posted on March 8, 2001 11:33:37 PM
Laws, statutes, ordinances and enforcement practices can and do vary from State to State and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however there is a rule of Constitutional protection that is germane to all jurisdictions, to all laws, and to all judicial and law enforcement practices.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled years ago, and the rule still stands, that no State, or other jurisdictions, may, in any manner, enact laws or enforcement procedures, legislatively or judicially, that will reduce the minimum rights which the USSC determines to be the (present) constitutional (minimum) boundaries.
However, the USSC does not prohibit any State or other jurisdictions from granting a greater protection to people, legislatively or judicially.
The above stated rule generally means:
1. Your constitutional rights as set out in the Constitution remain static and are open (only) to interpretation of what is (presently) written in the Constitution.
2. The US Supreme court shall have final say whether legislated laws, judicial processes and rulings, and enforcement of laws, have met the minimum standards as previously or currently determined by the USSC,
3. Absent of an amendment, what is written in the Constitution might remain static but the Court’s interpretations and determined minimum boundaries do not. The Court is constantly tightening and loosening the handcuffs.
4. Regardless that a law is in the book, and has been in the book for eons, does not mean that the law is or has ever been constitutional, or that the law, although constitutionally appropriate today will be the same tomorrow. The same goes for judicial and law enforcement practices and is applicable to all jurisdiction regardless of size.
In summation: Learn what your constitutional rights are and endeavor to learn and understand how and what constitutional protections are afforded you so that you are better equipped to recognize or suspect your rights are being violated, right down to a simple car stop or being stopped while a pedestrian for temporary questioning.
These two law enforcement practices (vehicle stops and temporary questioning), are two common practices used by police officers nationwide and are the ones that the average law-abiding citizen will most likely be confronted with.
They are also two practices where your rights can be commonly violated without you realizing it, especially when an officer stops you, while a pedestrian, to question you and demands you identify yourself and produce an identification -and may illegally search your person and/or any item you might be carrying.
posted on March 9, 2001 05:24:56 AM
Thanks xardon - I have had an interesting life so far and I do have some unusual relatives. It amuses me that I have found people just don't believe you if you have claimed to traveled widely and done a lot - like that is something TV characters do and not real people. The last normal job I had a fellow called me a liar because he said after a year he didn't think there was anywhere I had not claimed to visit. It is true I have been in every state but HI AK and Vermont. But I have never been overseas or claimed that. My wife has said that she does not understand why I seem to generate hostility in people. She has noted the the more formal and courteous I am the more I seem to irritate people. I have told her she does not know the half of it because when I am with her people always treat me better. When I go for example to a high end jewelry store where you have to be buzzed in there is zero chance they will let me in even if I am dressed in a nice suit and tie if I don't have someone with me. We went in a spice store in Detroit and right away the owner said may I help you. I said we are not sure what we are getting we will just browse a little. He said you got 3 minutes then we want you gone. Surely he doesn't say that to everyone?
I do have an attitude from my Mother I admit.
If I let someone lay hands on me it was unforgivable. She was raised by her older sister and had no father around. The best I can explain is she was tough. My Dad was a Ranger in WWII and skilled shooter but she taught me pistol because she was better. We would go out on the beach in NC and throw a steel pop can in the air and she would make it hop all over the sky until it was so shredded you could not tell it had been a cylinder. I have seen her break it in half and shoot both pieces after they seperated. Once we went to the Ohio State fair and the State police had a movie screen set up to show how hard it is for a cop to decide to shoot. When the gun fired a reduced load the projector would freeze. People were frankly making fools of themselves. It was tricky because each reel was similar but once a fellow would pull out a gun and the next time his wallet. She took a go at it and pegged 4 for 4. The last 5th one was in a wharehouse and as the circle of light swept across crates there was a figure with a gun in a double grip across the top of a crate.
Well after the light was past him there was a muzzle flash from the dark and report and she returned fire. "I have to see about this one" the officer said and backed up the film until the figure was illuminated again. There was a black hole in the screen exactly between his eyes. And no I can not shoot like that.
I really miss her. If she had not sucked down 3 packs of Camels a day I'd probably have her around.
Probably the most courteous cop I ever met was one who arrested me. I said it was my first time being arrested so what do we do?
He asked do you have any weapons and I said Yes sir, I have a government .45 in the small of my back. Since it was an arrest at my door he said - Well son you go over there and turn your back to me and you can draw it and toss it on the sofa with out turning back to me and then we'll go out and get in the cruiser.
He did not cuff me or put me in the back. He drove me down to be booked and we talked about duck hunting on the way. Rather nice old guy and I suspect quick death if you crossed him.
I believe that many people who read your posts may truly believe that you are a police officer. If so, they may unwittingly take your advice and feel it comes from an authoritative source. You appear to be a good researcher and the facts that you copy from various texts seem accurate. I would not be surprised to learn that you do have some peripheral association with a police department. I do not believe that you are a police officer.
I think you do everyone here a disservice by allowing this charade to continue.
While you carefully avoid making the claim, it appears to me that you strongly imply that such is the case. Given this popular perception, it is most distressing to me that you accuse me of crimes and official corruption. You've suggested that I unknowingly violate the civil rights of citizens. You must know that an alleged ignorance of such matters would not serve me well as a defense to these charges. To hear these things and assume that they came from a fellow officer may lead many to believe that you've made a valid point and, by extension, a valid accusation. If you feel that your accusations are indeed true, report them. It is, after all, your sworn responsibility. I would welcome the inconvenience.
I've met a lot of police officers from all over the country in the course of my duties, Mike. I know how they communicate and, in general, how they relate and interact with others within the same profession. I've also met quite a few police buffs and hobbyists. I've come to recognize their characteristics as well. I believe you fall into the latter category. Correct me if I'm wrong.
All police officers are required to provide a concerned citizen with identification upon request. I'm requesting that identification. Since you've elected to pass yourself off as a police officer in this forum, or at least conveniently failed to mention that you are not, and since you've chosen to provide others with expert opinion based on that supposed authority, it is a reasonable request. One that applies equally to me. If you send an e-mail to the address shown in my user profile, I will be glad to excange identifying information with you. I will need a phone number of your department in order to verify same. Professional ethics would, of course, prevent either of us from compromising the other's identity. If I'm wrong, I'll start a thread in order to express my sincere apology. If I'm right I suppose there will be no response to this post or some excuse offered for your unwillingness to comply.
posted on March 9, 2001 01:59:29 PM
Interesting - I never thought that sgtmike was an policeman. I always figured it for a left over military designation. He sounds military to me.
He did seem to assume you were making some real serious errors very casually.
I was sort of waiting for the moderator to jump on it (hello system people?) but they seem more upset if you call someone an emotional label like a jerk than a serious label like criminal.
xardon - I hope if I have another interaction with an officer it is with a calm person like you. I wouldn't give you a bit of trouble.
posted on March 9, 2001 02:17:53 PM
He's expressed his doubts about my status on more than a few occasions. We probably both need some validation.
I do think that many folks here do see through the facade.
I know we can all claim to be whatever we want here on the net. I've let it be known for quite some time now just exactly what it is I do in order to pay my ISP bill. Since my posts often touch on my experience, it's difficult to conceal. I do dislike getting all officious, but I'm troubled by his baseless accusations and I'd like to clear that up.
Thanks for putting the lid on that BS!
It really makes no difference to me if he is a officer of the law or not. The statement below is so far from reality, he should spend his time write Science Fiction!
"Costs nothing to anybody and the store's insurance rate won't even go up. They don't care because it's nickle and dime stuff to them."
posted on March 9, 2001 02:53:26 PMXardon has actually posted pictures of himself at work and in uniform. Of course he could be posting pictures of someone else, but I doubt that he would feel the need to go to such lengths. I haven't seen any pictures of the alleged "Sgt" Mike.
So I don't want to hear anyone else picking on my sweet baboo! Er, I mean Xardon.
posted on March 9, 2001 03:00:24 PM
Krs
I am not going to get involved in a lengthy discourse on this subject! However I
will say that the money indirectly comes from the consumers pocket. So in essence, if they pay out $7000 to avoid a court appearance they pass this expense on to the consumer. One way or the other. Nothing is free!
posted on March 9, 2001 03:08:28 PM
I caught the silly aspect, too, Zazzie.
I remember when this was done in a thread involving Mike and krs a while ago. I'm trying to push it just a little bit more. It should probably be a semi-annual tradition just for the newbies.
I'm sure krs would have if he'd thought of it, but I keep waiting for someone to post:
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges?
posted on March 9, 2001 03:13:33 PM
I said that the rates won't go up over that amount, didn't I? You're not even close to being correct that the $7000. comes out of their customer's pocket; only a little nestegg which produced billions from which the $7000. comes is from the consumer but the customer has already elected to and has spent it by contracting for the insurance. How much do you spend per year for insurance? How much will you spend over the course of your life? Add it up. How much return do you get for that? If you're lucky, nothing. So your money goes into great large investment funds which pay the insurance companies far more than you do. Sure, it came out of the consumer (of what?) pocket originally to be invested for the company's gain, and which they begrudgingly share in the case of a claim.
If you believe anything else, there's a couple of God threads here for you.
What you remember is mikey trying to do to me about Vietnam what he's trying to do to you about police service. You know though, that you could send him a duty roster with your name, a list of commendations (if any), a letter from your chief, and he'll question the spelling to show that it must all be false. I sent him a copy of the citation for my Bronze Star for valor and that's exactly what he did.
You have overlooked the fact that many large corporations are self insured to a certain limit. Were upon a major insurance carrier then covers them for liability above and beyond that amount.They too have realized that they can invest money such as the insurance carrier. So they figure what amount the have to invest to overcome the expense of the incidental payouts below their deductible limit. So they invest accordingly which they aforementioned pay out is part of the equation! Which they don't pay, the consumer does!
posted on March 9, 2001 04:04:45 PM
"You have overlooked the fact that many large corporations are self insured to a certain limit. Were upon a major insurance carrier then covers them for liability above and beyond that amount.They too have realized that they can invest money such as the insurance carrier. So they figure what amount
the have to invest to overcome the expense of the incidental payouts below their deductible limit. So they invest accordingly which they aforementioned pay out is part of the equation! Which they don't pay, the consumer does!"
I brought this above gobbledygook down so you could reread it. It might make sense to you,
kcpick4u, but it's nonsensical to me. Was that your purpose? Maybe to write BS that you can say is science fiction and become a highly paid script writer? If so, don't quit school quite yet.
posted on March 10, 2001 12:15:53 AMOfficer xardon
You need to calm down. You are continually loosing control over written words in an Internet forum; a very surprising reaction for a veteran police officer. As a police officer, you also know that it is common practice for most law enforcement agencies to closely watch officers who display a deficiency in self-control and have a history of overreacting.
You appear to have an emotional difficulty with your opinions and alleged facts being challenged, and commonly erupt in a verbal tirade when they (opinion/alleged facts) are challenged. I believe your unrestrained reactions are rapid and tend to blind you to what is (actually) written and inhibits your ability to properly interpret the true message.
As a veteran police officer, especially one that claims to have served in an investigative unit, I would think that you would have the necessary skills, and would be conditioned, to accurately read and interpret written documents. You need to go back and read my opinion again and attempt to locate the words that indicate fact and words that indicate possibility and probability.
As police officers, you know, and I know; some officers never suitably learn and understand the laws they enforce, do tend to develop condescending attitudes, and do become badge-heavy. The result of such character flaws can be, that the officer (often) does not treat all citizens equally, is usually the officer that often abuses his or her authority, is highly apt to use excessive force, and engages in many other forms of disservice, knowingly and unknowingly.
Again, you felt a need to state your alleged credentials and then challenge me to an email exchange, beg me to call you, and request I submit various forms of verifiable information regarding my position and my department. As I said in the past, I will say again, "I'll pass." I will not comment on the absurdity of such requests.
I'd rather go back to posting on the topic, or as you allege, "copy and paste." I believe I will begin by providing further clarity to your advice regarding a "Terry stop." Your version misleads a layperson to believe that an officer has greater authority than the officer actually does in a "temporary questioning" (field contact) stop.
PS:
Out of nowhere, and for no obvious reason, the sporadic digression of this thread's topic started with:
Sgtmike,
"Your analogy is specious, pointedly abrasive, and revelatory of a sorry prediposition towards a self-serving distortion of facts. To suggest a real similarity between an obvious violation of civil rights by a police officer and the heavy handed actions of an overzealous store employee serves no purpose but to mislead and dissemble. Being smitten is no excuse for your apparent lapse of reason. If you truly feel that your comparison is valid, and within the scope and/or intent of my previous post, it is indicative a surprising naivete regarding your claimed profession."
"If a patrol officer ever stops your vehicle, mishandles you and illegally searches your vehicle, but you are not mauled or (physically) harmed in any manner, just tuck your little "ruffled-feathered" butt back in your vehicle and be on your way. Let the matter pass, especially if the officer apologizes and gives you a dollar."
