4 ms·

In other words, yes , I was right. You think you're the one who can set what is reasonable, what is a good justification, and when can an officer be suspicious.

by Aoyagi 10y ago

In other words, yes , I was right. You think you're the one who can set what is reasonable, what is a good justification, and when can an officer be suspicious. Thanks for clearing that up. Again, I'm not surprised American police acts the way they sometime act when they have to deal with the likes of you. Opening the glove box isn't an unreasonable request on any level. And yes, I'm fully aware of American culture of "muh rights".

dgacmu 10y ago
"the likes of you" - yes, indeed. You're making some pretty big generalizations from behind that monitor of yours. You seem to be aware of a particular, negative stereotype of the culture, but you're woefully ignorant of the laws and their history, so why are you continuing in the debate? You're making assumptions about my behavior with the police based upon my factual statements about the limits on police powers for search and seizure. (for your edification: Had the officer had a reasonable suspicion, he wouldn't have needed to ask permission. In that case, it would have been an _order_, and regardless of whether it's lawful, when it happens, you follow an _order_ from a cop, and fix it up later in court.) I'm done - you seem to have a strange stereotype of americans that puts anyone with beliefs that differ from yours in the "gun totin' amemdment hollerin' crazy" camp. You may find it more useful to stereotype me as an ACLU (google it)-donating, left-leaning liberal that comes from a family of law professors, and believes that a constitutional protections are a cornerstone of guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Without that, it's too easy for one sort of justice to be administered to the wealthy (and white), and another sort to be administered to everyone else.
- Aoyagi 10y ago
  I'm not making any assumptions mate. You said, multiple times, that you deny doing anything but what you absolutely must. Clearly just out of principle. That falls right into that stereotype. And that's behaviour I find disgusting regardless of your "freedoms".
Nadya 10y ago
> Opening the glove box isn't an unreasonable request on any level. You have the wrong definition of "unreasonable request". It isn't that it is difficult to open the glove box and thus is an "unreasonable request due to difficulty of compliance". It is unreasonable because they lack reason to open the glove box and have no right to search it. ("muh rights", and for damned good reasons) dgacmu gave you legal cases (possibly precedent setting cases?) and you ignored that as if dgacmu set the limits and constraints of the law.
- Aoyagi 10y ago
  Again, by that logic, any random checks, including DUI checks, are unacceptable. That's what the first link is partially about. Second link is the 4th amendment and third link is an irrelevant opinion that doesn't even open from my end. All of that only supports the theory that dgacmu is one of those amusing "sovereign citizens" who treat the police like nuisance. So yes, I ignored those links. And a lot of nonsense in that post. Edit: I did learn that random stops are mostly illegal though. What a country to be a cop in. Now I'm doubly not surprised why American police acts the way they sometimes act.
  - dgacmu 10y ago
    The amusing bit is that you can't tell the difference between someone who believes strongly that everyone (police and citizens) should follow the law, and the soverign citizen adherents, who believe [1]: "that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels" The soverign citizens live in a delusional world that wants to pretend that our judicial system has no say over them. Their beliefs and actions range from the mildly worrisome to outright domestic terrorism. I live in a world in which I believe that understanding one's rights, responsibilities, and limits within our judicial system is important. And also that understanding why we have those laws is useful - a lesson you seem intent to ignore. There are historical reasons for the powers granted to the police, and the limitations placed on those powers, primarily with an eye towards balancing the need to protect the populace as a whole while preventing specific abuses of power. Here's one example: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profiling-utah-highway-patrol https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profil... (Note: The ACLU won, and the police were fined $2,000 for engaging in illegal racial profiling.) It's hard to appreciate that case without the context, which is that this behavior was happening _constantly_ in this area of Utah, and in several other areas of the country: https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-of-perception-race-and-the-legal-system-in-utah/ https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-o... If you can't understand that both citizens, politicians, the military, and police need to operate within a well-defined legal framework, I worry for you. When the Czech Police conspired to expel Romani from housing in Bohumin in 2005, including _cutting off their hot water supply in winter_, the same laws that limit the actions the police can take were the the same laws that eventually led to a remedy of the situation and a fine against the town. The same kinds of restrictive laws, in this case against using the military to spy on civilians, led to the resignation of Petr Necas. Or perhaps you're in the camp that believes "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? [2] After all, Necas' ex-wife had committed the horrible crime of not wanting to be married to him, so clearly deserved surveillance. Lest you think I'm picking on the Czech Republic, do recall that the Watergate scandal took down Nixon in the US, for similar abuses of official power. We grant power to the police because people are imperfect, and sometimes break the law in ways that endanger or harm others. We place limitations on the power of the police because police are human too. fin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement [2] http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide

by Aoyagi 10y ago

dgacmu 10y ago

"the likes of you" - yes, indeed. You're making some pretty big generalizations from behind that monitor of yours. You seem to be aware of a particular, negative stereotype of the culture, but you're woefully ignorant of the laws and their history, so why are you continuing in the debate? You're making assumptions about my behavior with the police based upon my factual statements about the limits on police powers for search and seizure. (for your edification: Had the officer had a reasonable suspicion, he wouldn't have needed to ask permission. In that case, it would have been an _order_, and regardless of whether it's lawful, when it happens, you follow an _order_ from a cop, and fix it up later in court.) I'm done - you seem to have a strange stereotype of americans that puts anyone with beliefs that differ from yours in the "gun totin' amemdment hollerin' crazy" camp. You may find it more useful to stereotype me as an ACLU (google it)-donating, left-leaning liberal that comes from a family of law professors, and believes that a constitutional protections are a cornerstone of guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Without that, it's too easy for one sort of justice to be administered to the wealthy (and white), and another sort to be administered to everyone else.

Aoyagi 10y ago
I'm not making any assumptions mate. You said, multiple times, that you deny doing anything but what you absolutely must. Clearly just out of principle. That falls right into that stereotype. And that's behaviour I find disgusting regardless of your "freedoms".

Nadya 10y ago

> Opening the glove box isn't an unreasonable request on any level. You have the wrong definition of "unreasonable request". It isn't that it is difficult to open the glove box and thus is an "unreasonable request due to difficulty of compliance". It is unreasonable because they lack reason to open the glove box and have no right to search it. ("muh rights", and for damned good reasons) dgacmu gave you legal cases (possibly precedent setting cases?) and you ignored that as if dgacmu set the limits and constraints of the law.

Aoyagi 10y ago
Again, by that logic, any random checks, including DUI checks, are unacceptable. That's what the first link is partially about. Second link is the 4th amendment and third link is an irrelevant opinion that doesn't even open from my end. All of that only supports the theory that dgacmu is one of those amusing "sovereign citizens" who treat the police like nuisance. So yes, I ignored those links. And a lot of nonsense in that post. Edit: I did learn that random stops are mostly illegal though. What a country to be a cop in. Now I'm doubly not surprised why American police acts the way they sometimes act.
- dgacmu 10y ago
  The amusing bit is that you can't tell the difference between someone who believes strongly that everyone (police and citizens) should follow the law, and the soverign citizen adherents, who believe [1]: "that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels" The soverign citizens live in a delusional world that wants to pretend that our judicial system has no say over them. Their beliefs and actions range from the mildly worrisome to outright domestic terrorism. I live in a world in which I believe that understanding one's rights, responsibilities, and limits within our judicial system is important. And also that understanding why we have those laws is useful - a lesson you seem intent to ignore. There are historical reasons for the powers granted to the police, and the limitations placed on those powers, primarily with an eye towards balancing the need to protect the populace as a whole while preventing specific abuses of power. Here's one example: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profiling-utah-highway-patrol https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profil... (Note: The ACLU won, and the police were fined $2,000 for engaging in illegal racial profiling.) It's hard to appreciate that case without the context, which is that this behavior was happening _constantly_ in this area of Utah, and in several other areas of the country: https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-of-perception-race-and-the-legal-system-in-utah/ https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-o... If you can't understand that both citizens, politicians, the military, and police need to operate within a well-defined legal framework, I worry for you. When the Czech Police conspired to expel Romani from housing in Bohumin in 2005, including _cutting off their hot water supply in winter_, the same laws that limit the actions the police can take were the the same laws that eventually led to a remedy of the situation and a fine against the town. The same kinds of restrictive laws, in this case against using the military to spy on civilians, led to the resignation of Petr Necas. Or perhaps you're in the camp that believes "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? [2] After all, Necas' ex-wife had committed the horrible crime of not wanting to be married to him, so clearly deserved surveillance. Lest you think I'm picking on the Czech Republic, do recall that the Watergate scandal took down Nixon in the US, for similar abuses of official power. We grant power to the police because people are imperfect, and sometimes break the law in ways that endanger or harm others. We place limitations on the power of the police because police are human too. fin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement [2] http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide