I got pulled over today.....

[DuneHopper]

He lied to you.

Cops don't lie. The believe every word they say.

 

[davemata]

Well, I think someone else nailed the situation. The police officer had made a particular judgement call based on experience. Needed a cover story. found there wasn't an issue, and then the cover story was later exposed as bs.

It could have been worse, on either side of the equation.

 

[Squidly]

Cops don't lie. The believe every word they say.

Yes, and so do the judges that hear them.

 

[Misterbill]

A cop pulls over someone speeding. THEY ARE IN THE WRONG, THIS IS NOT IN DOUBT ACCORDING TO THE OP.

The cop, pulling over said citizen then is notifies of two handguns in trivially easy range of being drawn, but instead of dragging out the citizen and proning him, simply takes posession of the two guns dor 4-5 minutes, then returns the guns and gives the guy a warning.

IN WHAT WAY did this encounter come out in some negative way for the citizen? HO EXACTLY was he at anytime deprived of any right other than some perceived "right" to shoot a cop in a good stop?

This is whhere a fundamental right comes into conflict with a violation of non-rights-based law.

YES, the OP had the right to keep and bear arms. that rights is curtailed by his ADMITTANCE to a violation of law, during which, in the investigation (4-5 minutes) the cop took away a weapon which could and HAS been used against officers, REPEATEDLY in that exact same circumstance.

The guys claiming the cop had no rights are wrong. You are wrong Legally (see Terry vs. Ohio) and wrong morally when you think that our cops don't have a valid reason to disarm in an extremely volitile and uncontrolable situation.

There are aq thousand cases every year in which the cop did something really egregious. This isn't one of them. Even the OP doesn't feel that way.

Some people are just all about the cops are always wrong. I think 90% of this thread could be jetissoned as representing that POV.

 

[dmancornell]

The guys claiming the cop had no rights are wrong. You are wrong Legally (see Terry vs. Ohio) and wrong morally when you think that our cops don't have a valid reason to disarm in an extremely volitile and uncontrolable situation.

Cops shouldn't have the right to seize private property. But they can and do because of BS laws created by the state to protect their thug employees, and also because idiot civilians side with the state because they think the cops will protect them from dark-skinned people.

By the way the cops aren't always wrong, they're just wrong when they harass innocent motorists to steal their money and seize private property because of some vastly overblown notion of "officer safety". Considering the number of civilians murdered by cops, you figure civilian safety should get more attention.

 

[fd15k]

The guys claiming the cop had no rights are wrong.

Technically cops don't have rights, they have powers and protections (immunities).

 

[Misterbill]

Cops shouldn't have the right to seize private property. But they can and do because of BS laws created by the state to protect their thug employees, and also because idiot civilians side with the state because they think the cops will protect them from dark-skinned people.

By the way the cops aren't always wrong, they're just wrong when they harass innocent motorists to steal their money and seize private property because of some vastly overblown notion of "officer safety". Considering the number of civilians murdered by cops, you figure civilian safety should get more attention.

"Seize?" for 4-6 minutes is now Seize?

GL getting ANY jurist in the country to agree with you in this context. By all means, bring the suit. When you lose, come here and cry how wrong you were. Or do you disagree that we are a nation of laws and your half-assed opinion counts for squat on a fundamental legal principle?

You
're simple reading ahould be the law and everyone who disagrees with you WITH YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL?

This is the WHOLE POINT of courts under our system. We need a funal arbiter f what the constitution MEANS. This same system is what gave us Holder and McDonald. We don't gt the luxury of throwing out that final arbiter's POV because we don't share it. We have a very specific process to do that. Do it or STFU.

 

[davemata]

Bill, my issue with it is the removal of the handgun without cause to remove it. A traffic infraction isn't a crime, and frankly, it doesn't seem reasoable in a legal or moral sense. Additionally, it's not the best idea to let people fiddle with your gun. What would happen liability wise if officer handy had a car pop with your gun while they were trying to unload it?

 

[davemata]

"Seize?" for 4-6 minutes is now Seize?

Amount of time means nothing, btw. It's kind of a binary response. Was it seized, yes or no?

Reasonableness can be dickered about for forever, but it was seized. Just like the amount of time or distance you were speeding means nothing, it was either you were or were not speeding.

 

[dmancornell]

GL getting ANY jurist in the country to agree with you in this context. By all means, bring the suit. When you lose, come here and cry how wrong you were. Or do you disagree that we are a nation of laws and your half-assed opinion counts for squat on a fundamental legal principle?

Right, because right and wrong is to be decided by a cohort of black-robed politicians and their say is final.

Do you realize how stupid you sound with that nation of laws BS? The ruling class get away with mass murder overseas and legalized theft at home and here you are yapping about judicial review for the rest of us.

 

[davemata]

Right, because right and wrong is to be decided by a cohort of black-robed politicians and their say is final.

Basically.

You may not like it, be he is calling out reality as it is, not as you and we want it to be.

Don't be upset that the emperor was just called naked.

 

[dmancornell]

Basically.

You may not like it, be he is calling out reality as it is, not as you and we want it to be.

Don't be upset that the emperor was just called naked.

I know that is reality, but that doesn't make it right in any way. He also said losing such a suit would prove "how wrong" I was. That is crap.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Basically.

You may not like it, be he is calling out reality as it is, not as you and we want it to be.

Don't be upset that the emperor was just called naked.

It's only reality if we let them get away with it

 

[davemata]

I know that is reality, but that doesn't make it right in any way. He also said losing such a suit would prove "how wrong" I was. That is crap.

Not crap. Again, realistic. You may not be wrong re: letter of the law, but you'd be proven wrong by implementation of the law.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Not crap. Again, realistic. You may not be wrong re: letter of the law, but you'd be proven wrong by implementation of the law.

So if the SC tells us that 10% of us are to be euthanized via a lottery, we just submit?

 

[dmancornell]

Not crap. Again, realistic. You may not be wrong re: letter of the law, but you'd be proven wrong by implementation of the law.

I doubt he was talking about "wrong" in regards to legalistic procedure. And again, the government jackboot is the reality we live under, many of us are well aware of that fact. But the rest should at least have the decency not to like it.

 

[davemata]

So if the SC tells us that 10% of us are to be euthanized via a lottery, we just submit?

I really try hard to keep the kid gloves on when I'm on this forum.

So I'll just say, there is no legitimate way that this question is relevant to the discussion. However, we did do away with the draft, so you know your answer.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I really try hard to keep the kid gloves on when I'm on this forum.

So I'll just say, there is no legitimate way that this question is relevant to the discussion. However, we did do away with the draft, so you know your answer.

Nice dodge, there. It's more than relevant and you have no answer because your argument here is invalid. We the People are the ultimate judge, not 9 traitors in black robes

 

[davemata]

dbl post.

 

[davemata]

Nice dodge, there. It's more than relevant and you have no answer because your argument here is invalid. We the People are the ultimate judge, not 9 traitors in black robes

It's not a dodge, your question was so developmentally disabled that you should call your family and apologize. Seriously.

It was stupid.