The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all..

[Minor Axis]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

The problem is that we have people administering the law. Lets go with a computer and robot cops. But then you'll have to watch over their programing. The most highly visible cases are when "important people" get into trouble. They get special consideration and a fairly good chance of avoiding accountability.

 

[Francis]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

The problem is that we have people administering the law. Lets go with a computer and robot cops. But then you'll have to watch over their programing. The most highly visible cases are when "important people" get into trouble. They get special consideration and a fairly good chance of avoiding accountability.

Of course it comes down to those in charge.. They either have no balls or go overboard on authority..

You mean "Diplomatic Immunity" type cases ?

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

Of course it comes down to those in charge.. They either have no balls or go overboard on authority..

You mean "Diplomatic Immunity" type cases ?

Diplomatic immunity is diplomatic immunity. As far as I know diplomats are all exempt or mostly exempt from local laws, unless maybe if they murder someone? Not sure about that.

The bottom line is depending on who the offender is, they will get some extra level of consideration if they are an important or powerful individual in society. That does not mean they won't escape justice. I can throw up an easy example, The Catholic Church. The individuals in the church who were/are involved in child molestation cases, as far as I know, have received hands-off status by law enforcement. The only day in court they have had is civil court for monetary awards. It's disgusting.

 

[Francis]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

Diplomatic immunity is diplomatic immunity. As far as I know diplomats are all exempt or mostly exempt from local laws, unless maybe if they murder someone? Not sure about that.

The bottom line is depending on who the offender is, they will get some extra level of consideration if they are an important or powerful individual in society. That does not mean they won't escape justice. I can throw up an easy example, The Catholic Church. The individuals in the church who were/are involved in child molestation cases, as far as I know, have received hands-off status by law enforcement. The only day in court they have had is civil court for monetary awards. It's disgusting.

Humm..

Catholic Priest ( Church ) Have not received special treatment here as far as I can remember for being charged and convicted. Many scandals and much to do about it and it is despicable but here is a case that went to court. Seems there is also some in States..

Ontario
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2591024

Quebec ( Montreal )
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet....html?id=1a5a31e7-e02a-4bbe-b76f-a02c9c8f68a9

Illinois
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...ally-assaulting-child-collapses-in-court.html

 

[Tim]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

They absolutely positively can stop people randomly. It's called check points or sobriety points. They are randomly set up and the only thing they have to announce to the public is what county they will have it in. It's a good way to catch a lot of drunk drivers.

They can't stop people randomly in the states. Here is what the supreme court has instructed when it comes to DUI checkpoints. If these rules are not followed explicitly, then it's a clear violation of your fourth amendment rights.

• Decisions must be made by supervisors, not arresting officers
• Vehicles must be stopped only according to a predetermined formula
• Public and officer safety are most important
• Locations must be selected by policymakers, based on drunk driving statistics
• Duration must be limited by concerns of effectiveness and intrusiveness
• Clearly visible warning lights and signs must be displayed telling drivers
• Drivers must be detained for the minimum amount of time possible
• Advance publication of the place and time is required to increase its deterrent effect and minimize intrusiveness

DUI checkpoints are not legal in these states.

• Alaska
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Montana
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

 

[darkangel]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

They absolutely positively can stop people randomly. It's called check points or sobriety points. They are randomly set up and the only thing they have to announce to the public is what county they will have it in. It's a good way to catch a lot of drunk drivers.

I was pulled over at a random check point in CT many years ago but it was announced in the newspaper that they were going to be having one. There were lighted signs put up about 2 miles before the checkpoint and a long line of cars. This was on the Turnpike. They pulled over every 3rd car it seemed and I happened to be one of them. I had been drinking that night but wasn't drunk out of my mind. The officer asked me where I was coming from and where I was going. After I told him he just let me pass. I guess I look sober when I'm drunk! :willy_nilly:

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

Humm..

Catholic Priest ( Church ) Have not received special treatment here as far as I can remember for being charged and convicted. Many scandals and much to do about it and it is despicable but here is a case that went to court. Seems there is also some in States..

Ontario
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2591024

Quebec ( Montreal )
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet....html?id=1a5a31e7-e02a-4bbe-b76f-a02c9c8f68a9

Illinois
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...ally-assaulting-child-collapses-in-court.html

I'd have to research this, but compared to hundreds of incidents, my understanding is that most of the offenses were swept under the rug. In many cases kids were unable to bring themselves to come forward, and when it came to the church's attention, standard procedure seemed to be move the offender to a new parish so the abuse could continue. I'm sure the offender was given a stern talking to before he was unleashed again. :smiley24: Maybe you agree that when your standard pedophile is discovered the boot of the law comes down hard. In contrast this is not the norm for cases involving priests.

 

[TheTinGirl]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

Pfft I know in PA we have three checkpoints within a 15 mile radius every Friday and Saturday.
We've been stopped a crapton of times and they stop you and say 'Where are you headed.'
Seriously? I just point in front of me.

 

[cam elle toe]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

As far as random stops for possible DUI's go, what's the matter with it? If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem? It's like I don't get why people here are bothered about random stop and search, if you have nothing to hide then go ahead with it. The Police will get a backlash if a guy murders someone with a knife that was never tracked, same with a person who runs somedown down while pissed.

I never said they bothered me, I think they're a great deterrent. I just mentioned how cops get pulled over here, flash their badge, and don't get bagged....:dunno

 

[Springsteen]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

No I didn't mean to say you objected to it, I just meant in general for people protesting against it. I'd rather have them there than not to be perfectly honest.

 

[Natasha]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

They absolutely positively can stop people randomly. It's called check points or sobriety points. They are randomly set up and the only thing they have to announce to the public is what county they will have it in. It's a good way to catch a lot of drunk drivers.

Yeah, but that's not what she's talking about. There's a difference in a road block and an actual traffic stop where someone is pulled over randomly and administered a breathalyzer. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCENARIO.

 

[Natasha]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

If it is actual police work or a citizen in distress they are permitted to use the phone while driving even though they have secure radio frequencies. That makes sense to me.... sorta. Common sense tells me they could use a bit of gray matter and pull over to the side of the road or do what we have to do and get a hands free device. Ass ordinary citizens we are also allowed to use the cell while driving if we have to call 911 to report a drunk driver etc. That also makes sense to me but I'm sure when the cops are on the phone most of the time they are talking to their wives. Smiles and laughs are a dead give away.

That's an assumption, though. I have a great rapport w/ my officers and it's not uncommon for us to laugh while on the phone w/ each other, even if I'm giving him/her sensitive information about a call that doesn't need to be put on the air. Believe me, before I became a dispatcher I thought all the same things. I'm not saying it's NEVER personal...but a lot of times it isn't, they don't have time for that.

As far as random stops for possible DUI's go, what's the matter with it? If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem? It's like I don't get why people here are bothered about random stop and search, if you have nothing to hide then go ahead with it. The Police will get a backlash if a guy murders someone with a knife that was never tracked, same with a person who runs somedown down while pissed.

Nothing's the matter w/ it, I agree...but enough people raise hell and before you know it, it's violating someone's rights and now you've got all these guidelines.

Heck when I had my car accident last year, that policeman made sure they drew at minimum 3 viles of blood out of me that withheld my insurance claim.. He was hoovering above me at the hospital like a vulture and didn't leave until they had taken blood..

Chain of evidence...he couldn't leave you.

 

[darkangel]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

That's all..

Heck when I had my car accident last year, that policeman made sure they drew at minimum 3 viles of blood out of me that withheld my insurance claim.. He was hoovering above me at the hospital like a vulture and didn't leave until they had taken blood..

I had the same thing happen to me with one of my car accidents. I hit a pole in the wee hours of the morning. I just went around an unlit curve too fast and I passed the sobriety test but he took me to the hospital to get blood drawn. I thought it was a little excessive at the time but I understand that's their job...

 

[Tim]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

As far as random stops for possible DUI's go, what's the matter with it? If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem? It's like I don't get why people here are bothered about random stop and search, if you have nothing to hide then go ahead with it. The Police will get a backlash if a guy murders someone with a knife that was never tracked, same with a person who runs somedown down while pissed.

Nothing's the matter w/ it, I agree...but enough people raise hell and before you know it, it's violating someone's rights and now you've got all these guidelines.

You guys need to know random stops and especially random stop and searches are unconstitutional and have been long before cars were even thought of. And where does it stop? If they can randomly stop law abiding citizens for random searches, does that mean they can randomly pick homes to search? There is no difference, they are both your private property and as such, they are protected.
The police do not have the right to randomly search me, my car or my home and I will refuse consent of any of these not because I am hiding anything, but because I don't want them thinking it's alright. I would sue in such a case to prevent them from gaining that power over anyone, criminal or otherwise.

 

[Natasha]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

You guys need to know random stops and especially random stop and searches are unconstitutional and have been long before cars were even thought of. And where does it stop? If they can randomly stop law abiding citizens for random searches, does that mean they can randomly pick homes to search? There is no difference, they are both your private property and as such, they are protected.
The police do not have the right to randomly search me, my car or my home and I will refuse consent of any of these not because I am hiding anything, but because I don't want them thinking it's alright. I would sue in such a case to prevent them from gaining that power over anyone, criminal or otherwise.

I *do* know that, Tim...I'm just saying that I have nothing to hide and have no problem w/ them as far as I'm concerned. Really, though, it's not difficult at all to get proper PC to stop a vehicle.

 

[Tim]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

I *do* know that, Tim...I'm just saying that I have nothing to hide and have no problem w/ them as far as I'm concerned. Really, though, it's not difficult at all to get proper PC to stop a vehicle.

It has nothing to do with whether you have anything to hide or not. I absolutely have nothing to hide, and the police are not here to try and find a probable cause just to pull someone over. There should be clear probable cause and a good reason to pull someone over. We keep blurring the lines with who should and who shouldn't get pulled over when it's quite simple really. If they see you doing something wrong, they should pull you over and address it, they shouldn't be looking for ways to justify a stop just so they can check you out. That's wrong IMO

 

[Tim]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

And to be very clear here. I have nothing against police officers, on the contrary, I respect what they do. But I do have a problem with unchecked power being given to law enforcement.

I have been pulled over before and if I was a little smarter when it happened I would have fought it and won. They not only searched my vehicle, they felt the need to comment on every item they came across. They even had the nerve to pull a condom out of the glove compartment and question me on why I had it. Like I said if this happened today instead of 20 years ago, I would not let them near me or my car. And if they still searched my vehicle I would leave it up to a judge to determine if my rights were indeed violated.

 

[darkangel]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

They even had the nerve to pull a condom out of the glove compartment and question me on why I had it.

Were you in an area known for prostitution? And yes I'm being serious....

 

[Tim]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

Were you in an area known for prostitution? And yes I'm being serious....

Nope not at all. Even if I was, it's absolutely none of there business. Where they expecting me to say I use it for my nightly prostitutes???

At least I knew to keep my mouth shut even at that age. They can ask me all the questions they want, I wasn't going to answer them.
Just remember that anything and everything can and WILL be used against you in a court of law. There is absolutely nothing you can say to the police that will benefit YOU. It can only hurt you to talk to the police, especially when they are searching your car looking for something to arrest you on.

 

[retro]

Re: The Law should be the Law and if you don't agree, have it remove properly for all

I *do* know that, Tim...I'm just saying that I have nothing to hide and have no problem w/ them as far as I'm concerned. Really, though, it's not difficult at all to get proper PC to stop a vehicle.

So you have no problem giving away your constitutional rights in the interest of "safety"?