Illinois Cop Illegally Detains and Unlawfully Searches Innocent Workers

Blue Island Police Department Illinois Nevada Cop Block

Elias M. shared the content below, about the “service” he received from those at the Blue Island, IL. police outfit, via the Nevada Cop Block Submissions page.
IMG_0448Date of Incident: December 2014
Individuals Involved: Officer Colone Star – Badge #149, An Unidentified Sergeant
Outfit: Blue Island (IL) Police Department
Phone: 708-597-8601
Email: Mike Cornell – Deputy Chief of Police
Facebook Page: Blue Island Police Dept.
Area Cop Block Affiliate: There are several Cop Block groups within Illinois, to find the appropriate affiliate in your area consult the Cop Block Groups page.

I was working a typical day when I was boxed in with one squad car from the front and one squad car from behind by the Blue Island Police Department. They claim that there was a phone call, but no crime was committed, nor did they have a suspicion of me having committed a crime. When I was asked what I was doing, I told the officer that I was working. After I refused to produce an identification card, the officer got very aggressive and violent with his mannerisms and tone.

My coworker was so scared for his life that he gave his identification card immediately. The officer reached for his gun after asking me multiple times to leave my vehicle. I did not want to, but did from the fear for my life due to all the recent shootings. I did not want to be another dead victim. The officer then illegally reached in my pocket and removed my wallet, going through my personal items.

The most important part of this video is the end where the sergeant shows up and tells the officer “are you done here let’s be done and then me and you will talk”…I find it extremely interesting considering the video tape and the knowledge that the officer was in the wrong. After the matter, a neighbor came from their home to talk with us and I approached the neighbor asking if they were the one who called the police and they said yes. After explaining what had just happened they were almost in tears with the realization that calling the police is not always the best idea. Somebody could have been killed and that somebody could have been me.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Kelly W. Patterson

a lifelong resident of Las Vegas, who's been very active in local grassroots activism, as well as on a national level during his extensive travels. He's also the founder/main contributor of Nevada Cop Block, served as editor/contributor at CopBlock.org and designed the Official Cop Block Press Passes. ____________________________________________________________________________ Connect with Kelly at these social networks; Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Spread Nevada CopBlock!

Like what we are doing? Share it with the world.

200 Responses to “Illinois Cop Illegally Detains and Unlawfully Searches Innocent Workers”

  1. corkie January 5, 2015 at 4:28 am #

    Why on earth do so many cops think that they can demand an identification card from someone just because they “got a call’? The dumb cop is now on video showing the world that he’s ignorant.

    • t January 5, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

      cork:
      He was right. And what’s sio sad is….you should be applauding the officer for IDing unknown subjects who’s are acting suspiciously in the neighborhood.

      • corkie January 6, 2015 at 1:01 am #

        t, I know that you’re not very bright and that you don’t have a good understanding of legal issues, BUT police are NOT allowed to demand ID from people simply acting suspicious in a neighborhood. YOU SERIOUSLY NEED TO READ BROWN V TEXAS. This is a supreme court case that dealt this this EXACT situation. You are just embarrassing yourself by revealing your ignorance. But don’t feel bad. Far too many cops don’t understand the law. They mistakenly believe that they are allowed to demand an identification card from people just because they received a report of suspicious activity.

        • pickle January 6, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

          I know it’s frustrating, Corkie. But talking to t is like talking to a monkey at the zoo. He’s just gonna keep flinging poo at you.

      • Drakenfly January 6, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

        Poor boot licking t-ball….you really need to know the REAL law when trying to quoting it….

      • will January 7, 2015 at 1:31 am #

        Arrest
        A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
        The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
        An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority.

        Now look up legal definition of probable cause. It’s the only one that matters cause it’s in the constitution.

    • magormissabib January 6, 2015 at 8:46 pm #

      If someone made a call about suspicious behavior they show up. All that is required is for you to say your name and give a reasonable explanation for your being there.

      • will January 7, 2015 at 1:12 am #

        that’s not true. He did enough telling them what he was there for. He had the freedom of speech at all times. He had the 4th and 5th amendment asset all times.Once that officer dais that he wasn’t being detained at the moment, he should’ve just left everything alone, Now that officer will face false arrests charges for touching him and preventing him to leave without probable cause.This can be a big deal for those officers

        • magormissabib January 7, 2015 at 1:44 am #

          Youre not a lawyer are you. Get your facts straight. When the police are alerted to a suspicious activity they are conducting an investigation and they can detain you. You need to give your name and a reasonable account of yourself. Him saying he was working was certainly a reasonable explanation and the cop over reacted by demanding an id.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

            “” Youre not a lawyer are you. Get your facts straight. When the police are alerted to a suspicious activity they are conducting an investigation and they can detain you. “” – No, no, no, no. An alert to suspicious activity is NOT a legal basis for a detainment. The supreme court clearly stated this in Brown v Texas. Read it.

          • magormissabib January 7, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

            its known as a terry stop and you better not be a wise ass or you migght find yourlsef in jail.U.S. Courts have held that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses unusual items (like a wire hanger) which would be useful in a crime and is looking into car windows at 2 am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another officer, or a person is seen fleeing from a home or business with a sounding alarm Or just being in an unusal place at an unusual time. However, reasonable suspicion does not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a particular race or ethnicity

            Stop and identify statutes (refusing to identify oneself when detained may be a crime in some jurisdictions)

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:15 am #

            “” its known as a terry stop and you better not be a wise ass or you migght find yourlsef in jail. “” – Thanks, I know all about terry stops. Terry v Ohio.

            “” being in an unusal place at an unusual time. “” – The requirement isn’t just RAS. It’s RAS of a crime. It’s not illegal to be in an unusual place at an unusual time. What crime would be suspected?

          • t January 8, 2015 at 3:32 pm #

            cork;
            Not
            Quite
            Right

            It’s RS that crime may be afoot. We dont to know what specific crime. It’s not a BRD standard. It’s would a reasonable officer based on his training and experience that crime may be afoot.
            It’s not even PC….that a crime was probably commited and that this person probably commited it. RS is a very low standard.

          • corkie January 9, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

            “” We dont to know what specific crime. “” – You can’t articulate it if you don’t know. There is no RAS without articulation. You just have RS – which is not the legal threshold. But not I finally see the root of your problem.

            “” It’s not even PC….that a crime was probably commited “” – Let me help you out here, too. PC doesn’t require that a crime was more likely than not committed, so you shouldn’t use the term “probably committed.” You should know by now that the term probable cause is a misnomer, but your ignorance never surprises me.

          • t January 9, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

            cork:
            Your ignorance at this point doesn’t surprise me….it’s a given for you

            Let see if we can get you over some of your dumb
            Ok….how do you know that you have milk in you refridgerator?
            Now….you bought some yesterday and put it in there. And you live alone….so no one should have taken it. So it’s reasonable to beleive that it’s there right? But how do you know until to open the door to look?
            You can’t. You can “articulate”
            All of those facts….but you don’t know if it’s there or not until you look.
            Now that may seem like a ridiculous comparison. But it’s similar in that you suspect that it’s there….there are fact that point to it being there….but you don’t know until you investigate and see.

            That is why I keep telling you that you are using Brown v Texas wrong….because that case is in I way similar to this incident. Brown was about officers just seeing 2 guys waking in a bad area. There aren’t any other facts or inforamtion available to them. They didn’t observe anything else.
            In this instance…..a
            Knowledgeable caller clearly described the suspect being in or around a house that isnt theirs and that the homeowner was away.
            B I G difference than 2 guys waling in a bad area.

            And as for RS (only little goods that think they are clever use RAS…every attorney that stress that difference tends to get his ass handed to him in court)
            You won’t find a case that says I have to know exactly what crime is afoot. Why? Because you forget that the part about “may be commited”. And there may be multiple crimes involved.

            Heck….if you look, you’ll see that there is t a requirement that I even tell you why you are being arrested (there may be department policy or possible some state statute…but nothing more than that). That stuff is just TV and movies. Why? Because the exact charges may still have to be ascertained.

            I just have to be able to explain (in court…not in the street) what it wS that made me subsection that crime was or may be afoot. It can’t be a hunch….but it’s not much more than that.
            The same goes for an arrest. The investigation doesn’t have to be complete ,and in more serious case generally won’t be) I just have explain what crime was probably commited….and what facts point to this person as the subject that probably commited it.
            Now I know you don’t like those terms….but boiled for the listeners at home….that’s what it is.
            Those are the standards. It’s not BRD. Or “clear and convincing”. Or a perponderance. Or an absolute certainty.
            It’s simply just what would a reasonable officer believe based in his training and experience.

            Sorry if you don’t like that….but it is just that.

          • corkie January 12, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

            t, you continue to show how stupid and how willing to lie your are. In Terry v Ohio, Chief Justice Warren explained the details of the RAS. The detective only initiated additional observation after seeing suspects act in a strange manner in a high crime area. Then, the detective describes, in extensive detail, his reasons for suspecting that a “stick up” was a about to occur. Warren actually writes this in his ruling. A stick up is the actual crime that was suspected. Sorry, but a call about suspicious behavior does NOT meet the threshold for detainment, and citizens exercising their rights can’t be used to elevate the encounter to a detainment.

            I feel sorry for the citizens in your town.

          • magormissabib January 7, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

            22-2402. Stopping of suspect.
            (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any
            person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is
            committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand
            of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such
            suspect’s actions.

            (2) When a law enforcement officer
            has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and
            reasonably suspects that such officer’s personal safety requires it,
            such officer may frisk such person for firearms or other dangerous
            weapons. If the law enforcement officer finds a firearm or weapon, or
            other thing, the possession of which may be a crime or evidence of
            crime, such officer may take and keep it until the completion of the
            questioning, at which time such officer shall either return it, if
            lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:11 am #

            Pasting this was meaningless.

          • Shaarinya July 28, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

            no crime was reported as being committed by the caller.

            No crime was being committed by the police when they showed up.

            Go to law school before you pretend to know the law.

          • magormissabib July 28, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

            How about you go to school. . In the words of the
            United States Supreme Court, “An investigative stop
            must be justified by some objective manifestation
            that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged
            in criminal activity.”
            9
            Reasonable suspicion is similar to probable cause
            in that both terms designate a particular level of
            suspicion. They differ, however, in two respects.
            First, while probable cause requires a “fair probabil-
            ity” of criminal activity, reasonable suspicion re-
            quires something less, something that the Supreme
            Court recently described as a “moderate chance.”
            10
            Or, to put it another way, reasonable suspicion “lies
            in an area between probable cause and a mere
            hunch.”
            11
            Second, reasonable suspicion may be
            based on information that is not as reliable as the
            information needed to establish probable cause.Again quoting the Supreme Cour

          • Shaarinya July 29, 2015 at 7:41 am #

            I don’t need further law schooling.

            No crime was reported as being committed
            No crime was being committed when the cops arrived

            It was an abuse of police powers…once again. Stop defending cops doing the wrong things.

          • magormissabib July 28, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

            Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding stan-
            dard than probable cause not only in the sense
            that reasonable suspicion can be established
            with information that is different in quantity
            or content than that required to establish prob-
            able cause, but also in the sense that reason-
            able suspicion can arise from information that
            is less reliable.
            12
            Although the circumstances that justify detentions
            are “bewilderingly diverse,”
            13
            reasonable suspicion
            ordinarily exists if officers can articulate one or
            more specific circumstances that reasonably indi-
            cate, based on common sense or the officers’ train-
            ing and experience, that “criminal activity is afoot
            and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that
            activity.”
            14
            Thus, officers “must be able to articulate
            something more than an inchoate andunparticularized suspicion or hunch.

          • Shaarinya July 29, 2015 at 7:41 am #

            No crime was reported as being committed
            No crime was being committed when the cops showed up

            Or shall we start arresting people for sitting on park benches as well?

            Stop defending cops doing the wrong thing.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

            Do you think that cops should be allowed to detain a black man just because a caller alerts the cops that it’s suspicious for a black man to be walking in their neighborhood??? How about a white man in a black neighborhood.

          • magormissabib January 7, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

            If two guys are sitting outside in a car for a period of time in an area that is known for drug trafficking then that may be considered suspicious. The cops then have a job to do. to make sure that nothing is going on. In some states refusal to id yourself can get you arrested.

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:11 am #

            You didn’t answer my question.

          • Shaarinya July 28, 2015 at 12:57 pm #

            get YOUR facts straight.

            No crime was reported as being committed by the caller.

            No crime was being committed when the police arrived.

            You’re a fool. Kindly STFU. Oh…and I DO have law schooling, and you don’t know what you are talking about in the slightest.

            Fool.

      • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

        Suspicious behavior is not a crime. It’s not a crime to act suspicious. It is legal to act suspicious. A report of suspicious activity is a report of a legal activity. There is no basis for a detainment, therefore there is not requirement to provide your name or any explanation for your presence. Refusing to provide your name or explanation can’t then be legally used as a basis for the detainment or arrest. Educate yourself.

        • magormissabib January 7, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

          Is english your second language? The word suspicious behavior means that there is a suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. A cop can engage in what is referred to as a Terry stop if he has some reasonable suspicion (a term defined in statutes) that you have committed a crime or are about to, or if you are acting in a way that suggests a danger to the public. A Terry stop is custodial, which means you cannot legally walk away. Depending on the state you may be required to show ID or you may be required to truthfully identify yourself (name, address, age). Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop;[5] some states (e.g., Colorado[6]) require that a person detained provide additional information. As of November 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.

          • Shaarinya July 28, 2015 at 12:55 pm #

            you’ve been well trained haven’t you…

            so willing to give up you rights.

            It is not illegal to act suspicious. It is however illegal to demand identification and detain someone when no crime has been committed.

            A smart cop would have said, ‘are there any problems here?” reply-no
            Cop-we had a call you’ve been sitting here Reply-We’re here working
            Cop-have a nice day

            But no…power tripping pigs must escalate everything to declare their power over everyone else

            F*ck the police. They don’t own me, but you are obviously willing to be owned by them.

          • Shaarinya July 28, 2015 at 12:56 pm #

            oh…and by the way…

            no crime was reported as being committed, and they were not in the act of committing a crime.

            Sitting in a vehicle is not a crime.

            Sheeple. That’s you.

            so your WHOLE POST is wrong.

            No crime=no police.

            Have a nice day.

          • corkie July 28, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

            You’re an idiot. General suspicion is not Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) of a crime. Read Brown vs Texas, to avoid embarrassing yourself from now on.

          • magormissabib July 28, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

            Am I an idiot? are you a rude asshole? I dont reply to rude assholes.

          • corkie July 28, 2015 at 10:05 pm #

            I am definitely a rude asshole, but you’re an idiot. I don’t care if you reply or not.

  2. corkie January 5, 2015 at 4:30 am #

    “All ya gotta do is talk.” – No, actually, ya don’t gotta talk. Blue Island police supervisors need training.

    • ymygody January 5, 2015 at 10:27 am #

      you’re assuming that these pigs have the intelligence of a standard dog that could be trained. Your assumptions would be wrong.

  3. t January 5, 2015 at 9:45 am #

    Ahahahaha…that was great. Didn’t go the way you wanted huh sparky…The thugs need to learn.

    Moron copblockers need to learn your place….we don;t need a reason to “assault” you. Video all you want but don’t be two faced. I hope you enjoyed the “harassment”.

    • t January 5, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

      imposter t:
      That’s really pretty good.
      Only….there’s was no “assault”
      I didn’t see anything “two faced” in any of the comments so far. Stupidly..yes. But not “two,faced”
      And there wasn’t any “harassment” either.

      • pickle January 6, 2015 at 12:21 pm #

        Great, now I gotta figure out who is dumber. The actual “t” or the guy trying be as dumb as the actual “t”. Both are pretty dumb, BUT THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE “t”!!!! King of the dumbasses!!!! All hail the one true moron!!!

  4. JC January 5, 2015 at 9:58 am #

    The neighbors called the police and the PD checked them out. Of course it wouldn’t be a copblock story if there wasn’t at least one person who says they were scared for their life as a explanation for giving the PD their ID.

    • corkie January 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

      Checking something out doesn’t require violating someone’s rights.

      • JC January 5, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

        No rights were violated.

        • corkie January 5, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

          Please defend the statement. “All ya gotta do is talk.”

          • JC January 5, 2015 at 7:15 pm #

            ???

          • corkie January 5, 2015 at 8:03 pm #

            JC, you should just stick to trying to infuse doubt (regardless of how remote that doubt might be) into every CB article. Don’t try to argue the law with me. You will always lose.

          • pickle January 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

            See what I mean? Just flinging poo.

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

            I was reading CB comments prior to getting involved. I noticed t, JC, and Common Sense making irresponsible claims and decided to educate them when needed.

            I don’t always think they’re wrong, but their overly aggressive efforts to inject doubt into every CB story gets them into trouble.

          • t January 6, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

            cork:
            “Educate”

            Oh…I await that.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

            It’s happening right now.

          • t January 7, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

            About what? You’ve been wrong about everything so far.

            Are you edcating me on how to be wrong? If that’s the case….I’ll bow to the expert.

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:28 am #

            Oh please. I’ve owned you from the first day I started commenting on here.

          • JC January 7, 2015 at 10:31 am #

            So you choose to be a troll. I usually back up my statements with a link to the real story. You just sit in judgement trying to control those who don’t agree with you. The only irresponsible claims are coming from you. If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it and certainly don’t respond to it.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

            No, I chose to challenge your trolling.

          • JC January 8, 2015 at 10:12 am #

            No, you are trolling.

          • pickle January 6, 2015 at 12:31 pm #

            I’m sure these question marks are accompanied by the slightly moronic, drooling look a dog would have if asked the same question.

          • JC January 6, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

            Typical copblock circus monkey.

          • pickle January 6, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

            That’s funky monkey to you, buddy.

          • JC January 7, 2015 at 10:32 am #

            No it’s copblock circus monkey.

          • pickle January 7, 2015 at 12:20 pm #

            My bad, you’re right. Funky monkey is what your Dad calls me when I put it in. I keep telling him I charge way too much for gay sex, but he doesn’t care. Always says something about spending his worthless son’s inheritance. Go figure. Wait, is THAT why you’re so messed up? Daddy issues? That makes me laugh. Thinking about your dad all bent over grunting, “Funky Monkey!! Give it to me!!” He screams louder than your mom.

            Wow, your whole family is messed up. Hahaha!!

          • JC January 7, 2015 at 3:10 pm #

            The sad thing is there are more than likely homosexual people who come to this site like anyone else. They read crap like you wrote and they more than likely never come back and tell their friends what a homophobic website this is.

        • corkie January 5, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

          Please explain the basis of the detainment. Please articulate the reasonable suspicion of crime.

          • JC January 5, 2015 at 7:15 pm #

            The officers were investigating a call. There is always more to a story.

          • corkie January 5, 2015 at 8:02 pm #

            Ha ha ha ha ha!! That’s hilarious. Good luck using that as justification for your detainment in court. The fact that there’s been a report of a legal activity does NOT generate RAS. Good luck saying, “but Your Honor, there’s always more to the story so we demanded their identification, and we demanded that they answer our questions.” This type of police mentality is EXACTLY what the Supreme Court was addressing in Brown vs Texas. In Brown, the cops claimed that the suspect was generally suspicious and that they needed to know who the suspect was. The Supreme Court countered with this:

            “” Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.” Cf. Terry v. Ohio,392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society’s legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse,440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers’ actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant’s right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. “”

          • t January 5, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

            cork:
            Let’s walk through this slowly:
            What is e standard for the police to stop,someone?

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 12:54 am #

            “” What is e standard for the police to stop,someone? “” – Are you seriously asking me this? RAS that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.

          • t January 6, 2015 at 8:04 am #

            cork:
            Ok. RAS.
            -First….yourquote about what RAS is…is wrong. “A crime has been commited” is wrong. It’s has been commited, is being commited, is going to be commited. Those are key things that you left out. But hey….I give you credit as you are the first person in 2 years on this site that has answered that question.

            -Briwn v Texas. How do you see that as the same? Not even closely related.

            -this specific incident.
            Now….by the authors on admission….the neighbor called them in as suspicious. As in….going in and out of his neighbors house which the caller knew the noechborhood weren’t st home. We don’t of course have any specific knowledge of what the call consisted of or what was said or claimed.

            Now….in the context of RAS….do police officers know each and every homeowner in their beat? Of course not. Know when everyone is gone or home? Of course not.
            So when this knowledgable neighbor calls and says something like: my neighbors isn’t at home and there are 2 guys in a plain white van going in and out of the back of his house….this is what they are wearing and driving.
            So the police respond and wow….there are these 2 as described guy driving the as described van at the as described place….would YOU find it reasonable to beleive based on that that crime may be afoot?

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 10:54 am #

            “” Those are key things that you left out. “”

            t, are you seriously retarded? Reread what I wrote.

          • t January 6, 2015 at 11:20 am #

            cork:
            My apologies. I was reading and blurring your cents together. My bad.

            But….what about the ret if it?
            Can you now see how Brown v Texas has nothing to do with this incident….how they aren’t in anyway the same?
            As I described the situation….the same thing that the author did without all the dramatic and wrong info….as described….do you not see how it fits under RAS?

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 7:34 pm #

            “” My apologies. “” – Accepted, but you should now realize that I am very familiar with threshold criteria for detainment.

            “” what about the ret if it? “” – My comment still stands.

            “” Brown v Texas has nothing to do with this incident “” – It most certainly does.

            “” As I described the situation. “” – You made claims that run counter to what was described in the video.

          • t January 6, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

            Cork:
            “My comment still stands”. And it’s still,wrong as well.

            “It most certainly does”. The tow instances aren’t even similar in nature.

            “You made claims that run counter to what was described in e video”. No.
            – The author admits to being at the house.
            – the author discusses the neighbor acknowledging that he called the police because of their actions at the home of someone who wasn’t home.

            So….
            We have 2 unknown people…..doing something at a house that they don’t own….and a neighbor (who clearly knows the homeowner and that the homeowner isn’t home) who calls the police to protect his neighbors property.
            ALL of that is in the video and written story.

            So again I ask….with all of that…..do you think that an officer would be at RAS?
            I’ll help you out……the answer is clearly YES. Remember….we don’t have to know about a specific crime has been committed. Only that it is reasonable to believe that crime is afoot.

          • Common Sense January 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm #

            They will never get it.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

            t, those aren’t the only claims you made. It’s obvious that you aren’t very bright. Your claims about RAS aren’t correct. The cops had no reason to believe that a crime was afoot. They thought that it was possible that a crime could get committed by these guys, but that’s true everyone of everyone. Thinking that someone is possible is not a reasonable suspicion that it is happening. I know that this has never been explained to cops like you before, but you need to learn this.

          • t January 7, 2015 at 9:16 pm #

            cork:
            Certainly they had reason to believe that.
            Even without any first hand knowledge of what the caller claimed was going on…we have several facts and indicators.
            – 2 strangers/unknown subjects are at a home that:
            * Isn’t theirs
            * it’s knkwn that the homeowners isn’t at home.
            – The presence and behavior of these individuals was so unusual that the neighbor….who knows the homeowner….found it so suspicious that he called the police.
            – This was taking place during e daytime which is when the overwhelming amount of residential B&Es take place.

            Remember….we are only talking about RS. It’s only about 1.5 on a 0-10 scale. A stop can’t be made “on a hunch”. But RS isn’t much more than that. It’s more like an educated hunch. And from just the little info we know from the story…..clearly the police were at RS. HECK…I wasn’t even there and just based on what the author told us….got us to RS.

            Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

          • aflt January 6, 2015 at 3:02 pm #

            Where are you getting all this information about walking in and out of someone’s house when they aren’t there?

          • t January 6, 2015 at 5:05 pm #

            afit:
            I don’t know. But the author talks about being at the house “doing work”. Maybe it was all outside work. We don’t know…because he doesn’t tell us and we don’t knkw the nature of the call.
            It really doesn’t matter in the bigger picture of what happened.
            Remember. The NEIGHBOR…..who KNOWS that the HOMEOWNER is away (which it appears he is) and that it’s clearly unusual for anyone to be at the house (hence…he called the police about it)

            You need to keep in mind that RAS can grow. That means that what starts out as a very innocuous stop just to ask what they were doing….got escalated by the driver and his response to the officers presence. SCOTUS has held that the reaction to the officers presence can lead to RAS all on its own (based on the officers training and knowledge)

            So let me ask you what I asked corkie….based on what has been discussed….would you believe that it is reasonable for a police to believe that crime may be afoot based on the acknowledge facts that:
            -The neighbor clearly was concerned enough to call the police.
            -The driver was clearly being evasive with the officer
            -And the driver refused ro exit the vehicle when ordered
            ??

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 7:39 pm #

            “” We don’t know “” – But that didn’t stop you from making claims as if you did know.

            “” You need to keep in mind that RAS can grow. “” – Be careful here. A cop can’t claim that someone is being detained unless they already have sufficient RAS. They can’t use a claim of detainment in order to attempt to generate RAS.

            “” got escalated by the driver and his response to the officers presence. “” – You can’t use someone exercising their rights to generate RAS where no RAS previously existed. You can’t claim that you have RAS because a photographer taking pictures of a government building refuses to identify themselves.

            And again, neighbors calling about a legal activity doesn’t automatically generate RAS – no matter what your department’s policy says.

          • t January 6, 2015 at 8:42 pm #

            cork:
            Geez.

            Ok then…
            “Be careful here”. No dude. You need to stop thinking you know everything. Clearly there was RAS to stop the subjects. RAS can grow due to their actions “post stop”. Evasiveness is a big clue. And this guy is quite evasive….and for no reason (according to him). What all of that means is the “detention” can be lengthened…..more police contact

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:59 pm #

            “” RAS can grow due to their actions “post stop”. “” – Of course it can. But you can’t detain someone, and then generate RAS because someone is exercising their rights. You need to be schooled about this.

          • t January 7, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

            cork:
            To address both of those ridiculous comments.

            No where did I say “indefinite”. I said it can be lengthened greatly IA’s long as my investigation is deli gently moving forward.
            As for anything “post stop”. It can stand on its own….but it can be added rogether to move towards PC. But your actions “post stop” can definitely give rise to additional RS and lengthen the time of the stop.

            YOU need to be schooled in all of it.
            It’s like you know the words but don’t know how they fit and work together.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

            “” I can lengthen that detention as long as my investigation is diligently moving forward. “” – This isn’t true. The supreme court has stated that detention time needs to be reasonable if you aren’t able to generate probable cause for arrest. It’s most certainly not indefinite.

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 12:56 am #

            “” What is e standard for the police to stop,someone? “” – And why would you use the term “stop,someone”? Why wouldn’t you use the proper legal term, detain?

          • JC January 6, 2015 at 10:05 am #

            Again, the police were doing an investigation. Nothing will come of this. It is their job to Investigate. The whole I’m scared for my life is just BS. Copblockers say that as an excuse to follow the law and give the PD ID while trying to save face.

          • corkie January 6, 2015 at 7:31 pm #

            “” the police were doing an investigation. “” – It’s funny that you think that an investigation is some magical thing that gives cops the right to do whatever they want.

        • Drakenfly January 6, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

          Actually they were Jr. Cunt…

    • pickle January 6, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

      Wouldn’t be a CB article without some moron blindly supporting the police. And there you are, JC. Lemme ask you this, what would it take for you to NOT just taking the cop’s side and look at an article objectively? I know a lot of these articles are….not so well written and a lot of them are blatant lies, but I’ve never seen you do anything but kiss the butts of every cop in every article.

      • JC January 6, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

        Another ridiculous rant by a copblocker. As I have pointed out, I wouldn’t’ support a police officer is he intentionally murdered someone, raped someone, ect.. What does it matter? I state what I feel is right and that is my right. You have no control over it.

        • corkie January 6, 2015 at 7:44 pm #

          So, if a cop isn’t raping or murdering someone, then you’ll refuse to look at an article objectively?

          • JC January 7, 2015 at 10:32 am #

            That is the stupidest thing you have said as of yet. Congratulations.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 5:03 pm #

            That’s exactly what you implied. You’re not much smarter than t.

          • JC January 8, 2015 at 10:13 am #

            Implied? In other words. You were two stupid to understand so you filled in your gaps with your own words.

          • corkie January 9, 2015 at 1:44 pm #

            Ha ha ha. Learn the difference between implied and inferred. YOU implied. Someone asked what it would take for you NOT to blindly support the cops. You answered with murder and rape.

          • JC January 9, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

            Again, you continue to spout off rhetoric. You are placing words in people’s mouths because they don’t follow your beliefs.

          • corkie January 12, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

            I didn’t place any words in your mouth. I described logical inferences from what you clearly implied. Do you seriously not understand the difference. Good grief, you really aren’t mentally equipped to debate the law online.

          • corkie January 12, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

            I can’t wait to read more stupid comments from you in the future.

          • JC January 12, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

            I was just saying that about you not too long ago.

          • corkie January 13, 2015 at 5:12 am #

            The difference is that you make plenty of stupid comments. The one above is a perfect example. Your blind desire to defend all cops’ actions prevents you from seeing this objectively far too often.

          • JC January 13, 2015 at 9:43 am #

            You must be the expert of plenty of stupid comments. If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it and certainly don’t respond to it.

          • corkie January 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

            You got me all wrong. I LOVE the fact that you write such stupid comments. I will make a special point of reading and responding to ALL of your comments.

          • JC January 13, 2015 at 3:09 pm #

            So basically you will be stalking me. That is about right on copblock. So I will be stalked by someone named “corkie” the roving butt plug.

          • corkie January 13, 2015 at 6:32 pm #

            Stalking? Wow, you really are paranoid! I’m going to make sure that I read your comments on here. So, much entertainment value in them.

          • JC January 13, 2015 at 6:35 pm #

            No, a butt-plug who calls himself corkie likes to stalk people. You must want a lot of attention.

          • kate January 18, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

            little pussy.

          • JC January 18, 2015 at 2:48 pm #

            Yes you are.

          • corkie January 13, 2015 at 5:14 am #

            And you still need to learn the difference between implied and inferred.

  5. ymygody January 5, 2015 at 10:25 am #

    And this is a perfect example of why nobody cares when a random pig gets shot in the face. These dumb shits will just keep walking over peoples rights until the body count gets high enough.

    • t January 5, 2015 at 11:10 am #

      The smart ass wanted to talk about his rights….you threaten an officer you get dealt with…old school pd…..I love it when dumbasses know their rights…it’s funny…you know I love these types who know there rights get a taste of justice.

      • ymygody January 5, 2015 at 11:39 am #

        You forgot to misspell some of your words. if you’re going to impersonate, you have to do it correctly.

      • Elizabeth Horton January 6, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

        Sounds like you are a police officer and are premeditating acts of violence against citizens who flex their rights

      • Drakenfly January 6, 2015 at 4:35 pm #

        I know 2 fucking idiot cops that got justice and deserved it…I danced when I heard the news…it was calming knowing to fucktard cops where literally blown off the street…I heard there were 2 more knuckle draggering cops put into the hospital as well right after the 1st two’s funerals. I totally agree with you on the old school thing…I love it when dumbasses know their rights…it’s funny…you know I
        love these types who know there rights get a taste of justice.

        • David Benson January 6, 2015 at 5:18 pm #

          So you are a real keyboard badass lol just remember you could be the next one thats shot

          • Drakenfly January 6, 2015 at 6:07 pm #

            Boo hoo cry some more bitch boy…

        • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

          No body should die, not even cops…That’s whole point…Being vindictive doesn’t solve anything………

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

            duck:
            You need Google “Arizona activist take police training”
            A big time anti-cop activists took a little police training and it’s all on video.
            It changed his tone pretty quickly.

            You should give it a look and take a reality check.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

            Yes, I saw that. I agree that when necessary, there is no other thing a cop can do…

            The training didn’t include shooting of people in the back over jaywalking or some other petty misdemeanor or beating of handcuffed suspects. Or explain how a suspect with his hands cuffed behind his back can shoot himself in the front of his chest., or how a person in a single occupant holding cell can be beat to death and no one in the police force knows anything about it.

            Little things like that will arouse suspicion in rational people’s minds, not so with the police….

          • t January 10, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

            duck:
            I just saw this post. What a mess

            Again….keep in mind:
            45 MILLION direct police contacts per year
            400 police related deaths.

            Now…..I know at your claimed (but clearly disproven) age of 80….maybe you nevr encountered a drugged up and limber teenager with a gun. Huh. We deal with them all the time. But immsure you’re one of the idiots that think the officer in Cleveland who shot the kid with the fake gun did something wrong….even when it’s clear as a bell.

            Oh well….you keep living that unlucky life and blaming everyone else.

          • dufas_duck January 10, 2015 at 11:12 pm #

            How many of those drugged up and limber kids did you kill?? Do you keep score and give prizes out at the end of the week?? Maybe playing cards mounted on a plaque, red for wounding, black for killing. Look forward to seeing a photo of you posing with your latest kill just like a hunter with moose, deer, or bear…

            Anyway, aren’t you supposed to be out beating and killing the great unwashed into submission while figuring out how to cover for each other when something doesn’t look just right…. Good hunting, watch for stray bullets….. Never mind, collateral damage doesn’t mean anything….

      • Jon January 6, 2015 at 5:15 pm #

        Are you saying he did not have any rights? That guy was 100% correct. He has no obligation to provide ID.

      • dufas_duck January 6, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

        Why don’t you explain exactly what rights a person has when approached by police,

        I suspect that the answer you’ll give is “None’….

        • t January 7, 2015 at 9:13 am #

          Jon & duck & Elizabeth:
          First….the comment you posted under wasn’t the real me. It was one of the many imposters that post here trying to smear me. And that’s ok…I can take it.

          -Violence against citizens.
          There was no “violence”
          -obligation to provide ID & his rights.
          Quite right sir. I go into below in detail. He didn’t have to speak or respond in any way to the officer.
          But that doesn’t mean that the officer has to say “oh…you don’t want to talk to me…we’ll have a nice dY and safe motoring”. As has been detailed many times on this site….the “never talk to the police” mantra can lead to linger detentions andore poloce contact.

          In the bigger picture….the officer is doing exactly what he is sworn to do. Our top priorities are to protect life and property. With what was apparently called in to the PD….the officer stopping this guy and asking a couple of simple questions was the right thing tondo to protect the homeowners property rights. When the author/driver became evasive and defiant over something so simple….the officer was right to be more suspicious.

          Think of like this….is it normal for a legitimate contractor to be evasive about what he is doing at a home where the homeowner isn’t present? Or is it more normal for polite conversation of “we were contracted to do such and such. Here’s my work order officer”.
          For while the author has he rights….so does that homeowner.

          So yes….the driver has he rights. I didn’t see anywhere in the video not anywhere in the written story that any of those rights were violated.

          • dufas_duck January 7, 2015 at 12:50 pm #

            What rights??

            Once again I ask, exactly what rights does a person have when approached by the police…??

            Not a description of this or any other scene. What are the exact rights??

          • t January 7, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

            duck:
            Sorry….I figured you could follow along above.

            What rights?
            Well….his has a right to die his hair pink if he wants. Or pierce his ears or nose. To get tattoos if he wants.
            But I suspect that’s not the point you trying to make is it?

            Well…..
            -He has the right remain silent (as I went into above). He didn’t exercise that right. He decided to go the beligerent and intimidation route instead.
            And what I think you wanting to discuss:
            -He has a fourth ammendment right to be secure in his papers and possession and to be free from “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

            So…..what is your point? Was there an “unreasonable” anything here on the part of the police?

            Keep in mind….the Constituion and the constitutions created GOVERNMNET. Nothing…..NOTHING…on the “Bill of rights” and specifically the 4th amendment prohibits GOVERNMNET contact.

            So…..what is your issue here specifically?

          • dufas_duck January 7, 2015 at 4:35 pm #

            From a technical stand point, the only right a person has is staying silent…but that pisses off most policemen which in turn pushes a cop to start with the bullying which escalates into beating and killing.

            Wouldn’t it be more honest to say no one has any rights when approached by a policeman.

            Any rights that one may have is only at work in a court setting and even that is suspect at anytime..

          • t January 7, 2015 at 6:10 pm #

            duck:
            No…it’d be stupid to say that.
            But it’s also stupid advice to say….like the mantra of this site….never talk to the police.
            Because again…..just because you don’t want to talk….that doesn’t mean the contact ends. That will generally lead to much longer detentions and will likely only increase the chances you will be arrested.
            Again….that’s clearly your choice. Nowhere does the Constituion say that there aren’t consquences for exercising a right. And that right to remain silent is a good example. You can exercising it all you want….but that doesn’t change the rest of the situation.

          • dufas_duck January 7, 2015 at 7:36 pm #

            Police put people into a catch 22. When an innocent person is arrested by police, they go to court and end up paying some lawyer to prove their innocence, some end up bankrupt. Before you state that a lawyer will be appointed for them, note that very few pro-bono lawyers ever win in court, most are no more than interns at some legal firm.

            As far as the policeman is concerned, they could care less if a person is innocent or guilty… Where do you think police staying of ‘Tell it to the judge’ came from.

            Police operate on everyone is guilty until it can be made so.

            As an aside, when a policeman makes a mistake, some innocent pays the price. Very few cops will own up to being wrong and cops investigating themselves is an evil joke. Even when when ‘lost’ video shows up that shows the cop wrong, police will still line up and cover for a bad cop.. Would you let a criminal investigate themselves??

            Then there is the swat teams raiding the wrong house, beating the occupants, terrorizing and injuring children, destroying the house, even after the cops realize they assaulted the wrong address. ..even then, police are given a pass and leave their victims with huge costs to rebuild their lives. We had one swat attack last month which was a wrong address. An elderly couple slammed to the floor, the woman ended up with a broken are and the man with a concussion from a rifle butt. The police chief did mention that the wrong address was assaulted,but, no policeman was held responsible for any wrong doing. Why bother having warrants, just attack any home that the police want to mess up and let it go at that…It would work out the same….

            One cannot prove to cop that one is innocent during the original detainment because most cops will take that as being uncooperative and another beating begins…

            Of coarse, from the view of the police, they never do anything wrong…just ask any policeman…

          • t January 7, 2015 at 9:00 pm #

            duck:
            Admit what? That you have rights? Of course you do. But like a wrote…and have explained many times…..you decions can have consquences.
            Like I’ve explained in an incident like this. The “facts” (I use that loosely as the source of those facts has a very titled and slanted presentation.
            But in a situation like this:
            -Unknown subjects
            -At a house where the homeowner isn’t at home
            -During the middle of the day (which is when most residential,break ins occur)
            -Doing something either in or around that house.
            -A knowledgable neighbor calls.

            Now…..if you change the encounter just a bit…..and the driver of the vehicle remains silent.
            Now….with the driver (and passenger) remaining silent….the police still have to find out what happened.
            So what can the officers do? Well…..they can get the people out of the van (we don’t have to have any justification or reason to do,so)…..maybe pat them down….sit them on the curb. They can run the vans tag And see who it belongs too. They can see if there is anything in plain view inside the van (if so…possibly search the van. The can go talk to the neighbor. They can go look around at the house….see if anything is tampered with or out of the ordinary. They can try to find a phone number for the homeowner and call and verify if there was soppusd to be anyone at the house.
            ALL of that while the driver is just cooling his heels on the curb. And all of that can take a while to complete. Especially finding that phone number and calling the homeowner. And there no rights violation….nothing improper…..nothing wrong. And that may well not lead to any arrests at all.
            OR…..there could be a simple and polite conversation and everyone can be on their way quite quickly.

            As for “tell it to the judge”
            We investigate and determine if their is PC to charge some one. We don’t determine guilt. We don’t have to listen to your excuses for things. You can give those excuses to the judge. It’s not my job to try the case. It’s my job to investigate and charge if there is PC.

          • dufas_duck January 7, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

            >As for “tell it to the judge”
            We investigate and determine if their
            is PC to charge some one. We don’t determine guilt. We don’t have to listen to your excuses for things. You can give those excuses to the judge. It’s not my job to try the case. It’s my job to investigate and charge if there is PC.<

            That's the point, if someone can prove to you that they are not the criminal, it doesn't matter to you. You suspect someone and then make life hell for an innocent person. When just a few moments of time without jumping into your police rage, everything could be cleared up. I've gone through it before and lost jobs and savings because a cop just makes things difficult. Your statement that innocence is the same as excuses is very telling of your mindset. It must be an 'excuse' that you arrest a completely innocent, wrong person, correct??

            If your so great in your analysis of any situation, get rid of the courts and perform summary judgement on the spot… Like I said before, police make a mistake, an innocent pays……..

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:25 am #

            “” Your statement that innocence is the same as excuses is very telling of your mindset. “” – Yes. That was my first thought, too. I’m so happy that cops like t are so honest and revealing on this website.

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

            ‘T’ reminds me of the management of a company that I once worked for.

            An expensive tool was missing from the tool room. The head manager looked at the sign-out sheet and confronted the last man that signed out on the tool. The guy said he put the tool back but the tool room attendant didn’t sign it back in nor did he remember anyone bringing it back. The last guy to use the tool was adamant that he returned the tool and a big ruckus ensued. The guy was fired…

            Around a week later, one of the mid-managers came back from a three week vacation carrying the tool. Everyone saw him with the tool and asked him about it. He took the tool to make some additions to his house. The tool room attendant suddenly remembered about about the manager taking the tool and that he might not have signed the tool back in.. The manager was told about the other guy getting blamed for the missing tool. When he heard this, he began laughing saying that the joke is on him. The other managers began joining on on the ‘good’ laugh. Not one manager gave a damn that an innocent person was blamed and lost his job over the manager’s and tool room attendant’s mistake.

            This just reminded me of the callousness that police display at all times except when they are looking for good PR…

          • t January 9, 2015 at 7:54 am #

            duck:
            You really must be unlucky
            Lived in Rampart
            Worked for a callous boss
            Arrested as s John with your wife as a hooker
            Arrested for streaking your own car.

            Wow. Maybe it’s you guy.

            12,000,000 arest per year….and you are part of that stat.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 1:10 pm #

            Yep, and there is even more that happened….

            Funny thing is that I grew up with a guy that was just the opposite. Everyone would say that he was the kind that could fall out of a ten story window and land in a passing hay wagon then come up with a $100.00 bill clenched in his teeth….. whereas, I could be walking down the street in broad daylight and a cop would stop me and begin asking me questions. Back when the police would actually talk to a person, the cop would say I looked suspicious. They never would say how I looked suspicious, just that I looked that way… You tell me, what makes a person look suspicious??

            I was born and raised in a small mountain town. It supported around 20,000 people at any one time and had, on average, 20 to 25 cops on duty. That one cop for every 1000 people, quite different than you 1 to 5000 ratio. Some cops still walked a beat. They had to buy their own guns and ammo. A few of them carried the Colt 45 revolver once a favorite of the cowboys from just a generation before. The down side of those 45s were that the bullet could travel through a couple of walls and take out anyone in it’s way. Collateral damage, no big deal…just another day for the cop. You would love the police there. Most of them carried saps, leather bags that were filled with lead or steel shot. When one was beat with a sap, very few marks would be left on the victims skin, but the sap would cause extensive damage to anything that was below the skin. Worked well during interrogation. Nearly a 100 percent confession rate whether guilty or not. I was lucky enough never to make it that far…

            The town still had dirt or clay streets and wooden side walks in places down town. Until I was 16, I had never lived in a house that had indoor plumbing or running water. Hand pumps in the back yard or the back porch and buckets to carry the water to where ever one needed it. Wood stoves and ice boxes. We had outhouses…I could never understand a two holer though, I could never think of anybody that I would want to share a crap with. Some houses had electricity. the wiring was run on the surface of the walls on little stand-offs.

            Sodas were $0.10, movies were $0.25, gas was $0.18, bought a car for $15.00, average house rented for $30.00 a month or one could sleep in a $0.50 a night flop house or pay $15.00 a month for the same room and bath…

            Oh well, I realize that history starts when you were born and anything that falls outside your experience, you take it as a lie. If something is outside of your experience, it doesn’t exist… Besides, this is normal for a cop, everyone is a liar a and guilty of something, you just haven’t caught them yet…and being a cop, your never wrong………

          • t January 9, 2015 at 4:19 pm #

            duck:
            I didn’t make real FR before I had to stop.
            25 guys on duty for 20,000 people. That would be at least 100 officers in a town of 20,000 for a per officer ratio of 1-200. That did t happen. I suspect that you meant that the PD had 25 guys total.
            With the number…..not ALL 25 would be on duty at the same time…24/7/365.
            With at least 4 shifts…that’s 6 guys on duty (maybe….if there weren’t any admin people or detectives or specialty positions….which I’m sure there were. So that gives you a 1-3200ish ratio. Someone calls in sick? 1-4000. Someone on vacation too? 1-5000.
            See how that works. The raw total number of officers is fooling you because you didn’t think it through.

            Oh….and in a little mountain town when you were growing up 60-70 years ago based on your claim of being nearly 80…..70 years ago would be the late 40’s. In a town of 20,000 then there was likely only 8-10 officers total. Likely less. And maybe only a couple of vehicles.

            Anyway….I get back to your story and see if there is anything else
            That doesn’t make sense

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

            duck:
            Ok….I finished that story

            First…45s. The reason themitaey and poloce use 45s is that they are a large, slow bullet that transfers energy very well. The reason they transfer energy well? They don’t tend to over penetrate. And in the houses of the 40s and 50s….built with old growth lumber (as opposed to mordern stick built houses that use light weight farm grown tress that aren’t very dense) and walls of latte boards and real plaster…your going through several walls idea fades pretty quick. TV myth stuff that is.

            Now….I’m not anywhere near 80 years old like you claim….but I wasn’t born last night.

            When o was young….my dad was chief of a place of similar size. Through the 60’s (a much more trying time than the 40s) they had 4 guys and 2 cars. In the 70s they got up to 8 guys. Those 1000-1 ratios were not even thought of in the 40s. Seems like your story starts to fall apart

            But hey…..it’s your story.
            80 and trolling cop hater sites
            Arrested for picking up his wife who was arrest as a hooker
            Arrested for stealing his own car
            Lived in Rampart
            Grew up in a town with one of the largest per capita police forces
            In the nation.

            Oh..,,I missed the 40s “flop house”. Nice.

            But you live as you’d like. You think as you’d like. That’s the beauty of this country. Can can do and say what you’d like.

            And none of that changes the facts of this incident.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 7:06 pm #

            Not all towns are as you want them to be…..

            The town was a rough, logging town.. A lot of itinerant workers. The 20,000 was the permanent citizens. Why does everything have to fit you perception. Do you run the world now?? Or are you just that thick headed??

            I did move to a small town that only had one officer, he was also the head of the volunteer fire department and the local post master. There was a circuit judge that came through once a week unless he was working a large trial.

          • t January 9, 2015 at 7:35 pm #

            duck:
            Dude….it is t perception….it’s ridiculiusnrss.
            The numbers you gave….on the 1940s….is
            simply ridiculous.
            Your 1-200 ratio is an invasion.
            The tax base for that would have
            been enormous.
            I grew up in a hard drinking steel town.
            My dad did it why 4 guys TOTAL.
            Meaning 1 working at a time. And that
            was during a much more turmultous time
            than post war 40s.
            1 guy at a time in a similar sized town.

            Oh….and your “sap”info is bad too.
            How do you break bones and cause
            serious injury….with no marks.
            Oh….you dont. Sap’s caused lots
            of very visible injury

            Any way guy….yoursef must suck.
            80 years old and trolling cop hater
            sites. I’ll you credit. My dad is the
            same age and can’t really do more
            than check the local news and
            weather.
            But not you boy
            Your sharp
            Not bright….but really sharp for 80

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 9:02 pm #

            typical cop thinking…your way or else………

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 3:21 pm #

            >”…you decions can have consquences”<
            But yours don't no matter how wrong they are??? Oooops, I forgot, you are above the law, ethics, morals, and empathy…sort of god like with no responsibility for your actions.

            Making the statement that a citizen has rights is and following with your 'probable cause' retort negates any supposed rights that one of us peons may have and you know it.

          • t January 8, 2015 at 6:22 pm #

            duck:
            You really have been sold some bad info.
            In every jurisdiction I know of (there can of course be something strange that I’m not aware of) police officer present their case to a judical official of some kjnd. Be it a judge/magistrate…whatever that jurisdiction has established as a title….to get a finding of PC when someone is arrest or an arrest warrant is drawn. That gives a neutral party a look at it before the process moves forward very far. And PC does get denied at that point at times.

            Officers who do things wrong get disciplined a the time. I don’t know of a current officer who had intentionally arrested someone they shouldn’t have.

            You really have to keep in mind the standards we are talking about. RS to stop someone is really quite low. PC to arrest is not really that much higher. It’s a significant jump to BRD for a conviction. People get arrested at PC…..withiut enough evidence to get to BRD all the time. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Physical arrest can often just be a tool to calm a situation. PC still has to exist….but even if I knkw that I can never get a conviction….removing someone who is causing the problem and they won’t leave on their own…they can go to jail. Charges may well be dismissed but that doesn’t make the arrest bad or wrong.

            I think you have been emboldened by bad info from those like corkie who have it wrong He seems to want absolute certainty to be the standard just to stop someone. And that’s not what the courts have said.

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 6:55 pm #

            I haven’t been embolded by anybody, this comes from experience.

            One example I can give is when my wife’s car broke down. She didn’t have a cell phone at the time. She walked to a small store and they let her use the phone.

            As she started to get into my car, several police came rushing in from all sides. She was arrested for being a prostitute and I, for being her john… She was put into handcuffs, placed into a police car and they drove off. I was beat on for a short time while being called a pervert and a sex fiend, then shoved in a police car and taken to jail.

            It wasn’t until hours later that when the police were about to have our cars towed away that some cop that at least had a brain discovered that both cars had the same registration address and two people were booked into jail with the names that were on the registration. Some cop with a lot of stripes on his sleeve came to speak to me. He at least listened and I was released as long as I signed a paper stating that I wouldn’t sue the police. My wife said the same thing happened to her. The police told us both that if we didn’t sign, they would let the charges stand and hold us for court. He said that the police would likely loose but we would be hurting just the same for not signing.

            The police used your reasoning as to innocence being the same as ‘excuses’. They separated us. There was no conformation of information that we attempted to give the police, it was shut up and do as your told or else. Just as you state how you handle any situation….. As I attempted to get through to you, a few minutes, check information saves everybody a bunch of trouble.

            Then there was the time I arrested for stealing my own car, but that’s a police exploit for another time or when I was supposed to be a major drug dealer.. When one lives a long time and used to love freedom, one is faced with more risk by eager beaver police that don’t give a damn about people. Trust a cop with anything is asking for trouble….

            Your way…why don’t you just pick people out at random and make up some charges to arrest them. Probable cause can be anything you say, after all, you are a policeman and everything you say is the truth, isn’t it???

          • t January 8, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

            duck:
            Sounds incredibly believable.
            Well…not really.

            I guess most people just don’t live a lifestyle that brings them into constant contact with the police. Most of the time….there is only 1 officer for every 8000-9000 people in the city I work in.
            You must be incredible unlucky.

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 11:26 pm #

            Nope, just have lived a long time, I’m one of those elderly that is an easy mark for police. After nearly 80 years on this earth, I’ve been beaten three times, arrested many times but never convicted because the police can’t get their stories straight and I was lucky enough to run into the one or two honest cops each time that used their heads and that didn’t innocence and ‘excuse’ were the same thing……. Excuse is when someone is trying rationalize and get out of a situation, innocent is a person that has nothing to do with whatever you are trying foist on them.. Do you have that part straight now??

            Some time, if your interested, I’ll relate how I got arrested for stealing my own car… but, in true police form that you carry around in your imagination…I doubt you will pay attention, there can only be one way to look at things and that is your way… By the way, how many people have you killed in all, maybe a few jaywalkers or someone you thought was trespassing on their own property??? Bet it felt good to you…….

          • t January 9, 2015 at 9:08 am #

            duck:
            So…..now your and 80yeR old guy…..that lived in Rampart, got arrested for being a John when picking up your own wife on the street, worked for a horrible company, got arrested for stealing his own car…….and as this 80 year old yoj troll a cop hater site that’s maknky about dope love.

            Wow

            What a story

            Ok then.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 2:39 pm #

            Nope, not trolling as you are. Ran across your police PR where you are trying to explain how perfect the police are and how the police are given a pass no matter what the police do…

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

            duck:
            Really…you saw that? Can you show me where because I haven’t seen it ever?

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 6:35 pm #

            Ah, police self investigation at work…

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm #

            Right here in your posts……….

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

            You police keep profiling everybody. Run your profiling mind and describe what and who you think I am….

            Profile me….

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 3:40 am #

            >”Sounds incredibly believable.
            Well…not really.”<

            Well, typical cop talk, everything is a lie … Maybe your not a cop but a well versed cop wanna-be strutting your fingers across a keyboard, living your own , small fantasy… Maybe your a rent-a-cop with delusions of grandeur. Or you are a sadist, self center boy in blue that only sees the world the you imagine it to be.not realizing there are other realities besides you warped view….

          • t January 9, 2015 at 8:57 am #

            duck:
            No….it soy da like BS that you are selling to have some kinda street cred.

            Just look at these 2 stats to see how crazy your standpoint is.
            45,000,000 direct police contacts per year
            12,000,000 arrests
            That’s a 33,000,000 person difference.
            That’s kinda significant.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 11:38 am #

            You missed a few………

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

            Stats mean nothing except to those that lean on them. That’s like saying that ‘only’ 1500 people has been killed by cops in the last 5 years and this is out of 350,000,000 citizens, so there is nothing to be concerned about….

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm #

            duck:
            Stats can mean anything the user wants.
            I like that you use a realistic number like 1500 over the last 5 years. That’s close to that average of around 400 per year.

            Hey….did you know that the flu kills 36,000 per year? Huh, wow that’s a lot.
            And drunk drivers killed over 10,000 and injured nearly 300,000. Hmmm
            12,000ish murders per year. Hoooo.

            240,000,000 911 calls (corrected from a source that was estimating non-emergency line calls and adding). per year. Where I work….fire and EMS don’t go to much without the PD. We don’t count those calls into our stats though.

            So yeah…..stats mean can mean a lot or nothing depending on the totality of each instance.
            45,000,000 direct police contacts. 400 police related deaths. Hmmmm

            Oh….none of this changes what happened on this instance.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 6:35 pm #

            Finally………

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 7:18 pm #

            >”Officers who do things wrong get disciplined a the time. I don’t know
            of a current officer who had intentionally arrested someone they
            shouldn’t have.”<

            That's another police joke, isn't it. There are confessed child molesters that are still policemen, there are cops who framed people by planting evidence that are still policemen.. I just finished reading a government report of 'one' cop that has 40 different charges against him over the last few years that he has admitted to. He has been fired from five other police agencies and he now has another charge against him…He was just fired last month and now he is working as a cop again… The police using their usual "We have investigated ourselves and found we never do anything wrong" has worked overtime for this cop… And discipline that includes a paid vacation of undetermined length is not really much of a deterrent, is it?? Unless your the type of cop that wants to get back in the saddle and crack some heads…

            You sound like the perfect officer to fit in at the Rampart area of LA…. I lived there for a while, the police were worse than the gangs…but we could protect ourselves from the gangs..we couldn't even talk to the cops…

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 8:28 pm #

            As for the the police presenting their case…not here. Many police were not showing up to testify, so they changed it where the police report is presented to the DA’s office and a pre-trial hearing is scheduled. A junior DA presents the police report to the court. No suspect can question the police officer unless or until it goes to trial. If it goes to trial, there are usually more charges added that were invented by the police and the DA’s office. A simple refusal to sign a traffic ticket can explode into a potpourri of charges that can make fighting a traffic ticket into the next Al Capone trial. Then they now have added an automatic fee if one wants to plead not guilty to charges. The fee usually is above what the original fine might be if a guilty plea is entered and the fine paid. So, the police are nothing more than footmen for a extortion racket in the area where I live. They are even thinking of charging anyone who calls the police for time the police spend on the call. [Although, they are taking their time and possibly rethinking that plan… Quite a racket. Reminds me of the New York years ago where a scheme to save court time and the police would collect fines at the time of the traffic stop……, only it was found that the police carried two sets of ticket books and was pocketing the monies collected….. As usual, no policemen were brought up on charges for this either….everything was normal..

          • t January 8, 2015 at 10:52 pm #

            duck:
            There are lots of places that present to a DA. The DA….who will have to prosecute decides if he will move the case forward.
            None of what I described is a chance for “questioning the officer”. It’s a presentation of the facts that lead to the officer having PC. Its not “court” in that sense.
            But you are even admitting that you know that officers have to present there case to someone else. BTW….that’s why it’s almost impossible to sue for “false arrest” even if charges are eventually dismissed or you are acquitted.

            Oh…I love the explosion of charges crap. You beleive everything this site sells you.

            I beleive there are still places where fines can be paid “on the spot”. I think Sputh Carolina still does that. Crazy.

          • dufas_duck January 8, 2015 at 11:43 pm #

            >”BTW….that’s why it’s almost impossible to sue for “false arrest”
            even if charges are eventually dismissed or you are acquitted.”Oh…I love the explosion of charges crap. You beleive everything this site sells you.”<

            I should believe you??? Your the guy that wouldn't think twice about screwing someone's life up and apparently, just for the fun of it…

            I was being facetious, [sarcastic so you'll understand ], The extra imaginary charges were put on many people that went through the DA process. A simple ticket by the time the DA got through would include things like resisting arrest, public nuisance, obstructing an officer, dis-respecting and officer., etc, etc…I had them add loitering in an automobile after I began to fight one ticket. I took the thing all the way to court..the officer got up in court and stated that I was their for 45 minutes while checked out my vehicle, then the cop realized what he said and tried to retract it. The judge asked what was the original stop for, the officer stated just a routine investigation. So, the judge said, you had no reason to stop the vehicle, correct?? The judge dismissed everything…….

          • t January 9, 2015 at 8:36 am #

            duck:
            The false arrest thing.
            The reason for that is…..if the police present their facts in good faith….and that neutral party agrees….it all but excludes any “false arrest” claims.
            That’s different from an officer that knowing presents something wrong.

            Let’s use the currently posted story with the video from the bar in Las Vegas.
            WE have the luxury of video replay….being able to rewind, pause, replay.
            The officer on scene have seconds and fractions of seconds to react to things.

            That’s the reason why SCOTUS has held that officers actions and decision can’t be viewed throught the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

            Think about why officers aren’t indicted or charged at all in so many cases….especially in video incidents. I think it was a case out of Wyoming where an officer shot and killed a back seat passenger in a car….and that passenger turned out to be unarmed. While you can’t see
            The decedants hands….you can hear the officer (and oh goodness…some bad words) and see the movements the officer described. The jury at the coroners inquest said the officers actions were good…..even though the decedant was found to be unarmed.
            The point is that video shows how quickly things develope….how short the amount of time an officer has to react is.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 11:43 am #

            Yep, another layer of protection for the cop. Trouble is that cops can say anything they want. But cops never lie do they??

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

            duck:
            Wow. You are dense. Are you really the fraud using another. Re name? He acts like you.

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

            So you are saying that no officers ever lie, that no officers ever take advantage of their blanket immunity, that no officers ever use their authority for their own gain or other personal reasons??? What angels you guys must be…..

          • t January 9, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

            duck:
            I e never said or implied any such thing.
            I’ve worked a bunch of “tarnished
            badge” cases. And I hate that I
            coukdnt put everyone one of them
            in prison. None of them can ever be
            the police again….but that’s how that
            went.

            But 1 of the reasons I think you are a lying POS
            is the way you write and the unbelievable
            tales you tell.
            But that’s ok…I’ll still play along.

            See the issue that you CBers have (besides
            lying when there is no need to
            But you goofs want to think that
            EVERYTHING that EVERY officer
            does is wrong. Police corruption…..
            meaning anything that is intentionally
            wrong….is a FRACTION of a percent.
            I worked it out here once where the
            last patrol squad I had would have
            to of commited over 1500 acts of
            corruption each year to even have
            1% “corruption”. And that’s just 8
            guys.
            So yes….there is police corruption.
            As there is corruption in every job
            and profession.

            This incident is a great example.
            You and corkie have tried to jump
            through every imaginable hoop and
            created some non-existent hoops to
            try and say that this stop was wrong
            when it clearly wasn’t.

            So be whatever you like to imagine
            yourself to be. If that’s an 80 year
            old Internet troll….then so be it.
            But at least make it
            believable

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

            The problem is, the things I posted was and is the truth…You just make assumptions based on your own experiences, There are other life tracks that you probably have no idea what they are. My experiences with the police been 80 percent negative on the police’s side… Not even your imagination is going to change that no matter what you believe. If you want to believe I am a teenager or some young piece of crap, that’s OK. It doesn’t change how my life and experiences happened except in your mind….. If you think that citizens should bow down and worship the ground police walk on, go ahead and think what you will. My experiences have taught me not to trust anybody that is not responsible for their own actions and that fits you and everyone that stands behind that thin blue line that you rely on to cover you asses…….

            You seem to be the type of cop where everyone is guilty. Maybe your the type of cop that will try to make those you deem to be guilty to appear guilty at any cost. You may be one of the so-called good cops that back up the bad cops all the time.

            In your mind, there are no innocent people in prison, as another cop has said to me, they may be innocent of the crime they went to prison for but they are not innocent of something we haven’t caught them doing, so it evens out. Rationalizations and platitudes is mostly what you seem to spew.

            I can’t picture you taking down another cop. You strike me as one of the first to jump in and help a bad cop then back him up if there is a complaint…

          • t January 10, 2015 at 9:53 am #

            duck:
            Well….opinions are like assholes…..everybody was one.
            Mine is that you a lying POS. Why? Well there are lots of reason first off….but the the claim of the 100 cops in small town in the 1940s…there because is was such a rough town…but they still had time to bother an innocent little snot nosed kid walking down the dirt road. A fanciful tale where the entirety of a town that sized tax base would have been taken just for the PD….and they wouldn’t even pave the steets.
            And then there’s all the you ended up living in Rampaet and getting arrested with wife because she didn’t have a cell phone…..so that likely puts the incident in the late 90s or early 2000s……which would make you (and presumably her) in you 60s. Could it have happened? Sure.

            But all of that aside…..
            No where did I say that these guys were guilty of anything wrong.
            But you have to remember that we have to respect EVERYONES RIGHTS. That includes that homeowners rights.
            Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that outlaws government contact. That document CREATED government. And the state constitutions created their individual governments…..from the powers ensured to them from the big “C”. I’m there to protect EVERYONES rights…not just yours. You rights aren’t any more important than anyone’s elses.

            In this situation….a good neighbor was doing the right thing. Mi would think I guy who grew up,in the 40s ….not a baby boomer hippy or a product of the 80s and 90s handout generation would get that.
            And still nowhere have either you or corkie shown what rights the police supposedly violated of the driver.
            Yours is the stance of ….

          • dufas_duck January 10, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

            I never stated that the driver’s rights were violated..not once… I just asked you what rights ANYONE has when approached by a cop. You just jumped with the usual police like imagination as to what was being stated and it stuck in you tiny mind from there on.

            In fact, I agree with the cops in this situation where someone is puttering around a house while the owner/occupant was away. It would be the same if someone strange was going from car to car in a shopping mall parking lot. Very suspicious…….

            My problem with police and you is that assumptions are made and when it is found out that you are wrong, you do everything in your power vast, unrelenting power to cover the mistakes up for your self and for your buds in blue. The police’s constant use of “We have investigated ourselves and found we have done no wrong” is getting very warn out… This is even more true since the police have become militarized and seem to think every person is an enemy combatant.., everyone is lying, everyone is guilty of something, except the police, they are always right, isn’t that correct?? This means that the next thing you’ll spout is that there is not one person that ever has been convicted that is innocent, there are no innocent people in prison…

            The police are the record keepers. The police can record what they want, manipulate the records they way the want. Withhold or add anything they want, or just make it so there are no records of any given situation. With your lack of reading ability and comprehension, I doubt very much that you have put away ‘tarnished badges’ as you put it, ie; crooked cops. More than likely, you fell right in lock step and did everything you could to lie and cover for your buds in blue. Your logic structure is flawed, most likely to the core. You’ve already proved that by equating ‘excuses’ for ‘innocence’… I have already explained the difference to you earlier but, as you probably demonstrate when you are in the field, you cannot grasp the concept. That’s why I asked you how many people have you beaten or killed. Were they facing you when you shot or did you nail them in the back?? Did you shoot them while they laid, face down and handcuffed as has often happened or would you be one of those cops that say they never have fired their weapon?? Did you beat them while they were handcuffed behind their back or just have your partner hold them for you. Maybe you joined in as five or more of your buds jumped on top of the ‘perp’ swinging flashlights and batons while yelling stay down to a nearly semi-conscious victim?? Oh what fun the police have, looking forward to another day of fun and games. Street gangs show more restraint than you could ever display, and the public can protect themselves from a street gang…

            The SCOTUS has stated that the police can lie, so who is the POS lair now? You guys even lie to yourselves. Which brings us to your ‘profile of me and my wife. The only thing you came close to was when my wife and I were stopped for prostitution. It was the 90s. 1991 in fact, I was 58 and she was a very beautiful 48. What was strangely humorous about the whole situation was that the ignoramus cops on the scene couldn’t figure things out, it took a desk jockey at the station house to put two and two together and not come up with five. Other than this instance, your full of crap, you must have put a lot of innocent people through he!! with that small space in your head.

            As far as the town I grew up in…bad cops are bad cops…they nail anyone no matter their age and sex. Just as today, where a 200 pound badge can beat the hell out of a 100 pound female and then have the chief announce that she was lucky she wasn’t raped.. Which brings up another subject, why are so many cops raping women and children, [some are even raping men and boys]?? Is this a new directive that you and you kind are following or is it just a hobby. The leniency shown to 80 percent of these raping cops is astounding. Some cops aren’t even brought to justice until after three to a dozen cover-ups have happened. But this is small potatoes to an upstanding man of the law as you claim to be, excuse are only good for the police, correct??

            Well, have a good day, keep safe and punch someone for me, but please don’t kill someone until you are absolutely sure that you really fear for your life. Ooops, you guys fear for your lives when babies are around, sorry about that. Oh well, maybe you only get half points when you beat or kill a kid…

          • dufas_duck January 9, 2015 at 1:57 pm #

            The key word there is ‘good faith’..
            That depends on the officer. There are many officers that good faith is a foreign concept. An officer can say anything and not necessarily be telling the truth.

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:20 am #

            “” just because you don’t want to talk….that doesn’t mean the contact ends. “” – You’re an idiot. Nobody says, “Don’t talk to the police so that the contact ends.” They say, “Don’t talk to the police so that they have nothing to use against you when you finally do get released.”

            “” That will generally lead to much longer detentions and will likely only increase the chances you will be arrested. “” – So what? It’s better than giving them information that can be used during prosecution. Better to stay silent and take your short term lumps.

          • t January 8, 2015 at 11:39 am #

            cork & duck:

            W O W !!! You twi should talk and go hit the road on the comedy circuit.

            Let’s look at the two-faced mess you are both slinging now.

            duck: “when just a few moments of time without jumping into your police rage, everything could be cleared up”. Wow….hiw right your are sir. Just talk to me like a normal person and it’s amazing how things work out. But that would require what on your part? And what happened in this incident? Who was trying to quickly clear things up and who was being obstructionist?

            duck: “your statement innocence is the same as excuses”
            Wow. Again….we have the evidence we have and almost everything is exactly what it appears to be. When I tespnd to a report of a fight and find 1 bloody person who tells me that they were attacked….and then I find another involved person who won’t talk at all…..what should I do? If that second person tells me that they were attacked…and the evidence doesn’t piint to that or a witness backs the first parties story….that’s what court is for. They get charged and they can handle it however you want. People defend themselves all the time and win. Lawyers aren’t “magical” creatures and are generally a huge waste of money for misdemeanor type charges.

            cork: “….lead to much longer detentions…. So what?”
            Then what are you bitching about? You can finally figure it out like @duck did above (although he doesn’t know it finally got it) and have things cleared up quickly…..or you can cook your jets while I do my thing. It’s your choice.

            cork: “It’s better than giving them information that can be used against you in during prosecution”. Wow. That’s dim. What “prosecution” is there if you haven’t done anything wrong…and how is the truth ever a bad thing in court if you didn’t do anything wrong? You speak against yourself in all
            Of your double speak guy.

          • corkie January 9, 2015 at 1:40 pm #

            t, it’s funny that you are helping us expose the mentality of police. Please keep commenting on here!!!

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

            cork:
            What’s that….reasonable?

          • corkie January 12, 2015 at 6:09 pm #

            LOL! No, you’re trying to tell everyone on here that it’s in their best interest to answer all of your questions. Why can’t you just admit that it’s just in YOUR best interest to have everyone always answer your questions?

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:21 am #

            “” Nowhere does the Constituion say that there aren’t consquences for exercising a right. “” – Cops like you LOVE to retaliate against people that exercise their rights. You will find one of the 11,000 laws to generate a charge.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

            “” He has the right remain silent (as I went into above). He didn’t exercise that right. He decided to go the beligerent and intimidation route instead. “” – Are you claiming that he didn’t have a right to get belligerent?

          • t January 7, 2015 at 6:04 pm #

            cork:
            No….he can talk all he liked. But remember all that “can and will be used against you in court” stuff? While it never got to that point in this incident…..the things you say and the way you say them can certainly draw and officers attention and get additional attention.
            Are you claiming that it’s wrong for the officer to listen to him?

          • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:17 am #

            That’s funny. You wrote all that just because you HATE the fact people have the right to be belligerent.

            “” Are you claiming that it’s wrong for the officer to listen to him? “” – You really are stupid. Nothing, nothing, nothing I wrote implied that. Only an idiot could have inferred that.

          • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:51 pm #

            “” He didn’t have to speak or respond in any way to the officer. “” – Then explain why identity was demanded and explain why the cop said, “All ya gotta do is talk”?

          • t January 7, 2015 at 6:01 pm #

            cork:
            Wow but you are slow.
            A simply and polite conversation shortens the contact immensely. That doesn’t mean his has to talk. Again…..IDing an unknown subject seen doing something at a residence….that isn’t his….when it’s known that the homeowner isn’t at home….is a good thing.

            Which part don’t you,get?

      • Mike TheVet January 13, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

        Lol see, when you talk like that, I know you’re harmless, “t.”

        Stick with citing Case Law instead of pretending to be an Officer of the Law.

  6. pickle January 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm #

    “Am I being detained?”
    “You will be if you don’t get out of the car”
    Am I the only one who sees a problem with this logic?

  7. David L Grabill January 6, 2015 at 2:29 pm #

    cops are getting stupider everyday

  8. B-Bob Lince January 6, 2015 at 3:08 pm #

    PIGGGSSS

  9. Drakenfly January 6, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

    What a line of BULLSHIT by the knuckle dragging cops….

  10. Drakenfly January 6, 2015 at 4:38 pm #

    T-ball and Jr. Cunt are local boot to ass lickers that frequent cop block…wouldn’t be hard to bounce the server and get their personal addresses…

  11. Jon Brown Fambrough-Stone January 6, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

    Fuck these cops man! Fucking bullies! File the lawsuit! Please in whatever shithole Blue Island is!

  12. Jamaal Brown January 6, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

    more thug activity.

  13. magormissabib January 6, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

    If someone called the police and said they saw some suspicious activity it is reasonable for them to show up. It is easy enough to give your name verbally and give an explanation of what you are doing to dispell any suspicion about what you are doing. If you are not driving the car you dont need to provide a drivers license, It may be differnt if you are behind the wheel Im not sure but no way a passenger has to provide ID.

    • corkie January 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

      “” it is reasonable for them to show up. “” – Yes

      “” It is easy enough to give your name verbally and give an explanation of what you are doing to dispell any suspicion about what you are doing. “” – Yes, it’s easy, but it’s not required. Why do so many cops claim that it’s required?

      • t January 7, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

        cork:
        I can detain you for as long as I need to….as long as my investigation is moving forward.. Finding out who I’m dealing with is a lot of that investigation.

        • corkie January 8, 2015 at 1:26 am #

          Wrong. Your detainment must be of reasonable length, but thanks for revealing your attitude of “A cop can do whatever he wants.”

          • t January 8, 2015 at 11:44 am #

            Reasonable length.
            Ever noticed how SCOTUS has NEVER said what that is? That because each instance is different. They discuss exactly what I said….as long as the investigation is file gently moving forward.

            Thanks for showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Again.

          • corkie January 9, 2015 at 1:42 pm #

            Reasonable length means that you don’t get to detain someone for any length of time that you want. The court decides if the time was reasonable – NOT you.

          • t January 9, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

            cork:
            Right……and where does the court decide that? Oh….in court, not in the street.
            And they have consistently ruled like I said. If the investigation is moving forward diligently….

          • corkie January 12, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

            Poor t is probably now realizing that his detainments need to be curtailed to reasonable lengths. The courts have specifically ruled this. They have even provided guidance that t seem clueless about. This is not surprising. In fact, the supreme court even made a point of stressing that they had even found a detainment to be of reasonable length in a previous ruling – despite the fact that they considered the length of that detainment to be long. t, do you know the length of that detainment???? Of course, you don’t.

          • corkie January 13, 2015 at 5:19 am #

            t, have you researched the supreme court rulings with respect to detainment length? Do I need to spell it out for you? Do I need to fix your deficiency in training, or are you capable of learning something on your own for once?

  14. will January 7, 2015 at 1:27 am #

    What they done know is that crooked cop falsely arrested him. He may think that he was simply detaining him, however that’s not the case.

    Arrest
    A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
    The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
    An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority.

    • t January 7, 2015 at 9:15 am #

      Will:
      Thank goodness I read this second post of yours.
      The earlier one….almost responded to that with a serious discussion. Now I see that you’re just an idiot.

  15. Jimbob January 7, 2015 at 8:20 am #

    You KONT KOP Gestapo Fuckaz- YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DETAIN anybody for doing nothing. FUK off with your ‘I got a call from an asshole neighbour’. Fuk off with that illegal BS you Gestapo bastards

  16. po January 7, 2015 at 9:59 am #

    One can not give a name is one does not have a name! losethename.com

  17. Film The Police Always January 9, 2015 at 12:56 pm #

    All I want to know is, DID YOU FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT?

  18. t January 10, 2015 at 10:17 pm #

    Hmmm

  19. JdL January 11, 2015 at 6:59 am #

    Cops who break the law should be stopped by whatever means are necessary to do so.

Leave a Reply