If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Trentonian)   Trenton cop when asked for badge number: "That's my (expletive) badge number right there" after allegedly punching Walmart employee walking home. (Listen to audio)   (trentonian.com) divider line 119
    More: Dumbass, TRENTON, Wal-Mart, badges, official misconduct  
•       •       •

7325 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 4:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 02:24:28 PM

PsiChick: orbister: FTFA:  he was recording a conversation with a friend

Why would one do that?

Spouting off great ideas while yapping? I archive a lot of my chat logs so I can go back and pull out plot bunnies.

/Writers. We're weird.
//But yeah, if you need to remember something for later, recording is a good idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39USWwIVaDo#t=259s
 
2013-06-14 02:28:28 PM

theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?


"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop
 
2013-06-14 02:46:30 PM

fredklein: theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?

"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop


"Yes.  But it is at home."
"I will not physically resist you, but if you pat me down, you are doing so without my consent."
"May I have your business card?  My attorney will ask me for it."
 
2013-06-14 05:02:25 PM

joeshill: fredklein: theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?

"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop

"Yes.  But it is at home."
"I will not physically resist you, but if you pat me down, you are doing so without my consent."
"May I have your business card?  My attorney will ask me for it."


*THWACK!!*

FTFY
 
2013-06-14 05:36:20 PM

theknuckler_33: You know, I'm not condoning the way the cops handled this situation (or any number of other incidents we see here on Fark), but I have a serious question. If a report of a man with a gun comes in, can we all agree that the police should look into the matter? If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter? I can't really see how they have any other option but to stop anyone that resembles, even slightly, the description given in the call reporting the man with the gun.

If they do that, stop someone that resembles the description, and the first reaction of that person is to be belligerent, it is not difficult to see that the cops might be suspicious that that person might actually be the 'man with a gun' and therefore possibly dangerous.


You know it's perfectly legal to open-carry a gun in public, right?  It's just illegal in certain places (schools, for example).
 
2013-06-14 05:57:25 PM

Nofun: You know it's perfectly legal to open-carry a gun in public, right?  It's just illegal in certain places (schools, for example).


Uh, you need to not give people advice that will get them arrested on a felony gun crime.
 
2013-06-14 07:30:19 PM

joeshill: fredklein: theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?

"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop

"Yes.  But it is at home."
"I will not physically resist you, but if you pat me down, you are doing so without my consent."
"May I have your business card?  My attorney will ask me for it."


"Here's my card. Sorry you feel that way, sir. But, during an administrative stop [or whatever the term is] , we have the legal right to frisk you to determine if you have a weapon. For our safety, you understand. I'm sure your lawyer will confirm this. Again, have a nice day."
 
2013-06-14 07:34:50 PM

fredklein: joeshill: fredklein: theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?

"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop

"Yes.  But it is at home."
"I will not physically resist you, but if you pat me down, you are doing so without my consent."
"May I have your business card?  My attorney will ask me for it."

"Here's my card. Sorry you feel that way, sir. But, during an administrative stop [or whatever the term is] , we have the legal right to frisk you to determine if you have a weapon. For our safety, you understand. I'm sure your lawyer will confirm this. Again, have a nice day."


Not true.  The police just LOVE to misrepresent what the Terry ruling means.  It wasn't an expansion of police powers allowing them to frisk and search at any time.  The court was very farking clear that their had to be an immediate threat for that to be allowed.  And "I don't like your looks" does not qualify as an immediate threat.

Here's an immediate threat:  "there was a drive by shooting a few blocks from here and your vehicle matches the description."
 
2013-06-14 07:36:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Nofun: You know it's perfectly legal to open-carry a gun in public, right?  It's just illegal in certain places (schools, for example).

Uh, you need to not give people advice that will get them arrested on a felony gun crime.


Not familiar with the Constitution of the United States? Particularly the part of the Second Amendment where it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?? As I read that, it IS perfectly legal to carry ("bear") a gun (a type of "arms"). And any law that limits that Right would "infringe" upon it. Which "shall not" be done.

(And don't even try arguing that that only applies to militias- The amendment clearly says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia", so it applies to "the people".)
 
2013-06-14 07:37:43 PM

OgreMagi: fredklein: joeshill: fredklein: theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?

"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop

"Yes.  But it is at home."
"I will not physically resist you, but if you pat me down, you are doing so without my consent."
"May I have your business card?  My attorney will ask me for it."

"Here's my card. Sorry you feel that way, sir. But, during an administrative stop [or whatever the term is] , we have the legal right to frisk you to determine if you have a weapon. For our safety, you understand. I'm sure your lawyer will confirm this. Again, have a nice day."

Not true.  The police just LOVE to misrepresent what the Terry ruling means.  It wasn't an expansion of police powers allowing them to frisk and search at any time.  The court was very farking clear that their had to be an immediate threat for that to be allowed.  And "I don't like your looks" does not qualify as an immediate threat.

Here's an immediate threat:  "there was a drive by shooting a few blocks from here and your vehicle matches the description."


But he was a blah person.  That's as immediate as a threat gets to a police officer.
 
2013-06-14 07:48:27 PM

OgreMagi: Not true. The police just LOVE to misrepresent what the Terry ruling means. It wasn't an expansion of police powers allowing them to frisk and search at any time. The court was very farking clear that their had to be an immediate threat for that to be allowed. And "I don't like your looks" does not qualify as an immediate threat.

Here's an immediate threat: "there was a drive by shooting a few blocks from here and your vehicle matches the description."


The issue was 'man with a gun'. He matched the description. What more do you want?

Oh, and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
"For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. "
...
"Chief Justice Warren later made it clear that this was also the opinion of the Court:

"The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.""
 
2013-06-14 07:55:09 PM

fredklein: OgreMagi: Not true. The police just LOVE to misrepresent what the Terry ruling means. It wasn't an expansion of police powers allowing them to frisk and search at any time. The court was very farking clear that their had to be an immediate threat for that to be allowed. And "I don't like your looks" does not qualify as an immediate threat.

Here's an immediate threat: "there was a drive by shooting a few blocks from here and your vehicle matches the description."

The issue was 'man with a gun'. He matched the description. What more do you want?

Oh, and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
"For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. "
...
"Chief Justice Warren later made it clear that this was also the opinion of the Court:

"The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.""


How much are you willing to bet there was no call about a man with a gun?  That's a standard lie used by the police on a regular basis.
 
2013-06-14 08:14:17 PM

fredklein: Not familiar with the Constitution of the United States? Particularly the part of the Second Amendment where it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?? As I read that, it IS perfectly legal to carry ("bear") a gun (a type of "arms"). And any law that limits that Right would "infringe" upon it. Which "shall not" be done.

(And don't even try arguing that that only applies to militias- The amendment clearly says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia", so it applies to "the people".)


What the hell are you on about?

The Constitution of the United States, thanks to the rulings of Chicago v. MacDonald and Heller v. DC, allows the states to set restrictions on who can carry a pistol. And each state has a different law.

Open carry of a pistol in my state, for example, is restricted to those people with a HCP. If you do NOT have a HCP, and you are openly carrying in a public place, you risk being arrested for unlawful carry. If you get in a car with that pistol, you have just committed a felony gun crime.

Mississippi and Arkansas, at the current time, are the same way.

So yes. His advice WILL get people arrested.
 
2013-06-14 08:29:02 PM

OgreMagi: fredklein: OgreMagi: Not true. The police just LOVE to misrepresent what the Terry ruling means. It wasn't an expansion of police powers allowing them to frisk and search at any time. The court was very farking clear that their had to be an immediate threat for that to be allowed. And "I don't like your looks" does not qualify as an immediate threat.

Here's an immediate threat: "there was a drive by shooting a few blocks from here and your vehicle matches the description."

The issue was 'man with a gun'. He matched the description. What more do you want?

Oh, and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
"For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. "
...
"Chief Justice Warren later made it clear that this was also the opinion of the Court:

"The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.""

How much are you willing to bet there was no call about a man with a gun?  That's a standard lie used by the police on a regular basis.


Wait, are you telling me that the police lies?
 
2013-06-14 09:11:01 PM

hardinparamedic: The Constitution of the United States, thanks to the rulings of Chicago v. MacDonald and Heller v. DC, allows the states to set restrictions on who can carry a pistol. And each state has a different law.


"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble,... "the law is a ass-a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience-by experience."

The Constitution is quite plain. Any rulings that allow restrictions are, Prima facie, against the Constitution ("shall not be infringed"), and thus illegal. That they have not been found so is a result of stupidity/illogic/politics/political expediency/etc.
 
2013-06-14 10:43:26 PM
Where's CruiserTwelve to defend this?
 
2013-06-15 03:17:38 AM

fredklein: joeshill: fredklein: theknuckler_33: If the call gave only a vague description of the man's appearance, what, exactly, are police to do to look into the matter?

"Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a man with a gun meeting your description. Do you have a gun? Sorry, but we are now going to pat you down to check." "He's clean" "Okay, sorry, sir. Have a nice day."

/I guess politeness is too hard for a cop

"Yes.  But it is at home."
"I will not physically resist you, but if you pat me down, you are doing so without my consent."
"May I have your business card?  My attorney will ask me for it."

"Here's my card. Sorry you feel that way, sir. But, during an administrative stop [or whatever the term is] , we have the legal right to frisk you to determine if you have a weapon. For our safety, you understand. I'm sure your lawyer will confirm this. Again, have a nice day."


And I walk away.  Knowing:

1) I have preserved whatever 4th amendment rights still exist by refusing permission for the search.
2) I have obtained cops ID should said cop linger overly long in a way that makes me uncomfortable, and I wish to lodge a complaint with his LT, the state office of professional responsibility, or the courts.
3) I have not engaged cop in argument, as there is no way to win an argument with a cop.  Even if they are manifestly wrong, the place to win is in court, not on the street.
 
2013-06-15 09:40:44 AM

fredklein: The Constitution is quite plain. Any rulings that allow restrictions are, Prima facie, against the Constitution ("shall not be infringed"), and thus illegal. That they have not been found so is a result of stupidity/illogic/politics/political expediency/etc.


Where did you get your GED in law, again?
 
2013-06-15 10:00:49 AM

fredklein: Not familiar with the Constitution of the United States? Particularly the part of the Second Amendment where it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?? As I read that, it IS perfectly legal to carry ("bear") a gun (a type of "arms"). And any law that limits that Right would "infringe" upon it. Which "shall not" be done.

(And don't even try arguing that that only applies to militias- The amendment clearly says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia", so it applies to "the people".)



I am as big a gun nut as anyone, but the 2nd applies only to the Federal Government, PERIOD. And as the  of New Jersey does not contain an explicit right to bear arms (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp) you are simply out of luck.  If you wish your Right to bear Arms be protected I suggest you move to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or other State, where it IS enumerated.  (http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/001.htm ) Article 1, Seventh.

This whole idea that the Federal Constitution wholly applies to  States is ABSURD, despite what the SCOTUS.
 
Displayed 19 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report