Mrebo said:
Warbler said:
Mrebo said:
First, video making the rounds showing police abusing their authority. And if something illegal had been found in the car and there was no video, the kid would be in jail. How many people have gone to jail, particularly on plea bargains, based on such illegal searches?
It sure seems like those officers are jerks who don't care about peoples rights, constitutional or otherwise. But maybe we need to see the other side of this. The guy says he never had drugs in the car, but he could be lying.
Did you see the part where the dog apparently "indicated" because the officer told the dog to do so? (ie when the dog jumped up to the window and promptly back down). Maybe the dog did something else off camera at another part of the car, but even at the open window, the dog promptly moved on, after being told to jump up at the window.
that is why I would like to hear from some sort of expert on dog searches. I would like to know if indeed the officer's actions would prompt the dog to act like it smelled drugs.
Mrebo said:
He could have been doing stuff off camera to intentionally piss off the cops in order to try get them to do something bad, I have seen multiple videos on youtube of people trying to do that.
Point is that being non-accommodating/non-submissive should not mean cops feel they can "do something bad."
of course not.
Mrebo said:
Also we have no idea if what he described the officers doing and saying off camera actually happened. I would love to hear from experts on whether or not the dog sniffing of the car was done properly, and legal experts on the whole stop.
ferris should chime in!
I wish he would.
Mrebo said:
But it is pretty obvious the stop and bringing in the dog was based on the guy being a overly assertive (ie not a crime).
seems that way.
Mrebo said:
Mrebo said:
And not to beat up on police, but I agree with this article concerning training police to not shoot dogs.
I agree completely with the article. I am afraid that the cops might come to my door someday for some reason and my miniature poodle might bark at them and they might shoot it. Shooting a dog should be the last resort, not the first option. Many of the incidents listed in the article seem to be a complete disgrace to me. Some of those officers probably deserve to lose their badges. C3PS, what do you think of the article?
I love to hear from ferris on any of the above.
If you recall, ferris said no self-respecting cop would want to deal with the embarrassment of claiming s/he felt threatened by your poodle. But I do feel the standard for shooting a dog is overly subjective/easy to justify. And I think a huge part is less feeling threatened per se, than wanting to risk losing any control over a situation. And that is a common thread with the traffic stop article...
true.
Mrebo said:
There is also this "3rd Amendment" case. I don't think the 3rd Amendment claim will fly, but breaking into someone's home and arresting them for non-cooperation with a surveillance operation is certainly illegal. More about police seeking control.
I think the 3rd amendment claim could fly. I think one can argue police are soldiers of a sort. I think one can argue that if the police of today existed when the amendment was written, that the founders would have included them as well as soldiers. I am surprised they are also not making a 4th amendment claim. Seems like their rights to privacy were violated. Did the cops have a search warrant before they broke in? It certainly seems like the cops took things too far.
Mrebo said:
I promise I'm not trying to bait ferris to come back.... ;)
please do bait him to come back! He drove me crazy sometimes, but I miss him and his prospective on things.