User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:30:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. Pretty much every cop I have come in contact with. Everyone is a doper until proven otherwise and left standing on the side of the road in the rain with all of the contents of their car tossed in a heap in the mud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:30:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:31:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Lots of freedom haters in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:31:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read it again, Genius. I did, and I came to the same conclusion. You're judging the basis for the stop on the result. If they had found 4 kilos of heroin you wouldn't be thinking the same way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:32:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having that Gadsden flag as part of your avatar is ironic. Actually, if I did not have pay taxes to support the stoners, I would agree with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:33:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Valid search based upon current majority rule common law.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:35:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. So, we should abandon all principles of liberty because someone might have the potential to be some cop's career furthering collar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:36:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did, and I came to the same conclusion. You're judging the basis for the stop on the result. If they had found 4 kilos of heroin you wouldn't be thinking the same way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Read it again, Genius. I did, and I came to the same conclusion. You're judging the basis for the stop on the result. If they had found 4 kilos of heroin you wouldn't be thinking the same way. Yes, I would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:36:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Oh trust me I get it, that is when you use your spidey sense and discretion. I have a feeling this was a pissed off police act though. He had enough to conduct a search. Cop is lucky nothing happened to the guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:40:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read the whole thing. They found a grinder and pipe and he'd been pinched once for misdemeanor personal possession of MJ (dismissed) so I'm sure some will ignore the violation of rights. But if you read the whole thing, morally and legally that cop deserves charges as does the supervisor he seemed to be getting permission from over the phone. Disgusting. The cop got a warrant, signed by a judge. Where is this violation of rights you speak of? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:41:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh trust me I get it, that is when you use your spidey sense and discretion. I have a feeling this was a pissed off police act though. Cop is lucky nothing happened to the guy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Oh trust me I get it, that is when you use your spidey sense and discretion. I have a feeling this was a pissed off police act though. Cop is lucky nothing happened to the guy. Agreed. Here in Ohio, we had a trooper and a deputy pulled over a drunk mexican, and ended up not charging him but instead dropped him off at a Taco Bell to sober up. After they left, he walked out into traffic and got killed. They were both fired, charged, and at least one of them was convicted of dereliction of duty, IIRC. I'll try to find the article here in a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:42:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, we should abandon all principles of liberty because someone might have the potential to be some cop's career furthering collar? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. So, we should abandon all principles of liberty because someone might have the potential to be some cop's career furthering collar? But our GD LE argue otherwise... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:45:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:46:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. While we're playing what if, what if he had Jimmy Hoffa's body in the trunk? I mean, if "what if" is what we're going to base a state seizure of property on we might as well go for broke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:48:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, if I did not have pay taxes to support the stoners, I would agree with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Having that Gadsden flag as part of your avatar is ironic. Actually, if I did not have pay taxes to support the stoners, I would agree with you. "Don't Tread on Me" ...... unless you suspect I might have drugs, in which case tread away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:48:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it really that hard to keep your coat on and adjust the car's interior temperature accordingly? On cold days (-20 last winter) I drove with a hoodie on under my Carhartt coat, and kept my gloves in my pockets. Maybe this deserves a thread of it's own? "Bugging out when you can't get to your bug-out bag." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the day's high temperature will be 21 degrees and you're in a hoodie you lose the right to bitch about the cold. I always tell my son "don't dress for the walk to the car, dress for the walk home from the crash." What makes you think the cop would have let him retrieve them? 
Is it really that hard to keep your coat on and adjust the car's interior temperature accordingly? On cold days (-20 last winter) I drove with a hoodie on under my Carhartt coat, and kept my gloves in my pockets. Maybe this deserves a thread of it's own? "Bugging out when you can't get to your bug-out bag." That's real retarded sir. Might as well get rid of heat and air conditioning in your house too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:49:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Search everybody with a gun because it might lead to a felon with a firearm arrest. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Argue every opinion with a straw man because it might lead to a rational thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:51:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Argue every opinion with a straw man because it might lead to a rational thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Argue every opinion with a straw man because it might lead to a rational thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:53:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the same concept. This man apparently was not committing any crime in the state of VT, yet you justify the search as saying well what if he was committing a crime? We don't know until we check. Sure it turns out he wasn't, but we didn't know until we checked. Obstructed license plate is not a VC violation in Vermont? It's legal to possess & smoke MJ in Vermont - for all individuals, no medical MJ card requirements or similar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:56:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those pensions aren't going to pay for themselves. Some days we are really on the same sheet of music. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 8:59:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Don't Tread on Me" ...... unless you suspect I might have drugs, in which case tread away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Having that Gadsden flag as part of your avatar is ironic. Actually, if I did not have pay taxes to support the stoners, I would agree with you. "Don't Tread on Me" ...... unless you suspect I might have drugs, in which case tread away. Sorry, but when you take the social safety network away from supporting people who use drugs and force them to become useful members of society the I will agree with you. Don't give the LEO, PC (smell of pot) for a search and be on your way. Stoner had a pipe and if it had pot residue in it, it was a good stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:03:18 PM EDT
[#22]
total scumbag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:08:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but when you take the social safety network away from supporting people who use drugs and force them to become useful members of society the I will agree with you. Don't give the LEO, PC (smell of pot) for a search and be on your way. Stoner had a pipe and if it had pot residue in it, it was a good stop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Don't Tread on Me" ...... unless you suspect I might have drugs, in which case tread away. Sorry, but when you take the social safety network away from supporting people who use drugs and force them to become useful members of society the I will agree with you. Don't give the LEO, PC (smell of pot) for a search and be on your way. Stoner had a pipe and if it had pot residue in it, it was a good stop. 1.) The officer didn't see the pipe during the stop. It turned up after the car was towed. 2.) Apparently the pipe didn't turn up residue since presumably he would have been charged. 3.) Officer claimed that his canine "smelled something", even though said canine was in his cruiser with the windows rolled up. That's a damn good dog. If we're going to have a country that values individual liberty, that means it will have to value individual liberty even for unpopular members of society (i.e. "stoners"). A country that values liberty for the popular isn't a country that values liberty at all. I have a beef with the social safety network as well, but the solution is to fix that, not tread on the liberty of people you don't happen to like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:11:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obstructed license plate is not a VC violation in Vermont? It's legal to possess & smoke MJ in Vermont - for all individuals, no medical MJ card requirements or similar? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's the same concept. This man apparently was not committing any crime in the state of VT, yet you justify the search as saying well what if he was committing a crime? We don't know until we check. Sure it turns out he wasn't, but we didn't know until we checked. Obstructed license plate is not a VC violation in Vermont? It's legal to possess & smoke MJ in Vermont - for all individuals, no medical MJ card requirements or similar? OP's post states possession of certain amounts was decriminalized in 2013. The law actually changes anything under an ounce to a civil charge with a fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:12:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:It's the same concept. This man apparently was not committing any crime in the state of VT, yet you justify the search as saying well what if he was committing a crime? We don't know until we check. Sure it turns out he wasn't, but we didn't know until we checked.
It's not the same concept. Riddle me this: If possession of marijuana is not a crime in VT, then how did he get a search warrant to search for something that is not a crime? Remember, we're not talking about some random cop doing a search on some random hunch. He had a search warrant signed by a judge based on evidence of a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:15:10 PM EDT
[#26]
OK, I read the article.
The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:15:36 PM EDT
[#27]
"The lawsuit alleges"
Lol Gr |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:16:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not the same concept. Riddle me this: If possession of marijuana is not a crime in VT, then how did he get a search warrant to search for something that is not a crime? Remember, we're not talking about some random cop doing a search on some random hunch. He had a search warrant signed by a judge based on evidence of a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:It's the same concept. This man apparently was not committing any crime in the state of VT, yet you justify the search as saying well what if he was committing a crime? We don't know until we check. Sure it turns out he wasn't, but we didn't know until we checked.
It's not the same concept. Riddle me this: If possession of marijuana is not a crime in VT, then how did he get a search warrant to search for something that is not a crime? Remember, we're not talking about some random cop doing a search on some random hunch. He had a search warrant signed by a judge based on evidence of a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:17:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Also, on top of being left stranded, the guy had to puke up 150 bucks for the tow fee
 .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:19:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
Does having to take a piss mean you've been drinking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:19:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
Didn't the cop say that he himself smelled MJ? If so, that's PC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:20:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
Visine and air freshener were found after the warrant was issued and the car searched, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:21:39 PM EDT
[#33]
So it's now policy that the police can tow a car for no reason other than to stash it in hope of a warrant?
If the cop had enough reason to have the car towed he had enough reason to search it then and there. If that's not legally the principle it damn well ought to be. Now it's "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the walk". 
ETA: The point is that the standard required to justify impounding a car ought to be higher than that needed to search a car. Asset forfeiture mentality at work I think. Thank you, Ronnie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:22:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP's post states possession of certain amounts was decriminalized in 2013. The law actually changes anything under an ounce to a civil charge with a fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the same concept. This man apparently was not committing any crime in the state of VT, yet you justify the search as saying well what if he was committing a crime? We don't know until we check. Sure it turns out he wasn't, but we didn't know until we checked. Obstructed license plate is not a VC violation in Vermont? It's legal to possess & smoke MJ in Vermont - for all individuals, no medical MJ card requirements or similar? OP's post states possession of certain amounts was decriminalized in 2013. The law actually changes anything under an ounce to a civil charge with a fine. So possession isn't legal, it's simply a non-bookable civil offense? Sounds like odor of MJ is still PC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:23:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it's now policy that the police can tow a car for no reason other than to stash it in hope of a warrant? If the cop had enough reason to have the car towed he had enough reason to search it then and there. If that's not legally the principle it damn well ought to be. Now it's "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the walk".
I assumed from the officer's actions that state law requires a warrant for a search of an automobile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:25:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be speculation. I'd have to speculate on a lot of things, including the honestly of the officer in question and his eagerness and how determined he was to get that warrant. What's not speculation is that the amount of marijuana found was nowhere near a criminal act. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:It's the same concept. This man apparently was not committing any crime in the state of VT, yet you justify the search as saying well what if he was committing a crime? We don't know until we check. Sure it turns out he wasn't, but we didn't know until we checked.
It's not the same concept. Riddle me this: If possession of marijuana is not a crime in VT, then how did he get a search warrant to search for something that is not a crime? Remember, we're not talking about some random cop doing a search on some random hunch. He had a search warrant signed by a judge based on evidence of a crime. What does the result have to do with the justification for the warrant? I've already said this twice in this thread. Our society does not judge the actions or justification for something based on hindsight or results. We judge based on the information the people involved had at the time of the incident. If the search and warrant would be justified if the cops had found millions of dollars in drugs in the trunk, then the search and warrant is also justified if they find nothing. So, I ask again: If possession of marijuana is not a crime in VT, then why would a judge sign a warrant to look for something that is not a crime? The correct answer to that question, since you've failed to grasp the concepts I've laid out, is this: There is more to the story than we're being told. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:25:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
You left out the odor of marijuana which the cop smelled IIRC. That's PC for search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:25:23 PM EDT
[#38]
I'm not seeing the problem. How were his rights violated? The only issue im seeing is leaving the guy on the side of the road (allegedly).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:26:08 PM EDT
[#39]
I'm glad that menace is off the street. The car that is.
So does this mean instead of getting a warrant they can just seize your car? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:26:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't the cop say that he himself smelled MJ? If so, that's PC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
Didn't the cop say that he himself smelled MJ? If so, that's PC. Whoops, I forgot about that  .
So all the other stuff is beside the point (even the dag). So the search still seems good to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:27:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it's now policy that the police can tow a car for no reason other than to stash it in hope of a warrant? If the cop had enough reason to have the car towed he had enough reason to search it then and there. If that's not legally the principle it damn well ought to be. Now? Lol, no, that's been "policy" for decades. But, just because he can doesn't mean he wants to. I've gotten search warrants when I've had enough evidence to search simply because I didn't want the evidence to be thrown out on some bullshit artist lawyer arguing technicalities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:28:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You left out the odor of marijuana which the cop smelled IIRC. That's PC for search. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
You left out the odor of marijuana which the cop smelled IIRC. That's PC for search. "Said" he smelled. Prove he really smelled it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:29:30 PM EDT
[#43]
I still think it was a dick move to leave the guy on the side of the road w/o his wallet and cell, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:29:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still think it was a dick move to leave the guy on the side of the road w/o his wallet and cell, though. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:30:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now? Lol, no, that's been "policy" for decades. But, just because he can doesn't mean he wants to. I've gotten search warrants when I've had enough evidence to search simply because I didn't want the evidence to be thrown out on some bullshit artist lawyer arguing technicalities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So it's now policy that the police can tow a car for no reason other than to stash it in hope of a warrant? If the cop had enough reason to have the car towed he had enough reason to search it then and there. If that's not legally the principle it damn well ought to be. Now? Lol, no, that's been "policy" for decades. But, just because he can doesn't mean he wants to. I've gotten search warrants when I've had enough evidence to search simply because I didn't want the evidence to be thrown out on some bullshit artist lawyer arguing technicalities. If it gets thrown out it wasn't a technicality; it was the law. Cops should really brush up on it once in a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:30:53 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I still think it was a dick move to leave the guy on the side of the road w/o his wallet and cell, though. Yep. This ^ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:31:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Also did you guys know Vermont has black people
 ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:32:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cop got a warrant, signed by a judge. Where is this violation of rights you speak of? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I read the whole thing. They found a grinder and pipe and he'd been pinched once for misdemeanor personal possession of MJ (dismissed) so I'm sure some will ignore the violation of rights. But if you read the whole thing, morally and legally that cop deserves charges as does the supervisor he seemed to be getting permission from over the phone. Disgusting. The cop got a warrant, signed by a judge. Where is this violation of rights you speak of? What was the probable cause for the warrant ? The cops lied to the judge to get the warrant as the story reads |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:33:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If story is accurate, cop is an ass. Who puts that much work in for a little weed or suspicion of weed....good lord. Also, seizing the car means the guy is basically your responsibility. You just can't leave him out there like that in those conditions. I agree that the cop was an ass, but did he honestly know beforehand that he was dealing with JUST weed? Doesn't seem that way based on the story. Let's play what if: What if he searched the car, just as the story says, based on the smell of weed, but instead of turning up nothing, he turns up four kilos of heroin and 1,000 pills? Then we wouldn't even be discussing this incident. The only reason we're discussing it is because they found nothing of importance, and human nature is to judge to morality or legality of doing something based on the result. Hindsight is 20/20. This bullshit comes from the same people who say "He only had a toy gun, why did you shoot him!" or "He was unarmed, why did you shoot him!" or "He was a good kid, why did you shoot him!" Because most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 9:33:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Said" he smelled. Prove he really smelled it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK, I read the article. The paraphernalia wasn't found until after the vehicle was towed & searched. The PC was his previous arrest, visine, an air freshener, and the officer's non-drug sniffing dag. The lawsuit also claims the dag never left the officer's vehicle (that should be easy to prove or disprove with the dashcam). So I guess the question is, does the visine, air freshener, untrained dog, and previous arrest, constitute Probable Cause? What say you ARFcops? is that enough for a search warrant
You left out the odor of marijuana which the cop smelled IIRC. That's PC for search. "Said" he smelled. Prove he really smelled it. Ummm, that is what the warrant is for. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
