perverted way, support the constitution, it is more like their 'view' of the constititution, which is a very liberal, left wing interpretation.

If you'd actually clicked on the links I provided, you'd have read this about their Campaign to defend the Consitution.

"The ACLU Campaign to Defend the Constitution
The urgency in our campaign to keep America both safe and free has never been greater as about 10 percent of the 150 sections of the Patriot Act are set to expire or "sunset" unless Congress votes to reauthorize, and expand, the bill. Resources on this page will help to educate yourself and others about what's at stake with the sunsets and to take action to preserve the checks and balances that shield our fundamental freedoms from excessive government power."

and you'd have seen their list of issues:

USA PATRIOT Act
Sunsets
CFC (watch lists)
Discrimination
Detention
No-Fly Lists
Secrecy
Surveillance
Dissent

If that's a liberal and left wing interpretation, then you are left wing too, on this issue. Welcome to the fold!

 

[amicus]

If you'd actually clicked on the links I provided, you'd have read this about their Campaign to defend the Consitution.

"The ACLU Campaign to Defend the Constitution
The urgency in our campaign to keep America both safe and free has never been greater as about 10 percent of the 150 sections of the Patriot Act are set to expire or "sunset" unless Congress votes to reauthorize, and expand, the bill. Resources on this page will help to educate yourself and others about what's at stake with the sunsets and to take action to preserve the checks and balances that shield our fundamental freedoms from excessive government power."

and you'd have seen their list of issues:

USA PATRIOT Act
Sunsets
CFC (watch lists)
Discrimination
Detention
No-Fly Lists
Secrecy
Surveillance
Dissent

If that's a liberal and left wing interpretation, then you are left wing too, on this issue. Welcome to the fold!

Lady Jeanne...I thought I addressed that before.

In terms of the Patriot Act, we are at war. Nations during wartime enact legislation that temporarily limits some of the constitutional liberties we cherish. It is not a new thing.

I too, would prefer a 'sunset law' on all these wartime measures.

I have lost two Bic lighters to airport searches and seizures, along will a tiny pair of nail scissors I had forgotten in me ditty bag.

There are secrets in terms of national security that I understand must be protected, do you not acknowledge that?

I watched a program on television recently that intimated that Americans may have to suffer another 9/11 like tragedy before they realize that we are indeed at war and must make preparations to limit terrorism, here, there and elsewhere.

I hope not.


amicus...

 

[shereads]

Well, Lady Jeanne...nice comeback...I do not claim to be and expert or even a fan of the ACLU as from my point of view that organization does not support issues that do in fact match mine.

That is not to say that one can not interpret what they do as in some perverted way, support the constitution, it is more like their 'view' of the constititution, which is a very liberal, left wing interpretation.

They fight for abortion rights under the privacy clause but not for gun ownership.

They fight for gay and lesbian rights, not as a part of the constitution, but as an 'equal rights' argument.

I tend to support their efforts to keep religion out of public schools and other public institutions, but they do so from the foundation that there are no 'absolute' objective standards of value, only secular humanism.

amicus...

I'm a member of the ACLU despite the fact that I find some of their causes objectionable. I joined the day after 9/11, when the Patriot Act was no more than a gleam in John Ashcroft's eye, because it seemed inevitable that people who think we have too many rights to begin with would view 9/11 as a golden opportunity. And so they did. And because we were in shock, and increasingly angry and afraid as the shock wore off, most people went along with it. We were stripped of the rights that made us a free country, by people who insisted it was the only way to protect our Freedom.

You and I disagree on which issues the ACLU should or shouldn't pursue, but for people who see the need to draw a line in the sand, and don't have sufficient wealth or the right connections to influence government on our own, the ACLU is necessary.

I don't like knowing my membership dues will be used to defend the next Ku Klux Klan rally. It makes me queasy. But I see the necessity of it. If the right to free speech doesn't apply to offensive speech, what's the point? Majority speech doesn't need defending. For the same reason, I'm in the minority of liberals who think laws against Hate Crime do more harm than good. Dragging a man to death behind your pickup truck qualifies as a heinous crime already; trying to make it more serious by determining that it was motivated by racism isn't all that noble, when you consider that it requires the state to punish certain ways of thinking. Punish illegal behavior; the thoughts and beliefs that motivated the behavior are nobody's business.


-----

This week's summary by the 9/11 Commission awards failing grades to the administration on its pet theme: protecting Americans from terrorism. Without enacting such essentials as defining a clear path of communication between first responders and the federal government, for example, we are helpless to coordinate local, state and federal emergency efforts as demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina - which gave us two days' advance notice. Al Queda isn't likely to do that, no matter how many people's library records are confiscated.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*giggle*

You yanks should begin to charge people for entering the US - it's like one giant bad joke, all of it!

I tell you, if someone demanded to see my ID like that, I'd make a point of it to not only leave all identification papers at home every morning, but also to go on that damned bus every day, just to spite those guards!

Civil disobediance, people!!!

 

[amicus]

Shereads....this is a little off topic, but reading your last made me think of it.

Although I am and present my views as 'absolute', I do appreciate the necessity of opposites.

While I reject most of which you stand for and oppose it at every opportunity, it is that conflict between opposites that challenges one or both, to be more precise and accurate.

I find that this, 'Yin/Yang' observation appears valid in many aspects of life.

This may also shed a little light on my apparent misogyny, a love/hate relationship without a doubt.

I often over simplify issues, such as left and right, freedom and slavery, knowing full well that grey areas no doubt exist, even if only in perception and not reality.

Not that it matters, but when I stop and consider the past few years here on this forum, it is usually your s/n Shereads that comes to mind, although you do seem to have a royal hissy fit from time to time.

grins...


amicus....

 

[amicus]

"...This week's summary by the 9/11 Commission awards failing grades to the administration on its pet theme: protecting Americans from terrorism. Without enacting such essentials as defining a clear path of communication between first responders and the federal government, for example, we are helpless to coordinate local, state and federal emergency efforts as demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina - which gave us two days' advance notice. Al Queda isn't likely to do that, no matter how many people's library records are confiscated...."


Did you edit and add that? I don't recall reading it the first time through.

I heard that summary discussed on a news program, not quite as cut and dried as you suggest.

The, 'clear path of commicaton..." is all tied up with the Federal Communications Commission on the issue of allocating a portion of the radio frequency spectrum for use in inter agency communications.

In addition to that, government red tape, bureaucracies who purchase communications equipment from private enterprise are all in a tizzy about finding an 'universal' communications device that will accomodate all users.

They recently took into consideration the New Orleans experience during Katrina when all communication failed because of the destruction of 'repeaters' for both cell phone, uhf and vhf communications. Plus the lack of back-up generators and sufficient batteries for portable equipment.

The Katrina disaster demonstrated that in general we are not prepared to deal efficiently with a major event; no one is, no where in the world.

Even efficient evacuation with sufficient lead time, as in the Rita storm, in Texas, led to grid lock. I cannot imagine the confusion of a major hurricane approaching New York City, or a Tsunami alert for the greater LA basin.

And of course, the confusion between local, state and federal agencies about who has authority and responsibility to act. It might be compared to the Patriot Act squabble of restricting some liberties and options in the face of a greater threat.

My complaint, here on this forum and in the media at large, is the myopic criticism of the current administration as being totally at fault for all wrongs.

I doubt that any administration,ever, can deal with an event as large as Katrina to the satisfaction of all.


amicus...

 

[BlackSnake]

My Lady,

What do you think my opinion of the ACLU would be? Have you seen my picture thread?

Now, let's not confuse the issue. If the ACLU volated the law on my watch, and I had knowledge of it. The members would be arrested without hesitation.

The sad thing for citizens is that the law is removing a lot of discretion away from police officers. The are some officers who have used discretion to get away with corruption, but there are some officers who use it to deal with complicated issues.

The one thing about being old, you have a lot of stories to tell.

The President flew into Dobbins, AFB and we were charged with removing all no operational and lottering vehicles along the area of US 41 from Franklin Rd North to Wiley Cir. Right in front of Dobbins, I saw an old man having trouble with his truck. I pulled up behind him and hit my blue lights. As a matter of department policy, you give the tag number of any vehicle you are approaching (I didn't violate policy, just not safe to do so).

Smoke coming from the engine gave me the thought that I would have to have the truck towed and end up taking the old man gods knows where (also policy not to leave a motorist stranded, which I really didn't want to take the old man anywhere).

As I was talking to the old man, the operator told me that the tag belonged to a stolen vehicle. That meant nothing to me, because it had a Tennesee tag(From North Ga to Kentucky you need to be sure). Other officers began to head to my location. I went to check the vehicle ID and things started doing down hill from there. The VIN was removed (illegal) and the starter was wired. It was looking really bad, but I still had the power to release him. His story sounded credible to me. I was going take the vehicle and set the guy free, and then...he didn't have insurance.

LEARN TO ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE ASKED! I asked, do you have proof of insurance. If he would have just said no, then I would have given him a ride where he needed to go, and been able to continue with my day, but...Noooo. He said, I don't have insurance.

All credibility left. I had to arrest him and show how I got to that point, which meant I had to charge him with possession of a stolen vehicle.

I really didn't want to arrest that old dude, but....I had to enforce the law. The old man sat in jail over a year before I was called to testify against him. I felt so sad for him. His court ordered attroney asked me the right questions, including my impressions of the old man (don't listen to TV crap, a police officer's impressions are admisable...very qualified to do so). The judge upheld the charge, and released the man on time served. I still feel sad for having to arrest the man.

 

[shereads]

I tell you, if someone demanded to see my ID like that, I'd make a point of it to not only leave all identification papers at home every morning, but also to go on that damned bus every day, just to spite those guards!

Are you sure that's what you'd do?

There was a time when I'd have said the same thing - about six years ago, when Americans were still guaranteed due process under the law. I knew that if I ever got arrested for civil disobedience, I'd use it as a forum to embarass the daylights out of whoever was responsible. There is no longer a guaranteed right to be heard, or even to have your case go to trial. You could be locked up and forgotten, if someone decided that your act of civil disobedience was evidence of something more sinister.

With a single act of legislation, Congress gave the Executive Branch the right to deny due process to people it deems a danger to the rest of us. It's inevitable that the power to decide who is and isn't a potential member of a potential terrorist organization will be abused.

Civil disobedience was a lot more appealing when there was a guaranteed right to appear before a judge to hear the charges against you; and to be held no longer than a few days unless criminal charges were filed, which required the state to show a judge that there was a high likelihood of conviction. We had the right to demand a trial by a jury of our peers, with our accuser bearing the burden of proof. The sole exceptions were violations of the military code of justice by military personnel, which were subject to military trials unfettered by certain defendant rights. Under the Bush administration, a person doesn't have to be in the military to be denied the legal rights of a civilian, and subjected to military justice, which can be private. You don't even have to be charged with a crime to be held indefinitely, without speaking to an attorney or even notifying your family that you're in jail. It happened to people after 9/11 who were guilty of having the same name as someone on a terrorist watch list. Some were held and questioned by the FBI and then forgotten for weeks before they were allowed to go free.

In short, risking arrest for civil disobedence is a lot riskier than it used ot be. Even a case of mistaken identity can mean serious jail time without the right to a trial.

Under what circumstances would you be willing to risk being jailed without a trial?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

LEARN TO ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE ASKED!

Yow... Lesson learned...

Thanks!

 

[BlackSnake]

Yow... Lesson learned...

Thanks!

See, police learn the art of the leading question. They are looking for a specific answer, and sometimes its in your favor. Don't think that all cops are out to get you, because if they were you'd be got.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Lady Jeanne...I thought I addressed that before.

In terms of the Patriot Act, we are at war. Nations during wartime enact legislation that temporarily limits some of the constitutional liberties we cherish. It is not a new thing.

I too, would prefer a 'sunset law' on all these wartime measures.

I have lost two Bic lighters to airport searches and seizures, along will a tiny pair of nail scissors I had forgotten in me ditty bag.

There are secrets in terms of national security that I understand must be protected, do you not acknowledge that?

I watched a program on television recently that intimated that Americans may have to suffer another 9/11 like tragedy before they realize that we are indeed at war and must make preparations to limit terrorism, here, there and elsewhere.

I hope not.


amicus...

If you're fine and dandy with the Patriot Act during wartime, and your only beef is the identification issue and the war on drugs, then you still have to applaud those fanatic liberal left wingers at the ACLU.

From Cloudy's link in her first post:

"The significance of Deb's case was readily apparent to the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, who immediately arranged free legal representation. The first-rate legal team of ACLU volunteers Norman Mueller and Gail Johnson — attorneys from the prominent Colorado criminal defense firm of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, P.C. — are mounting a vigorous defense on Deborah Davis' behalf."


and from the ACLU's website on their current efforts on the war on drugs.

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/index.html

For the first time in history, the number of inmates in American prisons and jails has exceeded 2 million people, a rate of incarceration that is the highest in the world! This has happened despite the fact that violent crime has fallen to its lowest levels since 1974, when data was first collected nationally. Drug offenses account for nearly 60% of the federal prison population and more than 20% of the state inmate population.

ACLU Announces Defense of Indians Targeted in Meth Sting Operation (11/21/2005)

Nations First Government Office to Provide Medical Marijuana Directly to Patients Established by Santa Cruz, California City Cou (11/8/2005)

ACLU and Students Challenge Drug Sweep at Maryland High School (11/3/2005)

ACLU Joins Lawsuit Challenging Raids of Concerts and Violation of Free Speech (9/26/2005)

ACLU Challenges Burbank Policy of Pursuing Prosecutions of Innocent Medical Marijuana Patients (9/22/2005)

Perhaps if you looked into the organization you denigrate, you'd find that the ACLU and their "left wing hobby horse" address the constitutional issues you hold near and dear to your heart.

 

[shereads]

The, 'clear path of commicaton..." is all tied up with the Federal Communications Commission on the issue of allocating a portion of the radio frequency spectrum for use in inter agency communications.

In addition to that, government red tape, bureaucracies who purchase communications equipment from private enterprise are all in a tizzy about finding an 'universal' communications device that will accomodate all users.

That's only a part of the story, amicus. Read about the administration's non-response - which is on record, in a series of published e-mails - to requests by the Gov. of Louisiana for federal assistance. Requests she directed to the president, including hand-delivering a letter that the White House now acknowledges it "may" have lost.

My complaint, here on this forum and in the media at large, is the myopic criticism of the current administration as being totally at fault for all wrongs.

And my complaint with your complaint is your refusal to acknowledge evidence of wrongdoing by the administration, when they are at fault. Look at the growing record of behind-the-scenes communications before, during and after Katrina, and you'll see FEMA director Michael Brown complaining to his secretary in e-mails that he couldn't go to Louisiana until he found a dog sitter; that a FEMA rep who was in New Orleans begged for more involvement by the Director, whose secretary replied in an e-mail that Brown "needs more than a few minutes for lunch" and would come when more restaurants were open in the area; that not only FEMA but Bush himself received repeated requests for assistance directly from the governor, by telephone and in writing, failed to respond, and then kept quiet about it when stories appeared in the press blaming the governor for failing to communicate with the federal government. Also consider a 9/11 Commissioner's comment yesterday that there is "no excuse" for the failure to spend our tax money to make us safer. (Not to raise our taxes, dear; he didn't say that, so don't go there. As everyone now knows, the $280 billion + we've spent in Iraq came from fairies, not taxes.)

Those points are offf-topic of course, but they are a doomed attempt to refute your assertion that some of us are myopic about the Bush administration. I agree there is myopia at work - the failure of conservatives in this forum to acknowledge factual evidence of this administration's failings. On topic, the administration is guilty of having weakened our civil rights without giviing us safety in return. Even if they had, I wouldn't find it an acceptable trade-off. There are lots of places I can live if I want Big Brother to keep an eye on my neighbors for me.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Are you sure that's what you'd do?

Ehm.... yes. I'm a Swede - we can be a pretty stubborn bunch when we put our minds to it.

I knew that if I ever got arrested for civil disobedience, I'd use it as a forum to embarass the daylights out of whoever was responsible.

Hear, hear!

In short, risking arrest for civil disobedence is a lot riskier than it used ot be. Even a case of mistaken identity can mean serious jail time without the right to a trial.

Under what circumstances would you be willing to risk being jailed without a trial?

Seeing as Swedish jails aren't quite as bad as American ones, I'd risk it - for the sake of showing off my longest finger to absurd laws.