To Protect and to Serve II

#2,928
#2,928
Rasputin_Vol said:
4th Amendment...



And I'll even throw in the 5th Amendment...



Walking up to a car at random and just asking for ID without specifying the crime violated or the reasoning behind the stop shouldn't even be open for discussion in any state.
Click to expand...

The problem here is he's on government property not private property. If he wasn't on the road I would agree.
 
#2,932
#2,932
Grand Vol said:
Play stupid games...

Interesting part starts around 1:20 in the video. Funny how it suddenly turned from "eff the police!" to "get the police!" rather quickly.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=993_1496956861
Click to expand...

Let's start from the very beginning. Why were they protesting in the first place ("Justice for Isiah", whoever that may be)? Lets address the cause before we deal with the effects.
 
#2,933
#2,933
15 guns found in home where officers executing warrant shot man, St. Louis police say

Police said Isaiah Hammett opened fire on officers after they had announced themselves and broke down the front door to his grandfather's home in the 5400 block of South Kingshighway. Police returned fire and killed Hammett. No officers were injured.

O’Toole said First District detectives recently had been conducting an investigation and suspected that Hammett was involved in the sale of illegal guns and drugs. That investigation is ongoing, police said.
Click to expand...

So selling guns (2nd Amendment) and selling reefer (9th Amendment). Is this really what we need police wasting their time on? What about these banksters, politicians, thieves, and murderers?

So what if he was selling some guns and drugs? Seriously...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,934
#2,934
Rasputin_Vol said:
What difference does that make? You sound like the person that would defend "free speech zones"?
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to drive. If you want to drive you have to submit to rules. If the rule is providing identification hen you provide identification. I agree, the cop was an ass. All he had to do was tell the dude why he stopped him. But if the law says you must provide ID when asked in order to operate a vehicle not public roads , then if you want to drive then follow the laws.
 
#2,935
#2,935
InVOLuntary said:
There is no constitutional right to drive. If you want to drive you have to submit to rules. If the rule is providing identification hen you provide identification. I agree, the cop was an ass. All he had to do was tell the dude why he stopped him. But if the law says you must provide ID when asked in order to operate a vehicle not public roads, then if you want to drive then follow the laws.
Click to expand...

Here is where we get into that grey area of "unreasonable". If you are a cop pulling someone over for a traffic violation, that is one thing. You might get me to give you that point (even though a majority of these so-called traffic violations are bogus). But you are talking something totally different if there is no probable cause, your feel like being snarky, or your local jurisdiction feels like going on a fishing expedition (DUI/seatbelt checkpoints).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,936
#2,936
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here is where we get into that grey area of "unreasonable". If you are a cop pulling someone over for a traffic violation, that is one thing. You might get me to give you that point (even though a majority of these so-called traffic violations are bogus). But you are talking something totally different if there is no probable cause, your feel like being snarky, or your local jurisdiction feels like going on a fishing expedition (DUI/seatbelt checkpoints).
Click to expand...

I agree that cops sometimes look for a reason to pull someone over for other motives. In this instance it's my opinion that both parties were at fault. If either had budged one inch then the whole situation could have been avoided. If the cop would have said why he stopped them or if the guy would have identified himself. If the cop had no reason to stop him and the the guy had no violations or warrants or contraband, then he has good reason to sue and should win. Imo
 
#2,939
#2,939
InVOLuntary said:
There is no constitutional right to drive. If you want to drive you have to submit to rules. If the rule is providing identification hen you provide identification. I agree, the cop was an ass. All he had to do was tell the dude why he stopped him. But if the law says you must provide ID when asked in order to operate a vehicle not public roads , then if you want to drive then follow the laws.
Click to expand...

A traffic stop is initiated by the officer. It is EXCEEDINGLY reasonable for a citizen to expect LEO to articulate why they are being detained prior to divulging information. Moreover, doing so doesn't bring about any greater burden to the LEO that I can see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,940
#2,940
InVOLuntary said:
Yes. I don't know why they think they need to disrupt traffic to protest. If you're intentionally blocking traffic you get what you deserve imo.
Click to expand...

When everyone starts gathering around the vehicle blocking, and shouting at them that's when I take it as threatening. If you're in the way then, oh well.
 
#2,941
#2,941
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let's start from the very beginning. Why were they protesting in the first place ("Justice for Isiah", whoever that may be)? Lets address the cause before we deal with the effects.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, those people in the car probably didn't even know "isiah", so what gives the protesters the right to block them, or make them feel unsafe?
 
#2,942
#2,942
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let's start from the very beginning. Why were they protesting in the first place ("Justice for Isiah", whoever that may be)? Lets address the cause before we deal with the effects.
Click to expand...

Let's start from the beginning? Sure, I had no idea who Isiah was until I looked it up. Kinda surprised you didn't post it here already, but anyway. You posted it later, so good on you for doing a bit of research. Now, on to the matter that is at hand.

These people are protesting, good on them for using their First Amendment Right to do so. However, what gives them the right to block a city street and keep people from going wherever they are going while doing so? They started on the sidewalks according to one article I read which would have been perfectly fine. But let's go block an intersection and argue with a couple in a car that likely had nothing to do with the incident.

Second, St Louis and the surrounding areas isn't exactly what we would call a bastion of rational thought. How long does it take for a mob to get out of control?

Third, you invoked the Second Amendment in your later post, good. Do you think the driver might have felt his safety (or his passenger's safety) was in question after the mob surrounded the vehicle? Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY

Or this?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_5d7c259d-1dd6-5223-bd3d-bb67322cf9bd.html

Yeah, it gets out of hand quickly. Yes, the driver should have felt very apprehensive about getting surrounded by a bunch of protesters and not being allowed to leave the place they didn't want to be.

This is a very simple concept, Ras. Your right to protest does not trump my right to not be involved in your protest. Nor does it trump my right to go hither and dither as I please. Blocking traffic does zero good for the "cause" whatever that cause may be. It does nothing but turn ordinary people that might have been neutral otherwise against what you are standing for. And the quicker these "protesters" learn that, the better off we all will be.

Which do you think will attract more supporters and be remembered in a better light? Speaking rationally and explaining why you are protesting and asking for support? Or blocking traffic while screaming in a bullhorn and not allowing vehicles to leave?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,943
#2,943
Grand Vol said:
Let's start from the beginning? Sure, I had no idea who Isiah was until I looked it up. Kinda surprised you didn't post it here already, but anyway. You posted it later, so good on you for doing a bit of research. Now, on to the matter that is at hand.

These people are protesting, good on them for using their First Amendment Right to do so. However, what gives them the right to block a city street and keep people from going wherever they are going while doing so? They started on the sidewalks according to one article I read which would have been perfectly fine. But let's go block an intersection and argue with a couple in a car that likely had nothing to do with the incident.

Second, St Louis and the surrounding areas isn't exactly what we would call a bastion of rational thought. How long does it take for a mob to get out of control?

Third, you invoked the Second Amendment in your later post, good. Do you think the driver might have felt his safety (or his passenger's safety) was in question after the mob surrounded the vehicle? Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY

Or this?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_5d7c259d-1dd6-5223-bd3d-bb67322cf9bd.html

Yeah, it gets out of hand quickly. Yes, the driver should have felt very apprehensive about getting surrounded by a bunch of protesters and not being allowed to leave the place they didn't want to be.

This is a very simple concept, Ras. Your right to protest does not trump my right to not be involved in your protest. Nor does it trump my right to go hither and dither as I please. Blocking traffic does zero good for the "cause" whatever that cause may be. It does nothing but turn ordinary people that might have been neutral otherwise against what you are standing for. And the quicker these "protesters" learn that, the better off we all will be.

Which do you think will attract more supporters and be remembered in a better light? Speaking rationally and explaining why you are protesting and asking for support? Or blocking traffic while screaming in a bullhorn and not allowing vehicles to leave?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
#2,944
#2,944
hndog609 said:
A traffic stop is initiated by the officer. It is EXCEEDINGLY reasonable for a citizen to expect LEO to articulate why they are being detained prior to divulging information. Moreover, doing so doesn't bring about any greater burden to the LEO that I can see.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I said earlier the cop was an ass, but if the law states that he/she must give ID regardless of the situation as a condition to drive on public roads, then he should have complied. If people don't like the law have it changed.
 
#2,945
#2,945
Grand Vol said:
Let's start from the beginning? Sure, I had no idea who Isiah was until I looked it up. Kinda surprised you didn't post it here already, but anyway. You posted it later, so good on you for doing a bit of research. Now, on to the matter that is at hand.

These people are protesting, good on them for using their First Amendment Right to do so. However, what gives them the right to block a city street and keep people from going wherever they are going while doing so? They started on the sidewalks according to one article I read which would have been perfectly fine. But let's go block an intersection and argue with a couple in a car that likely had nothing to do with the incident.

Second, St Louis and the surrounding areas isn't exactly what we would call a bastion of rational thought. How long does it take for a mob to get out of control?

Third, you invoked the Second Amendment in your later post, good. Do you think the driver might have felt his safety (or his passenger's safety) was in question after the mob surrounded the vehicle? Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY

Or this?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_5d7c259d-1dd6-5223-bd3d-bb67322cf9bd.html

Yeah, it gets out of hand quickly. Yes, the driver should have felt very apprehensive about getting surrounded by a bunch of protesters and not being allowed to leave the place they didn't want to be.

This is a very simple concept, Ras. Your right to protest does not trump my right to not be involved in your protest. Nor does it trump my right to go hither and dither as I please. Blocking traffic does zero good for the "cause" whatever that cause may be. It does nothing but turn ordinary people that might have been neutral otherwise against what you are standing for. And the quicker these "protesters" learn that, the better off we all will be.

Which do you think will attract more supporters and be remembered in a better light? Speaking rationally and explaining why you are protesting and asking for support? Or blocking traffic while screaming in a bullhorn and not allowing vehicles to leave?
Click to expand...

What he said. The people in the car had their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy. I don't see the issue with running down the great white whale in that instance
 
#2,946
#2,946
Grand Vol said:
Let's start from the beginning? Sure, I had no idea who Isiah was until I looked it up. Kinda surprised you didn't post it here already, but anyway. You posted it later, so good on you for doing a bit of research. Now, on to the matter that is at hand.

These people are protesting, good on them for using their First Amendment Right to do so. However, what gives them the right to block a city street and keep people from going wherever they are going while doing so? They started on the sidewalks according to one article I read which would have been perfectly fine. But let's go block an intersection and argue with a couple in a car that likely had nothing to do with the incident.

Second, St Louis and the surrounding areas isn't exactly what we would call a bastion of rational thought. How long does it take for a mob to get out of control?

Third, you invoked the Second Amendment in your later post, good. Do you think the driver might have felt his safety (or his passenger's safety) was in question after the mob surrounded the vehicle? Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY

Or this?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_5d7c259d-1dd6-5223-bd3d-bb67322cf9bd.html

Yeah, it gets out of hand quickly. Yes, the driver should have felt very apprehensive about getting surrounded by a bunch of protesters and not being allowed to leave the place they didn't want to be.

This is a very simple concept, Ras. Your right to protest does not trump my right to not be involved in your protest. Nor does it trump my right to go hither and dither as I please. Blocking traffic does zero good for the "cause" whatever that cause may be. It does nothing but turn ordinary people that might have been neutral otherwise against what you are standing for. And the quicker these "protesters" learn that, the better off we all will be.

Which do you think will attract more supporters and be remembered in a better light? Speaking rationally and explaining why you are protesting and asking for support? Or blocking traffic while screaming in a bullhorn and not allowing vehicles to leave?
Click to expand...

Everything you posted here with regards to the protesters and the passengers in the car is reasonable. However, you didn't go far enough in time to address the cause and origins of all of this. Lets get to the highlighted at the very end.

The truth is that people for decades have tried both rational conversation and counter-productive/disruptive protests to voice their anger at these violent police/citizen interactions. Nothing gets done and nothing ever changes. Cops kill citizens at nearly 10X's more than citizens kill cops, they harass citizens over the pettiest of infractions, they impede citizens travel in a not much different manner than these protesters with their DUI/seatbelt checkpoints, and they generally carry themselves like they are above the law in a majority of their interactions with citizens.

The origins of all of this is we need police to behave better and regain (or just gain) the trust and respect of the people. Until that happens, you're going to see more of this nonsense.
 
#2,947
#2,947
utvols88 said:
What he said. The people in the car had their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy. I don't see the issue with running down the great white whale in that instance
Click to expand...

Again, lets go back to the origins of all of this.

Why were these people protesting in the first place?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top