The police wanted to violate my fourth amendment

John
WE have two experiments going on, guns and alchool.
The later is a better example . . .they clamped down and it is a zero tolerance law, as a result, drivers got more carefull and deaths went down dramatically, now it is slowly coming back, they laxed the enforcement and people go back to the bottle.
Guns ITOH are different, those who gave them up are not buying another and those bullets are no longer counted in our daily voley . . .49 thou die every year.
So the crimes of passion are on the down side, I am talking firearms, don´t give me the speech about other kinds.
Our weapons have not been seen in more than 5 years, I don´t even know where they are in the house . . .it is like we don´t have them.
In my family two got shot, myself and my cousin Edson, right above the heart and it was truly a heart beat away from taking the Bus.
My other cousin Alcides, truck driver was tortured and killed when the tugs decided that he would talk, he was tied at a tree, in the woods all messed up. Later his brothers, former police officers, chased down and killed the whole gang.
I have seen way too many robberies at gun point and made a group of three run like crazy in a dark alley when I was packing my S&W 9mm, the sound of a bullet going in the chamber is pretty loud when you are trying to mug someone.
So, I was in both trenches and still decided guns are no good other than killing people, the ratio good x bad use says so.
I don´t think 49 thou got rid of treats by using guns, not even one thousand . . .it is a massacre.
No guns = less crime with guns, maybe not less crime but it also could be.
Now, there are gun clubs, associations, collectors and professional need for guns, it is not zero guns, just the regular citizen packing without proper training and atittude.
When stops hurting your emotional impotency you will see . . .if the State decides you will go down, there is no gun capable of saving you.
Brazil is a good place to have a blacksmith business, lots of iron protecting homes and electric fences.
Heron
 
I am with Brad on this. I would not allow the Police into my house unless I need them. What if you happen to own the same type of big screen that was stolen or worse yet what if the searcher is not a real officer. They could be using this to look and see what they can take from your house.
 
Sad to point this out Mike, but if you watch the news with regularity, you know that there's no guarantee your stuff isn't being sized up for theft later even if the guy IS a real officer.
 
I am still interested in the input from PPG Doug or another police man. Even and especially if his viewpoint is different than mine. I am honestly interested in hearing a police officers take on the points I brought up.

1) Were you actually trained to work people out of their rights. I am almost 99% sure you were. Was more tactful or less blatant wording for "work people out of their rights" used?

2) Do YOU feel that this justified? By what? In what circumstances should they be allowed to be ignorant of their rights or intimidated enough to have doubts about their understanding of their rights and submit just in case?

I obviously don't think there is ever ANYTHING that justifies this behavior and that it is borderline criminal behaviour even if it ISN'T done in a malicious way, but I would love to hear a good viewpoint on why someone thinks I am wrong.

I honestly don't believe there is a point for me to respond as I feel your mind is 99% already made up. But, foolishly, here I go.

I could pass wide assumptions about those that work in the IT security field, but as I don't do that for a living, I TRUST those that do IT work, to know what they are doing and that they do it well. I would never cast wide assumptions like has been done here. Hell, more than assumptions, it has turned rather ugly. But, I'm the bad guy here. How many teachers have been on Court TV and otherwise because they are sleeping with juveniles? Quite a few. One of, if not the biggest serial arsonists was, a Fire Investigator. Certainly that doesn't make 99.8% of Teachers Dog Sqeeze, does it? Gabor? Should I cast wide opinions of most fire fighters being arsonists, Jim? Of course not.

Here in this thread, I spoke up to possibly offer reasons for an officers actions. I wasn't there but I figured I may have an idea. Suddenly, I become the focus of the thread by many. So, OK, keep believing what you like. Maybe it feels better. I don't know. Brad was the only guy there.

But, to answer your question, in my State Police Academy Training, I did not have one single classroom experience etc to teach me how to VIOLATE the rights of others. On the contrary, I did have many classes regarding The US Consitution, US and Ohio Supreme Court case law and what RIGHTS I must respect and obey. This shock you?

Now, on the streets, I don't say, "Hello. I'm Officer _____. I would like to talk to you about ________ crime that has occured. But, before I do, lets discuss your rights under the US Constitution. Then, we'll briefly discusss any State Consitutional issues that may apply. Finally, I'll educate you on case law that also applies to our conversation. Once done, we can begin our talk about __________ crime."

It simply doesn't work like that. If I talk to a thief, or violent criminal and they waive their rights to not talk, by talking, then what would you like me to do. Stop them? Do you want any crimes solved, ever? You have no idea (or maybe you are 99% sure you do) how many crimes are solved by the interview process. Careful what you watch on Miami CSI and those other shows. All crimes are not solved in a shadowy lab.

The idea on this thread has implied that unless a police officer fully discusses the Consitution with a person, ones RIGHTS are violated. If I say hello, can I come in and talk, and you let me, I am not violating your rights! If you let me in to talk and your "Grow Operation" is sitting out to see, you're in a pinch. But, I STILL HAVE NOT VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS! You waived them. Now if you want to discuss if you KNOWINGLY waived them or not, I'm not sure we will get anywhere. We're adults here and sometimes you have to make adult decisions on your own.

But again, no I was not taught in the Academy how to "work people out of their rights."


Doug, could you look me in the eye and tell me with a clear conscience you haven't been taught and personally used tactics or intentionally with-held information about a persons rights so that they willingly give them up.... simply to make your job easier? Even when you knew they didn't know their rights?

I am guessing you have. If you haven't then you are a good man. If you have then you are still most likely a good man at heart but are doing something that is flatly dishonest and worthy of some level of contempt.

Also.. I don't buy the "asking is OK" theory either. Police should KNOW citizens rights and respect them without fail unless there is a LEGAL reason to continue. Take me for instance.... I am the type to instantly bristle up (and bristle up is a very polite response to what I feel) when I perceive my rights have been violated. My "bristleing" would probably be taken as body language admitting my guilt to a cop that even asked and got declined to search my property.

Unless you have a warrant, don't even ask to search someones property.

As to your question about - "intentionally with-held information about a persons rights" - with Miranda being the exception - then that answer is yes. I stated that above. I do not give lectures on Constitutional Law with people before talking with them.

As for not buying the "Asking is OK" theory... You serious? OK. So, because most people, in most situations have the Right not to talk to me, I shouldn't even ask? What in the world would you have me do? Please tell me. What would you have me do? What should Brad's neighbor, or anyone for that matter, expect when they report a crime? A report to file with their insurance and nothing more? Do you ever want anyone held accountable for crimes?

Good gracious, that is downright foolish. I hope you will rethink that statement. DON'T EVEN ASK? What if someone wants to talk to me. Should I just sit by the phone hoping the investigation comes to me?


To me the only good thing about being a cop is you are the only ones that can protect yourself off your own property without going to jail for it in most cases. Police usually, and in most cases take reports after the crime has been commited and thus have a poor record of stopping crimes against the public. Usually someone has to have been violated, or worse killed before police get involved in anything other than traffic stops. I have no use for them. Nothing I cant take care of myself. Especially since I would be the person having been vilated. All they ever did for me in my profession as a firefighter was get in the way where they didnt belong. There are some good ones and most have good intentions, but I dont need their help after the fact which is most often the case in police work. I say let us all carry. Since an armed sociaty is a polite society. Im just sayin.

Yes, the Police in most cases take reports (and wow, maybe even investigate and solve them) after the crime has been commited. That insight should not be surprising to many. Until the streets have many more officers working or until they hire psychics to predict the crimes before they happen, that won't change drastically for the better any time soon.

Nothing you can't take care of yourself? Great. I genuinely wish there were more people with that attitude. The pace of my job would be a little slower. The next time you are involved in a car accident and the other, at fault driver doesn't cooperate, be sure to tell your insurance agent that you handled it yourself. When they deny your claim because no fault was found (which involves ASKING questions) and the other driver was not cited for the driving offense by some dog sqeeze police officer, don't get angry. Handle it yourself? OK. What do you have in mind?


HUMAN. Oposable thumb, sentient and rational - morality based. What a phucking concept!

Man, I regret ever typing "Sheep, Wolf, Sheep Dog". Let me explain because everyone took offense by it and that was not the point. People read into that way too much. I was quoting a pretty famous Army Lt. Colonel, author and speaker on Terrorism and Police issues. Sorry Gabor, another kindergarten quote from someone else. I confess, not my original idea.

SHEEP - good, honest, hard working citizens going on about their lives. Nothing more. My wife is a Sheep. Most people in life are Sheep. Sheep are good. If the world was 99.9% Sheep, life would be near perfect.

WOLVES - lying, cheating, thieving, people who hurt, steal from, violate, and kill the Sheep. Wolves are bad.

SHEEP DOGS - those who help pretect the Sheep from the Wolves. Yes, even when its after the fact. I believe there is a lot to be said for the Sheep Dog existing as a deterent, even if the Wolf does still occasionly kill a Sheep. Sheep Dogs are good - at least I used to think so.

I was quoting another and thought an analogy was a good way to show a point. What a phucking concept that was.

By reacting the way you have, you have only perpetuated the idea of cops being civil rights violators or much worse.

Oh no. I've spoken, thus once again I further look like a civil rights violator, or much worse. Funny how when I speak, I get it from all sides. When others are down right nasty, they get a pass.


Don't trust the police. Ok. Don't. It works well in the "hood" with the "Don't Snitch" mentality. Heck, people even wear "Don't Snitch" T-shirts. Fine. But don't complain when crime gets worse.

Yes, there are bad people in every profession. Every single one. Teachers, Fire Fighters, Doctors, Priests, Community Organizers and Police. If you want to categorize all of them (or even 99.8%) as bad, not to be trusted, crooks, dog squeeze or whatever, based on the bad actions of the few, then at least acknowledge you are a prejudice person. P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E.

Guys, I was really serious earlier. Don't call on those you despise and don't trust. Don't call. I'm being sincere here. I am not trying to be witty or sarcastic. If I believed the police were that bad people you describe, I wouldn't call them either. Go turn on Court TV and cheer for the defendants. Turn on COPS and root for the criminal. I don't care. I did care, which is why I posted anything to begin with, but I'll do my best to Chill Out and refrain from chiming in any further on this thread. Everyone's mind is made up. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING I say is going to convince anyone of anything different from their deep seated beliefs.


I'm the eternal optimist !!!!!!

Don't let a small black dot, spoil your large white wall.

Francois, that is a very well put. I love it. What a great attitude you have. Maybe your outlook will catch on. Maybe it won't. When Gabor is not looking, I will use the "black dot" example with others. Thanks for that.


Fly safe everyone.
 
It's certainly interesting seeing other's points of view, no doubt each opinion having been fashioned over years of different experiences.

I have, over a year or two of knocking around the world, been pleasantly surprised by various law enforcement officials in various countries who have been tolerant helpful and have even in a couple of cases let me off when I was sure that it was all going to end in tears... mine.

Simple courtesy being friendly and co-operative generally goes a long way, and if the officer does have bad intentions, insisting on one's rights may not always work depending on the prevailing conditions, as I am sure Rodney King found out.
 
Doug,
I'll assume your talking to me since you quoted me. er double quoted.

I watch cops to see the cops catch bad guys. You obviously assumed I was "rooting" for the criminals. I'm not.

I trust the police as much as I would trust any other person I don't know. That isn't wrong.

You've expanded the conversation into areas I won't get into. Car accidents and such have nothing to do with the civil rights we were discussing.

Protect and serve. I'm paying for it.
 
PPDoug

Please do not think I dont like or need police because I do. Ive worked with police and I think they have a lousy job. As far as you being the target I think its you as the icon not the individual. I also think that your response was very rational and well put. Arguable, but sound. I just got snide with the wolf sheep sheep dog thing. They being instinct and we being (ostensibly and allegedly) the more highly evolved and compassionate...
 
I honestly don't believe there is a point for me to respond as I feel your mind is 99% already made up. But, foolishly, here I go.
Yes you are right that my mind is 99% made up, but based on your responses below it seems that you have misconceptions on what it is made up on. For the most part, I fully agree with you. No one in their right mind would disagree that police work isn't hard and dangerous. I tried very hard multiple times to stress the fact that I don't think police officers with hold information about people rights maliciously.

Now, on the streets, I don't say, "Hello. I'm Officer _____. I would like to talk to you about ________ crime that has occured. But, before I do, lets discuss your rights under the US Constitution. Then, we'll briefly discusss any State Consitutional issues that may apply. Finally, I'll educate you on case law that also applies to our conversation. Once done, we can begin our talk about __________ crime."
No expects you to do that.. and I think most reasonable people think TALKING about a crime and actively asking to search someones house (or car, or handbag etc) without a warrant in hand is in a whole different ball park. And the violation of rights that I perceive as occurring is that MOST people are VERY intimidated by the policeman even asking and most either flat out don't know their rights or know little enough that they doubt themselves enough to follow their instincts and say "You'll search anything of mine only if you have a warrant."

Even further down in your post you mention "talking" as what people are bent out of shape in this thread about.

I think most people will agree with my take on this. Knocking on doors telling home owners there was a break in at a house on the road and asking if anyone has any information that would help... AND EVEN WATCHING for nervous behaviour in the process is OK!!!! Asking to search someones house isn't. Even bringing it up unless you have proof that the house would need to be searched in my mind is dishonest and even borderline criminal. It is an abuse of power and is very intimidating to most people.

Asking questions can go over the line too with phrases like... it will be easier on you if you just tell us what is going on. Or.. "where are you going and what are your intentions." That is one of the most intimidating questions that a police office can ask. It should always be answered with "office I feel that that is none of your business."

I think you get my point.
 
Doug, I feel your pain. I have read this thread a few times and been on the bubble with closing it or even deleting it. It's a shame that people come to a flying forum and spend most of their time reading and replying to threads about gun control and rants against the police..... instead of friendship and fellowship and sharing their love for flying as most would expect out of a gyroplane forum.
 
... I do hate the fact that in most training they are TAUGHT to slyly do things to get you to willingly give up your rights...This training, in my mind, makes 99% of policemen un-trustable. ...

Interesting...guess I slept thru that class...
 
Asking to search someones house isn't. Even bringing it up unless you have proof that the house would need to be searched in my mind is dishonest and even borderline criminal.

Yes, I understand what your opinion is. Even Asking for Consent is a no no in your book. Unfortunately, it is not supported by ANY of the judges on the US Supreme Court (even the really liberal ones). Nor has any Appellate court judge ever believed such.

PPDoug

Please do not think I dont like or need police because I do. Ive worked with police and I think they have a lousy job. As far as you being the target I think its you as the icon not the individual. I also think that your response was very rational and well put. Arguable, but sound. I just got snide with the wolf sheep sheep dog thing. They being instinct and we being (ostensibly and allegedly) the more highly evolved and compassionate...

Yes, the Sheep are. Absolutely evolved and compassionate. Not so for the wolves. Sometimes evil and without a soul.

Yes, I know this is likely not about me as no one on this thread has ever met me. I'm the easiest going person you'll ever meet. I also am well aware that most people do not like the police. I've learned that well before this thread. I've always told people that if I wanted to be loved in life I would be a Fire Fighter. Nobody dislikes those guys.

Doug,
I'll assume your talking to me since you quoted me. er double quoted.

I watch cops to see the cops catch bad guys. You obviously assumed I was "rooting" for the criminals. I'm not.

I trust the police as much as I would trust any other person I don't know. That isn't wrong.

You've expanded the conversation into areas I won't get into. Car accidents and such have nothing to do with the civil rights we were discussing.

Protect and serve. I'm paying for it.


No. I did not assume you root for the criminals.

Yes. Car accidents absolutely, positively DO have everything to do with civil rights. A car accident on public and even sometimes private property, involves at least a violation of a traffic law, or in many cases, criminal law. Such an investigation DOES involve ones Rights.

One typically is interviewed after a car accident. That person has rights and questions by an officer may be seen as trying to "work people out of their rights."

Yes. I will protect and serve. Trust me, you are getting your money's worth. The pain from my herniated disc in my neck I have had for 12 years as a result, reminds me often. I also have two very dear friends who died doing exactly what you are paying for.


Doug, I feel your pain. I have read this thread a few times and been on the bubble with closing it or even deleting it. It's a shame that people come to a flying forum and spend most of their time reading and replying to threads about gun control and rants against the police..... instead of friendship and fellowship and sharing their love for flying as most would expect out of a gyroplane forum.

I agree, but I'm also one participating in it, against my own judgement and the advice of my wife. Especially since I Looooove talking flying.

Here I go again violating my last comments saying how I would try to restrain myself from any further debate. I lack self restraint I suspect.
 
PPG Doug,
Thanks for explaining your point of view in a rational way. FYI, I am not a criminal, and have no criminal record.
I understand where your coming from and your point of views, they make sence if you were a police officer.
I, on the other hand, am not. I see you excluded the "Miranda Rights" as part of your explanation. Why would it pertain to a confession, but not a random house search?
As I understand it, if you forget to read someone the Miranda rights before you arrest them, any confession or evidence you find becasue of a confession cannot be used as evidence in court.
I believe that if someone pushed the whole searching of your house without probable cause and playing on thier ignorance in such a way as they thought they had no right to decline a search, that it would win in a Supreme Court ruling. Just like in the Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Then a cop would have to read every one the "Moore Rights" before they searched a house without cause and couldn't try to hide the fact that you HAVE rights. (Like the cop did in my case)
He pretty much told me, the only way to clear my name was to let him "have a look around"

I realize having this debate on a rotary forum is almost worthless, and I have never seen a mind changed on issues of this nature here.
However, it was my intention to help inform my friends on this forum that this is one of their rights. If there was anyone that didn't know, now they do.

Thanks, GyroRon for not closing the thread. It almost appears we can agree to dissagree and have a peacefull conversation. atlease the last half.
Brad
 
Ohhhh come on guys.

If you don't like the off topic section and don't want to discuss these topics then excersize your right not to click on the link.

If you feel the urge to open the thread and read the comments don't complain about it and try to get it shut down.

Excersize some self restraint and only read and respond to the threads you are happy to read.
 
Ohhhh come on guys.

If you don't like the off topic section and don't want to discuss these topics then excersize your right not to click on the link.

If you feel the urge to open the thread and read the comments don't complain about it and try to get it shut down.

Excersize some self restraint and only read and respond to the threads you are happy to read.

Well put Karl.
 
please close this thread and the off-topic section.

That way we can all talk about flying gyroplanes.

I disagree.

I’m new here and still wading around trying to get to establish my situational awareness.

I’m a member of several divergent forums that all, at some point, confront the whittling away of our rights.

On an RV forum, the concern for personal protection often comes up and is, just as often, shut down. So then the question of whether our 4th Amendment rights include our RVs comes up. Again, often these discussions are closed.

On a professional military forum, following the Ft. Hood massacre, the discussion now is why soldiers are no longer allowed to have personal weapons on base. No problem on this site because the moderators BAN posters who make personal attacks on others, not those that disagree.

Aviation has been under attack for several years and it will increase. Sport aviation will be the first to be shot down. “It’s dangerous and you can’t expect your neighbor to pay for your frivolity.”

But, perhaps, the most important reason to let this discussion continue is that it has an international audience and they can learn that we are different because our Constitution tells our government what they can not do to us.

I would encourage restraint in personal attacks, though.

Pat
 
Last edited:
PPG Doug,
I see you excluded the "Miranda Rights" as part of your explanation. Why would it pertain to a confession, but not a random house search?
As I understand it, if you forget to read someone the Miranda rights before you arrest them, any confession or evidence you find becasue of a confession cannot be used as evidence in court.

I believe that if someone pushed the whole searching of your house without probable cause and playing on thier ignorance in such a way as they thought they had no right to decline a search, that it would win in a Supreme Court ruling. Just like in the Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.


Miranda is specific and rather narrow in its application. Miranda must be read if two and only two criteria are met.

#1 - CUSTODY
&
#2 - Interrogation (questions pertaining the the crime; questions about your name/address/phone are not covered by Miranda)

It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a street, or the middle of a farm field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the person and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.

If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime.

So, actually Miranda is NOT necessary before a person is arrested. No harm in it I suppose, but absolutely not necessary. Even after a person is physically arrested, Miranda is NOT required whatsoever. But, if after custody occurs and the police officer now wants to talk about the crime - Miranda is required first.

In fact, I may not read an arrested person Miranda until at the jail as I'm busy with miscellanous things needing attention first. If that person wants to talk, I allow them. Sometimes a person wants to apologize for something, make excuses their behavior, blame someone else or simply confess to the crime. Those statements are completely acceptable by every court in the country - liberal and conservative alike. The court has debated such statements by arrestees for decades. These "excited utterances" are completely allowable. Certainly, you don't want to ever see an instance where someone yells a confession, "I did it. I did _____ to that person" and a police officer covers their mouth until they can read Miranda to them... That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? It would be to the Victim of that crime.

Again, Miranda comes down to CUSTODY & QUESTIONING - both being necessary. Now if the questioning takes place in the back of a police car, with a cage, and doors are closed - some courts (depending on how a particular judge interprets Miranda) may perceive that as CUSTODY. Because that person being questioned may perceive they are in custody, the courts may agree and require Miranda.

A search of a home or car does not fall under Miranda.
There are many other particulars that come in to play regarding search & seizure, but Miranda is NOT one of them.

Keep in mind, the courts were founded upon the notion that it (the court) would rather allow 10 (may have actually been stated as 100, but I don't recall) guilty go free, than have even 1 innocent person go to jail. The courts stack the deck in favor of the accused, by a long shot.



For what its worth, and thats not much, I am Pro-gun, Pro-NRA, against Big government and am overall very conservative. I'm for concealed carry by the public (Sheep). The Wolves and Sheep Dogs have guns, you should have that right too. I'm against cell phone laws while driving, helmet laws, seatbelt laws and the like. I'm also very anti-Wolf. Wolves are ugly. Wolves really are bad. Thus I do what I can to keep the Sheep herd happy and safe. At least I do my part as I know thousands like me are doing theirs.

But, I've gotten away from the original topic of this thread that the Police are 99% bad, crooks, rights violators and dog sqeeze. My point all along was to disagree with that concept knowing all along it would not likely change any attitudes.

Its nice this thread turned closer to a conversation than a name calling school yard fight.

Fly Safe!
 
First off.... Doug, you sir are completely wasting your time trying to defend your profession here to these guys on this forum. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will enlighten them and make them change their opinion on you.

Secondly.... to those that say just ignore the off topic section if I don't like these kinds of threads, Let me drop some history on you. I am the one who started the off topic section to begin with. It was started as a avenue to share jokes and whatnot.

I don't care what you discuss. You could debate who has the biggest prick, or who is the biggest prick, whatever..... The problem is people tend to get too wound up in these threads and they start attacking each other. It happens everytime. The whole point of moderating these threads is to keep it civil around here.
 
Top