Ummmmm did anyone else catch this?? | |
~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~
User ID: 65969492 United States 12/16/2014 12:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Are you fucking kidding me? WTF has this sad-sack of a country become? I have just about seen it all now. Still waiting for the rest of the tiny dots to stand up tho. |
Chibs
User ID: 61326344 United States 12/16/2014 12:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, it's sad, and scary. The scary part is, most people will say "well the guy shouldn't of had cocaine" Totally unaware of the ramifications of such a ruling, or why our founders wanted us to have rights and protections against the police in the first place. “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.” - Emma Goldman |
Shiva ascendant
User ID: 66115313 United Kingdom 12/16/2014 12:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nope. sorry, not buying it. Laws must be written specifically and to the letter and understood then enforced the same way There is no 'or something like that' in law. Boo on SCOTUS. Last Edited by Shiva ascendant on 12/16/2014 12:55 PM This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but with a whimper. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2562806 United States 12/16/2014 12:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Quoting: ~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~ Are you fucking kidding me? WTF has this sad-sack of a country become? I have just about seen it all now. Still waiting for the rest of the tiny dots to stand up tho. :doublefacepalm: And with that, the fourth Amendment is officially dead. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 14667087 United States 12/16/2014 01:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~
User ID: 65969492 United States 12/16/2014 01:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1569528 United States 12/16/2014 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. |
Chibs
User ID: 61326344 United States 12/16/2014 01:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning. “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.” - Emma Goldman |
miabelieves
User ID: 63136923 United States 12/16/2014 01:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 59756480 United States 12/16/2014 01:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2562806 United States 12/16/2014 01:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Quoting: ~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~ Are you fucking kidding me? WTF has this sad-sack of a country become? I have just about seen it all now. Still waiting for the rest of the tiny dots to stand up tho. :doublefacepalm: And with that, the fourth Amendment is officially dead. If consent was given to the search then I take back my comment. |
Chibs
User ID: 61326344 United States 12/16/2014 01:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Quoting: ~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~ Are you fucking kidding me? WTF has this sad-sack of a country become? I have just about seen it all now. Still waiting for the rest of the tiny dots to stand up tho. And with that, the fourth Amendment is officially dead. If consent was given to the search then I take back my comment. It was, for this one case. But the ruling will give cops this power from here on out “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.” - Emma Goldman |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1569528 United States 12/16/2014 01:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning. Most misdemeanor traffic stops are based on "reasonableness". Basically, almost anything to give cause or reason for the cop to pull them over. From their, the cop can ask anything he wants. You have the right to say NO, but if the cop sees anything in plainview, or sees other things such as actions, words, body language, a plethora of other reasons to make him wonder, he will ask. Traffic stops need to be based on somehting, and a tail light usually does it. the cop only gave a warning. Seems pretty standard. Went down hill from there for the perp. Cops are trained to know the codes or laws enough to do their job. It is not their job to be in court dealing with the gray areas. That's the lawyers job. Granted their is officer discretion, but a warning ticket was his discretion at the time. Since we don't know the full intricate details, which there could be more to cause the cop to ask, we will need to take the time to read the case in detail. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1569528 United States 12/16/2014 01:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning. Most misdemeanor traffic stops are based on "reasonableness". Basically, almost anything to give cause or reason for the cop to pull them over. From their, the cop can ask anything he wants. You have the right to say NO, but if the cop sees anything in plainview, or sees other things such as actions, words, body language, a plethora of other reasons to make him wonder, he will ask. Traffic stops need to be based on somehting, and a tail light usually does it. the cop only gave a warning. Seems pretty standard. Went down hill from there for the perp. Cops are trained to know the codes or laws enough to do their job. It is not their job to be in court dealing with the gray areas. That's the lawyers job. Granted their is officer discretion, but a warning ticket was his discretion at the time. Since we don't know the full intricate details, which there could be more to cause the cop to ask, we will need to take the time to read the case in detail. forgive my spelling....did a double shift and getting ready for bed. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 65322364 United States 12/16/2014 01:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 65322364 United States 12/16/2014 01:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Chibs
User ID: 61326344 United States 12/16/2014 01:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning. Most misdemeanor traffic stops are based on "reasonableness". Basically, almost anything to give cause or reason for the cop to pull them over. From their, the cop can ask anything he wants. You have the right to say NO, but if the cop sees anything in plainview, or sees other things such as actions, words, body language, a plethora of other reasons to make him wonder, he will ask. Traffic stops need to be based on somehting, and a tail light usually does it. the cop only gave a warning. Seems pretty standard. Went down hill from there for the perp. Cops are trained to know the codes or laws enough to do their job. It is not their job to be in court dealing with the gray areas. That's the lawyers job. Granted their is officer discretion, but a warning ticket was his discretion at the time. Since we don't know the full intricate details, which there could be more to cause the cop to ask, we will need to take the time to read the case in detail. Good post “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.” - Emma Goldman |
\\//drogeriemarkt\\//
User ID: 23352602 Germany 12/16/2014 01:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 48081938 United States 12/16/2014 01:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The federal government is not legitimate and went rogue a long time ago. I would never convict anyone of breaking any law that was passed after 1913. This includes federal income taxes, drugs, and gun crimes. They're all unconstitutional and any judge or prosecutor that says otherwise should be locked up. |
TeHeoN
(OP) User ID: 36263824 United States 12/16/2014 04:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Quoting: ~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~ Are you fucking kidding me? WTF has this sad-sack of a country become? I have just about seen it all now. Still waiting for the rest of the tiny dots to stand up tho. And with that, the fourth Amendment is officially dead. If consent was given to the search then I take back my comment. It was, for this one case. But the ruling will give cops this power from here on out THIS^^^^ Im not upset that some coke-head got caught, what I am upset about is the wording that scotus used. Growing up and up until very recently, I thought all law enforcement had to know and understand the laws that We pay them to uphold. And now with the scotus ruling, even if you are not breaking the law, they will still put your ass either in jail or in the dirt for a 'Misinterpretation' of the law that they are now free to 'interpret' at their leisure!!! When will the proles rise?? |
TeHeoN
(OP) User ID: 36263824 United States 12/16/2014 04:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning. Most misdemeanor traffic stops are based on "reasonableness". Basically, almost anything to give cause or reason for the cop to pull them over. From their, the cop can ask anything he wants. You have the right to say NO, but if the cop sees anything in plainview, or sees other things such as actions, words, body language, a plethora of other reasons to make him wonder, he will ask. Traffic stops need to be based on somehting, and a tail light usually does it. the cop only gave a warning. Seems pretty standard. Went down hill from there for the perp. Cops are trained to know the codes or laws enough to do their job. It is not their job to be in court dealing with the gray areas. That's the lawyers job. Granted their is officer discretion, but a warning ticket was his discretion at the time. Since we don't know the full intricate details, which there could be more to cause the cop to ask, we will need to take the time to read the case in detail. The wrench in this, is that in North Carolina it is LEGAL to have ONE working tail-light. No reason for the pullover what-so-ever, according to the law there anyways. Cop Did Not know that said Law was and is still in effect but pulled the guy who got caught and the driver over regardless of the fact. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1569528 United States 12/16/2014 05:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1569528 The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. That may be true in this case....but the ruling is what is concerning. Most misdemeanor traffic stops are based on "reasonableness". Basically, almost anything to give cause or reason for the cop to pull them over. From their, the cop can ask anything he wants. You have the right to say NO, but if the cop sees anything in plainview, or sees other things such as actions, words, body language, a plethora of other reasons to make him wonder, he will ask. Traffic stops need to be based on somehting, and a tail light usually does it. the cop only gave a warning. Seems pretty standard. Went down hill from there for the perp. Cops are trained to know the codes or laws enough to do their job. It is not their job to be in court dealing with the gray areas. That's the lawyers job. Granted their is officer discretion, but a warning ticket was his discretion at the time. Since we don't know the full intricate details, which there could be more to cause the cop to ask, we will need to take the time to read the case in detail. The wrench in this, is that in North Carolina it is LEGAL to have ONE working tail-light. No reason for the pullover what-so-ever, according to the law there anyways. Cop Did Not know that said Law was and is still in effect but pulled the guy who got caught and the driver over regardless of the fact. Getting stupid barking dog out house....ugh. Saw this....interesting. However, devil advoctae here, maybe true, but was brake light out as well since many vehicles today use the same bulb. So if tail light is out, hits the brakes, then brake light as well. If that is the case, then justified. If not, then definately messed up. Not sure what is the detail on that one regarding this particular case.... Back to bed. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 66113230 United States 12/16/2014 06:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TeHeoN
(OP) User ID: 36263824 United States 12/16/2014 07:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Quoting: ~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~ But I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse? Guess not anymore. |
Eggcellent
Re-Instate Smith-Mundt! User ID: 65052277 United States 12/16/2014 09:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.foxnews.com] Quoting: TeHeoN I know its faux news BUT holy crap everyone, supreme court bought out much? The police state is coming full force in full view to the sound of applause and cheers...starting to get a little anxious I am The suspect gave consent. Enough said. Cop pulled over for a burned light…may not be illegal in some places, but in most considered a hazard and a simple warning usually given. But then the cop ASKED and the person said YES. Done. Stick a fork. They tried way too hard to split hair on technicalities. All the person had to do was say sorry for the light, will get it fixed right away, thank, have a great day. No consent was needed to be given. They were too dumb to give consent for a COP to SEARCH the car when KNOWING they had coke. Dumb criminals deserve to go bye bye. On the other hand, police are trained to speak in such a way that a "request" from a LEO is perceived as a "demand" by Joe Shmoe who is already freaked out by being stopped in the first place and who doesn't want to piss off the person who is suddenly in charge of his life and death. Literally. But I think the troubling thing here is that the police officer said that he THOUGHT it was the law and the Supremes said oh, OK. So what is to stop an overzealous cop (or one with a quota) from saying that he THOUGHT that having two different tire tread patterns was against the law so he stopped you? "I have come to the conclusion that all news should be treated like 9/11, assume it is a psyop with actors participating in a staged event complete with props, until proven otherwise, in which case assume whatever is being recorded, reported, televised, is distortions/lying by omission/outright lies, until proven otherwise." - Anonymous, 4-13-12 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 12767603 United States 12/16/2014 09:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | " Chief Justice John Roberts said that just as a police officer's mistake of fact can justify a traffic stop, a reasonable misunderstanding about the law can also satisfy the Constitution." Quoting: ~sIcKaNdTwIsTeD~ Are you fucking kidding me? WTF has this sad-sack of a country become? I have just about seen it all now. Still waiting for the rest of the tiny dots to stand up tho. it opens opportunities: I robbed the cop because I misunderstood the law! It's reasonable, right? I can be let go right? it was just a misunderstanding I beat him to a pulp, robbed him and raped his wife, really! NOW I know better, can I go free now? thanks! |