patrick.net

Not sure why anyone who is a cop isn't expecting to be recorded 100% of the time.

It's a little ridiculous that cops have traffic cameras, CCTV everywhere, but object to being recorded. Time for State Laws to make it a crime for LEOs to say they can't be taped.

tovarichpeter says

A Wilmington police officer is shown on video instructing a citizen who was pulled over for a traffic stop that he is not allowed to record the interaction due to a new state law prohibiting the recording of police interactions.

The cop was an asshole.
I would have stopped recording anyway. I would also let them search the car.
Why waste everyone's time?

Strategist says

tovarichpeter says

A Wilmington police officer is shown on video instructing a citizen who was pulled over for a traffic stop that he is not allowed to record the interaction due to a new state law prohibiting the recording of police interactions.

The cop was an asshole.

I would have stopped recording anyway. I would also let them search the car.

Why waste everyone's time?

That's the trouble with too many Americans. They are making a big fuss over the wrong rights. No one makes a fuss over not being able to flush the Koran down the toilet, or draw cartoons of Mohammad.

tovarichpeter says

A Wilmington police officer is shown on video instructing a citizen who was pulled over for a traffic stop that he is not allowed to record the interaction due to a new state law prohibiting the recording of police interactions.

10 years for the criminal cop for
- terrorist threat
- extortion
- obstruction of justice
- disorderly conduct
- illegal search

Then let every remaining cop in the country know about his sentence. This shit will stop immediately.

Strategist says

I would have stopped recording anyway. I would also let them search the car.

Why waste everyone's time?

To prevent crimes, to protect the Constitution, to eliminate the need for violent revolt and the systematic execution of police officers. All pretty damn good reasons to record and press charges.

The lawyer should have exercised his Second Amendment right and shot the criminal cop and then arrested his ass. Otherwise, the Second Amendment means nothing.

Strategist says

Strategist says

tovarichpeter says

A Wilmington police officer is shown on video instructing a citizen who was pulled over for a traffic stop that he is not allowed to record the interaction due to a new state law prohibiting the recording of police interactions.

The cop was an asshole.


I would have stopped recording anyway. I would also let them search the car.


Why waste everyone's time?

That's the trouble with too many Americans. They are making a big fuss over the wrong rights. No one makes a fuss over not being able to flush the Koran down the toilet, or draw cartoons of Mohammad.

I squatted down and dropped a steamer on the Koran. Did I do something wrong?

Strategist says

Strategist says

tovarichpeter says

A Wilmington police officer is shown on video instructing a citizen who was pulled over for a traffic stop that he is not allowed to record the interaction due to a new state law prohibiting the recording of police interactions.

The cop was an asshole.


I would have stopped recording anyway. I would also let them search the car.


Why waste everyone's time?

That's the trouble with too many Americans. They are making a big fuss over the wrong rights. No one makes a fuss over not being able to flush the Koran down the toilet, or draw cartoons of Mohammad.

I agree the cop was being an asshole. I would not have stopped recording and I would immediately driven to and given a copy of the recording of the incident to his departments internal affairs office if it was a large city or state agency, or to the FBI if it was a small town or agency.

I would have never let him search my car. I hate to say it, but Dan is right(albeit for some of the wrong reasons....generally you should comply with a cop even if you think he's wrong...however illegal search and seizure here is pretty damn clear)

Fucking White Male says

I agree the cop was being an asshole.

The cops wasn't being an asshole. He was being a criminal and a terrorist. If the clothes were reverse, that criminal would have been shot. He should count himself lucky if he only got 10 years.

We should not be soft on crime and terrorism simply because someone in a funny hat does it. If we are soft on criminal cops then private citizens will continue to target and kill all cops. Protecting criminal cops endangers honest cops and their families. There is no reason to protect a criminal cop from justice.

Three more changes should be made to the law, preferably in the form of Constitutional amendments.

1. Federal, state, and local governments can make no laws restricting the possession, use, or sale of any drugs. This power has simply been abused too much. The permanent revocation of this power will serve as a reminder to the state not to overstep its bounds.

2. The use of animals in law enforcement for any reason is hereby forbidden. Again, this is because the power has been too widely abused. No trust means no power.

3. No police office can search any person, place, or thing without a court order. There is a limit on the total number of warrants issued at any level of government. That total for all levels combined is 1 warrant per 100,000 citizens per year. That gives any citizen about a 1% chance of being searched in his lifetime. That's more than enough if warrants aren't abused.

Fucking White Male says

I squatted down and dropped a steamer on the Koran. Did I do something wrong?

You are going to hell. And no virgins for you.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I would have stopped recording anyway. I would also let them search the car.


Why waste everyone's time?

To prevent crimes, to protect the Constitution, to eliminate the need for violent revolt and the systematic execution of police officers. All pretty damn good reasons to record and press charges.

Preventing crimes is exactly what cops are for. You are stopping them from doing their job, and in the process putting all of us at risk.

Dan8267 says

hree more changes should be made to the law, preferably in the form of Constitutional amendments.

1. Federal, state, and local governments can make no laws restricting the possession, use, or sale of any drugs. This power has simply been abused too much. The permanent revocation of this power will serve as a reminder to the state not to overstep its bounds.

2. The use of animals in law enforcement for any reason is hereby forbidden. Again, this is because the power has been too widely abused. No trust means no power.

3. No police office can search any person, place, or thing without a court order. There is a limit on the total number of warrants issued at any level of government. That total for all levels combined is 1 warrant per 100,000 citizens per year. That gives any citizen about a 1% chance of being searched in his lifetime. That's more than enough if warrants aren't abused.

If you run for President, all the criminals will vote for you.

Strategist says

Preventing crimes is exactly what cops are for. You are stopping them from doing their job, and in the process putting all of us at risk.

That cop wasn't doing his job. He wasn't investigating or preventing any crime. The cop decided he wanted to illegal search a citizen's property in the hopes of finding anything he could use to arrest that citizen out of pure spite.

He pretended that the dog was giving a signal, but obviously the dog gave no signal. The entire reason the courts let dogs be used to indicate probably cause is because false positives are unheard of. The fact that no contraband was found is clear proof that the dog gave no signal. The fact that the officer said it did after refusing to say what that signal would be is clear indication of criminal intent.

The officer then committed a felony breaking and entering into the citizen's vehicle and illegally searched it. This would be considered burglary in most, if not all, states.

Definition burglary - entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft.

Note that theft is not a requirement for a conviction of burglary. Any crime, including an illegal search, counts.

This cop's actions were purely criminal, purely spiteful, and in no way was done in the service of the public or to prevent or investigate a crime. You shouldn't give terrorists a free pass simply because they are paid with taxpayer dollars.

Strategist says

If you run for President, all the criminals will vote for you.

No one in Washington would vote for me.

Nor would this or any other criminal cop because I'm tough on crime, including crime committed using the power of the state.

PCGyver says

Not only is he an asshole but he is stupid as well and really shouldn't be a cop.

He should be a prisoner for the felonies he committed.

And the victim should be paid with the assets of the cop, including his house, rather than by the tax payer.

Dan8267 says

That cop wasn't doing his job. He wasn't investigating or preventing any crime. The cop decided he wanted to illegal search a citizen's property in the hopes of finding anything he could use to arrest that citizen out of pure spite.

PCGyver says

ablycause.

The cops had probable cause. They arrested the passenger. Obviously they would want to search the car he was riding in.
The driver/attorney could have just let the cops search and be on his way. What's the big deal? Why kick up a fuss? What did the driver gain in all this?

Strategist says

The cops had probable cause.

Do you even know what the word probable means? It means more than half the time. Searches done under probable cause would, by mathematical definition, result in finding illegal items more than half the times. The fact that this is not the case proves mathematically that the cause is not probable.

In this particular case, the criminal cop committed perjury by stating in an official report that the dog indicated the presence of drugs. The dog did not. If sniffer dogs were this fucking inaccurate then they could not be used as indication of probable cause.

The cop is a criminal and had criminal intent. Why do you coddle some criminals, strategist?

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

When a cop says 'search' he really means, 'plant cocaine' in the car so he can arrest you, drag you to jail, have you convicted of trafficking

Unfortunately, this is actually quite often true.

Also, if a cop can search your car without due process, he can search your ass or your daughter's pussy without due process, and yes, that does happen.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The cops had probable cause.

Do you even know what the word probable means? It means more than half the time. Searches done under probable cause would, by mathematical definition, result in finding illegal items more than half the times. The fact that this is not the case proves mathematically that the cause is not probable.

Don't you get tired of presenting your delusions as facts?

prob·a·ble cause
nounLAWNORTH AMERICAN
reasonable grounds (for making a search, pressing a charge, etc.).

It's obvious from the story and video evidence what happened. You are simply covering up for a criminal because you believe cops are above the law. You are an authoritarian and that is why your opinions should not be respected. You'd be happiest living in Nazi Germany. America is no place for you.