User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 3:54:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is the standard for court not on the street. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Prove that he didn't. 
I thought we were still innocent until proven guilty. That is the standard for court not on the street. Don't confuse him with things like "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". Heaven forbid someone throws out "preponderance of evidence" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:05:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, lots of derp in that article. In California, that'd be plenty of PC to search the vehicle without consent. Yeah, but in CA it would be highly unlikely to have gone anywhere near that far unless the kid was being a real cunt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:15:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whether a search is good or not depends on whether it ends well? That would mean we wouldn't even need parallel reconstruction. Just secretly spy and then search illegally but when you find something VOILA! Good search! Vermont decriminalized weed. So it's not even evidence of a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So... (allegedly) cop pulls kid over, says he smells pot and wants to search the car, and has it towed when the guy says no. Then later gets a warrant for it. The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont filed the lawsuit on behalf Gregory Zullo, 21, whose car was seized by Vermont State Police after a traffic stop in March that left Zullo by the side of the road in 20-degree weather. ........... Hatch told Zullo that he should give consent to search the vehicle because Hatch’s police dog "smelled something,” despite the fact the dog was not trained in drug detection and was kept in the trooper’s vehicle with the windows rolled up, the lawsuit alleges. Again, Zullo refused to waive his rights, and Hatch told Zullo he was seizing his car. Hatch’s cruiser’s audio and video system recorded a telephone conversation — the complaint doesn’t specify with whom — in which Hatch said, "I can smell weed and he won’t allow me to search, so I’m just going to take it.” ........... Police left Zullo on the side of the road, 8 miles from home, with his hooded sweatshirt to keep warm. According to the National Weather Service, on March 6 temperatures reached a high of 21 degrees. Back at the Rutland state police barracks, Hatch received a search warrant based upon his assertion he could smell burnt marijuana in the car, and that the car contained an air freshener and a bottle of Visine eye drops, records state. The search turned up a pipe and a grinder — used to break up marijuana — but no marijuana, the complaint states. Article Was the pipe and grinder his. If so, good search. If not... Whether a search is good or not depends on whether it ends well? That would mean we wouldn't even need parallel reconstruction. Just secretly spy and then search illegally but when you find something VOILA! Good search! Vermont decriminalized weed. So it's not even evidence of a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:20:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does one know they didn't plant the grinder and pipe? I'm sorry to say, I don't trust cops anymore 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. How does one know they didn't plant the grinder and pipe? I'm sorry to say, I don't trust cops anymore 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:26:26 PM EDT
[#5]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:29:38 PM EDT
[#6]
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: 10/1/2014 4:33:10 PM EDT
[#7]
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. "Hello" "Your honor I need a warrant to search a car" "Why" "My dog smelled pot" "Ok here you go" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:47:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, he had unfounded suspicion on a lie that a dog in a car 30ft behind the vehicle with the windows rolled up the entire Time. I guaruntee that he didn't mention that to the judge. "Hello" "Your honor I need a warrant to search a car" "Why" "My dog smelled pot" "Ok here you go" 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. "Hello" "Your honor I need a warrant to search a car" "Why" "My dog smelled pot" "Ok here you go" Out of curiosity, are the details recorded (ie..a court reporter or tape recording) when asking for a warrant? I'm guessing that could be crucial to a civil action if an officer lies about the reasons for wanting a warrant...say a no-knock that went bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 4:48:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Gregory Zullo shouldn't have committed the crime of driving while black and he wouldn't be in this predicament. He might try being white the next time he drives through Officer Hatch's bailiwick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:21:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those pesky judges. How dare they not poll GD before signing search warrants.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
His vehicle was seized before the warrant was issued. I wonder if the judge that issued the warrant knew the car had been seized before the warrant was issued? I'm guessing the judge knew all this and still issued the warrant despite stutzcattle's belief the 4A was violated. Those pesky judges. How dare they not poll GD before signing search warrants. Judges sign frivolous warrants every day. But you knew that already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:29:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That K9 officer should have been fired, all his cases reviewed & probably charged with multiple crimes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dogs are used by cops as walking pretext and this is just another example. I haven't seen it personally but I'm sure it happens with shitty/corrupt handlers. I watched a PD handler admit it to a classroom full of cops at HIDTA training. That K9 officer should have been fired, all his cases reviewed & probably charged with multiple crimes. LOL by who? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:32:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gregory Zullo shouldn't have committed the crime of driving while black and he wouldn't be in this predicament. He might try being white the next time he drives through Officer Hatch's bailiwick. Sarcasm? Either way I hope Hatch is unemployed very soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:32:37 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL by who? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dogs are used by cops as walking pretext and this is just another example. I haven't seen it personally but I'm sure it happens with shitty/corrupt handlers. I watched a PD handler admit it to a classroom full of cops at HIDTA training. That K9 officer should have been fired, all his cases reviewed & probably charged with multiple crimes. LOL by who? His employer would be the one to fire him............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:41:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I seriously hope that cop gets it handed to him, and that driver gets paid.....if only because he left the kid on the side of the road after he took his car. Should have taken him home, etc. Someone with those decision making skills needs a new job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:58:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sarcasm? Either way I hope Hatch is unemployed very soon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gregory Zullo shouldn't have committed the crime of driving while black and he wouldn't be in this predicament. He might try being white the next time he drives through Officer Hatch's bailiwick. Sarcasm? Either way I hope Hatch is unemployed very soon. Yes, but likely true. If he was white his vehicle wouldn't have got towed. I have been pulled over many times in drug corridors for having a SUV or pick up with temporary or out of state plates. Been put in a patrol car with a "drug dog" in the back seat. Never had my vehicle searched or towed, though I have been questioned about what was in duffle type bags in the back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:05:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you not seen the shit he's been posting? Nobody other than someone toeing the blue line would have made those comments. 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. I think someone should pull you over and search for the wacky weed after making a comments like these. Glad you aren't a cop Have you not seen the shit he's been posting? Nobody other than someone toeing the blue line would have made those comments. Much butt, many hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:06:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then your reading comprehension fails twice. The cop claimed that an UNTRAINED dog inside his cruiser WITH THE WINDOWS ROLLED UP smelled weed. It doesn't matter what he might have found. Innocent until proven guilty apparently is lost on you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Your response to me has absolutely no bearing on my discussion with sizzler. Ironic that you accused my reading comprehension of failing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:11:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Much butt, many hurt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. I think someone should pull you over and search for the wacky weed after making a comments like these. Glad you aren't a cop Have you not seen the shit he's been posting? Nobody other than someone toeing the blue line would have made those comments. Much butt, many hurt. You actually said people who aren't cops can't look at things objectively. I mean... holy fucking derp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:28:21 PM EDT
[#19]
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. You referring to that Constitution thingymajig? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:28:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:You actually said people who aren't cops can't look at things objectively.
I mean... holy fucking derp. Sure I said that, if you're completely fucking retarded and can't comprehend the English language. Also, since firefighters are good at putting out fires, therefore nobody else in the world can put out a fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:31:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You referring to that Constitution thingymajig? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. You referring to that Constitution thingymajig? "The officer forgot to check this box and his signature isn't legible." "Case dismissed." "Thank you, your honor." That kind of bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:31:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't matter.....Fed law says it's illegal....and Fed case law is what the Carrol doctrine would be based off of. Should've been searched on the side of the road, not towed. I don't need your "permission" if I can smell it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Edited to include that. Quoted:
Yeah, lots of derp in that article. In California, that'd be plenty of PC to search the vehicle without consent. Is possession of small quantities a crime in CA? (Not familiar with CA laws) Doesn't matter.....Fed law says it's illegal....and Fed case law is what the Carrol doctrine would be based off of. Should've been searched on the side of the road, not towed. I don't need your "permission" if I can smell it. If your state requires a warrant, you cant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:44:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then your reading comprehension fails twice. The cop claimed that an UNTRAINED dog inside his cruiser WITH THE WINDOWS ROLLED UP smelled weed. It doesn't matter what he might have found. Innocent until proven guilty apparently is lost on you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. That should be such a blatant lie that nothing else should be taken as truthful in any statement spoken or written by the officer to gain a search warrant or to even claim PC or RS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:50:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll wear goggles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 very definition of Tyranny is when the Government can do things that would be illegal for you to do. I want a nuclear weapon.  You'll shoot your eye out. I'll wear goggles. Zee goggles, zey do nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:52:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure I said that, if you're completely fucking retarded and can't comprehend the English language. Also, since firefighters are good at putting out fires, therefore nobody else in the world can put out a fire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:You actually said people who aren't cops can't look at things objectively.
I mean... holy fucking derp. Sure I said that, if you're completely fucking retarded and can't comprehend the English language. Also, since firefighters are good at putting out fires, therefore nobody else in the world can put out a fire. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension (or writing comprehension?). most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. You said those who can look at the situation objectively become cops. Now, I don't want to bore you with things like set theory, so let's skip to the end: you effectively said those who did not become cops cannot look at a situation objectively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:56:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension (or writing comprehension?). You said those who can look at the situation objectively become cops. Now, I don't want to bore you with things like set theory, so let's skip to the end: you effectively said those who did not become cops cannot look at a situation objectively. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You actually said people who aren't cops can't look at things objectively.
I mean... holy fucking derp. Sure I said that, if you're completely fucking retarded and can't comprehend the English language. Also, since firefighters are good at putting out fires, therefore nobody else in the world can put out a fire. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension (or writing comprehension?). most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. You said those who can look at the situation objectively become cops. Now, I don't want to bore you with things like set theory, so let's skip to the end: you effectively said those who did not become cops cannot look at a situation objectively. Jesus Christ, you really are butthurt, aren't you? The comment was facetious, FFS. You need to spend more time in the sunlight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:01:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus Christ, you really are butthurt, aren't you? The comment was facetious, FFS. You need to spend more time in the sunlight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure I said that, if you're completely fucking retarded and can't comprehend the English language. Also, since firefighters are good at putting out fires, therefore nobody else in the world can put out a fire. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension (or writing comprehension?). most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. You said those who can look at the situation objectively become cops. Now, I don't want to bore you with things like set theory, so let's skip to the end: you effectively said those who did not become cops cannot look at a situation objectively. Jesus Christ, you really are butthurt, aren't you? The comment was facetious, FFS. You need to spend more time in the sunlight. At least you're wise enough to backpedal. The comment wasn't written in anything nearing a facetious tone. In fact, it was after you tried to shame everyone criticizing the stop by saying he couldn't have known the guy wasn't committing a crime, as if that's where the burden of proof lies. Let's revisit your whole statement, in case you haven't seen it quoted recently by the other horrified posters responding to it: Quoted:
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. "I mean, I agree he wasn't a real nice guy and all, but I mean, that's a mistake anyone could make, amirite? He could have found heroin!" The "those who can (look objectively) become cops" statement was concluded from the "same people" who say "he only had a toy gun". Not only was your comment not written facetiously, but it was written to restate a full paragraph of justifying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:04:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. How does one know they didn't plant the grinder and pipe? I'm sorry to say, I don't trust cops anymore While you could say that anytime anything is found, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Police have been caught on video planting drugs as evidence before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:05:37 PM EDT
[#29]
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:
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. Please tell me, who would you appoint to the committee that decides who is "useful" to society and who is not? What would the criteria be for judging someone's "usefulness"? What do you suggest the final solution should be to rid the world of those deemed "not-useful"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:05:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Let's revisit your whole statement, in case you haven't seen it quoted recently by the other horrified posters responding to it:
OMG THE HORROR! THE HORROR! <Check forum> Yep, it's GD alright. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:06:03 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You actually said people who aren't cops can't look at things objectively. I mean... holy fucking derp. Just look at the derp a poorly written LE UoF article causes GD................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:07:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension (or writing comprehension?). You said those who can look at the situation objectively become cops. Now, I don't want to bore you with things like set theory, so let's skip to the end: you effectively said those who did not become cops cannot look at a situation objectively. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You actually said people who aren't cops can't look at things objectively.
I mean... holy fucking derp. Sure I said that, if you're completely fucking retarded and can't comprehend the English language. Also, since firefighters are good at putting out fires, therefore nobody else in the world can put out a fire. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension (or writing comprehension?). most humans can not look at the situation objectively. Those who can become cops. You said those who can look at the situation objectively become cops. Now, I don't want to bore you with things like set theory, so let's skip to the end: you effectively said those who did not become cops cannot look at a situation objectively. I've been assured repeatedly, that that is in fact how it works, by police officers no less. Which definitively proves the supposition, only police are objective, because police say so, see it all works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:09:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not only was your comment not written facetiously, but it was written to restate a full paragraph of justifying. Look, you want to have a serious discussion about this? Like a non-GD discussion about this incident? Post it somewhere other than GD, otherwise you will continue to get typical GD responses. My comment "Those who can't..." was facetious. Not the entire post, just that comment. You can't accept that, whatever, I care not. Remember, though, it's just the internet, and if you're seriously going to get bent out of shape because someone exaggerated to be silly on the internet, then you seriously need to step away and take a break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:09:26 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OMG THE HORROR! THE HORROR! <Check forum> Yep, it's GD alright. Carry on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:Let's revisit your whole statement, in case you haven't seen it quoted recently by the other horrified posters responding to it:
OMG THE HORROR! THE HORROR! <Check forum> Yep, it's GD alright. Carry on. I would delete the rest of my post if I were you, too. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only was your comment not written facetiously, but it was written to restate a full paragraph of justifying. Look, you want to have a serious discussion about this? Like a non-GD discussion about this incident? Post it somewhere other than GD, otherwise you will continue to get typical GD responses. My comment "Those who can't..." was facetious. Not the entire post, just that comment. You can't accept that, whatever, I care not. Remember, though, it's just the internet, and if you're seriously going to get bent out of shape because someone exaggerated to be silly on the internet, then you seriously need to step away and take a break. It doesn't really matter. You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. If you want to delete that I cited your "facetious" comment you can plug in all the other bullshit you said as just as good of an example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:10:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That should be such a blatant lie that nothing else should be taken as truthful in any statement spoken or written by the officer to gain a search warrant or to even claim PC or RS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. That should be such a blatant lie that nothing else should be taken as truthful in any statement spoken or written by the officer to gain a search warrant or to even claim PC or RS. I don't recall reading anything about the non-drug dog alerting in the Warrant application. In addition, the driver stated Hatch said the dog was going crazy not that he alerted. From what I read of the ACLU there appears to be a fairly substantial gap between the two sides of the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:13:55 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't recall reading anything about the non-drug dog alerting in the Warrant application. In addition, the driver stated Hatch said the dog was going crazy not that he alerted. From what I read of the ACLU there appears to be a fairly substantial gap between the two sides of the story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. That should be such a blatant lie that nothing else should be taken as truthful in any statement spoken or written by the officer to gain a search warrant or to even claim PC or RS. I don't recall reading anything about the non-drug dog alerting in the Warrant application. In addition, the driver stated Hatch said the dog was going crazy not that he alerted. From what I read of the ACLU there appears to be a fairly substantial gap between the two sides of the story. Does sound though as if the officer using the actions of the dog to justify a vehicle search and/or the seizure of the vehicle until said time that a search warrant could be obtained. Not insignificant IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:17:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:18:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still a good search. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:26:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look, you want to have a serious discussion about this? Like a non-GD discussion about this incident? Post it somewhere other than GD, otherwise you will continue to get typical GD responses. My comment "Those who can't..." was facetious. Not the entire post, just that comment. You can't accept that, whatever, I care not. Remember, though, it's just the internet, and if you're seriously going to get bent out of shape because someone exaggerated to be silly on the internet, then you seriously need to step away and take a break. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not only was your comment not written facetiously, but it was written to restate a full paragraph of justifying. Look, you want to have a serious discussion about this? Like a non-GD discussion about this incident? Post it somewhere other than GD, otherwise you will continue to get typical GD responses. My comment "Those who can't..." was facetious. Not the entire post, just that comment. You can't accept that, whatever, I care not. Remember, though, it's just the internet, and if you're seriously going to get bent out of shape because someone exaggerated to be silly on the internet, then you seriously need to step away and take a break. Nice try. There was nothing facetious about your ridiculous comment when looked at in context. If you want to keep digging that hole you're in go right ahead. It's providing no end of entertainment. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:38:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What crime was there probable cause of? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? Dude, he's just trolling you now. If he's a cop, it's got to be a small dept. The cops at bigger depts around here are pretty good guys and not uptight enough to be trolling internet forums. Just remember that when you read some of these comments...someone isn't getting enough attention IRL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:49:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude, he's just trolling you now. If he's a cop, it's got to be a small dept. The cops at bigger depts around here are pretty good guys and not uptight enough to be trolling internet forums. Just remember that when you read some of these comments...someone isn't getting enough attention IRL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? Dude, he's just trolling you now. If he's a cop, it's got to be a small dept. The cops at bigger depts around here are pretty good guys and not uptight enough to be trolling internet forums. Just remember that when you read some of these comments...someone isn't getting enough attention IRL. ARDestructo isn't a cop but his parents are lawyers and FBI IIRC. He has/is pursuing a case against a dept in Texas for rights violations because he was illegally stopped while driving IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:55:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What crime was there probable cause of? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? What does the application for a warrant state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:58:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. There couldn't have been odor in the car because I had in an air freshener not to mention the single cigarette smoked in there that day. The officer told me during the stop when his mic was off that the dog in his car was going crazy. Like I said though, It wasn't a drug sniffing dog. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ Do you have a copy of the police report? MJ residue in the pipe that was found in the car but there couldn't be MJ odor in the car? Did the officer actually say his dog alerted or is that journalistic license by a creative lawyer? No. There couldn't have been odor in the car because I had in an air freshener not to mention the single cigarette smoked in there that day. The officer told me during the stop when his mic was off that the dog in his car was going crazy. Like I said though, It wasn't a drug sniffing dog. So, hey. You any relation to any of the Zullos over across the river, like Christopher and Tony and that bunch, used to live near Twistback Hill? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 8:21:26 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does the application for a warrant state? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? What does the application for a warrant state? Is this not a question you have an answer to? The car was seized before the application for the warrant. Answer the question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 8:27:40 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this not a question you have an answer to? The car was seized before the application for the warrant. Answer the question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? What does the application for a warrant state? Is this not a question you have an answer to? The car was seized before the application for the warrant. Answer the question. Seized because it was stopped, or towed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 8:28:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While you could say that anytime anything is found, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Police have been caught on video planting drugs as evidence before. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. How does one know they didn't plant the grinder and pipe? I'm sorry to say, I don't trust cops anymore While you could say that anytime anything is found, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Police have been caught on video planting drugs as evidence before. Do you have any idea how small a possibility that is. Infinitesimally small, statistically speaking. And in the incidents I have read about, the officer had something to gain from it (motive) and many other offenses (a history of it). That's what most of the "FTP" crowd fail to realize....there are very few of us who are willing to ruin a career over what is basically a misdemeanor arrest. Why the hell would I want to do that? What do I get out of it? A promotion? For that? HA ! Not to mention, even if I wanted to, it would be nearly impossible to get away with anything these days. Video, audio, coworkers, onlookers....the list goes on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 9:11:40 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any idea how small a possibility that is. Infinitesimally small, statistically speaking. And in the incidents I have read about, the officer had something to gain from it (motive) and many other offenses (a history of it). That's what most of the "FTP" crowd fail to realize....there are very few of us who are willing to ruin a career over what is basically a misdemeanor arrest. Why the hell would I want to do that? What do I get out of it? A promotion? For that? HA ! Not to mention, even if I wanted to, it would be nearly impossible to get away with anything these days. Video, audio, coworkers, onlookers....the list goes on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. How does one know they didn't plant the grinder and pipe? I'm sorry to say, I don't trust cops anymore While you could say that anytime anything is found, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Police have been caught on video planting drugs as evidence before. Do you have any idea how small a possibility that is. Infinitesimally small, statistically speaking. And in the incidents I have read about, the officer had something to gain from it (motive) and many other offenses (a history of it). That's what most of the "FTP" crowd fail to realize....there are very few of us who are willing to ruin a career over what is basically a misdemeanor arrest. Why the hell would I want to do that? What do I get out of it? A promotion? For that? HA ! Not to mention, even if I wanted to, it would be nearly impossible to get away with anything these days. Video, audio, coworkers, onlookers....the list goes on. I had my FTP training before there were cameras everywhere. I learned my lessons quite well about who and what cops really are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 9:23:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this not a question you have an answer to? The car was seized before the application for the warrant. Answer the question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:You spent your next few posts saying that it was a good search because the cop didn't know the guy wasn't committing a crime. Still a good search. What crime was there probable cause of? What does the application for a warrant state? Is this not a question you have an answer to? The car was seized before the application for the warrant. Answer the question. So you're saying you don't know the answer to my question? Look, if you want to debate the finer points of law enforcement with someone who does it for a living, you need to do your own footwork. As it is now, you asked a question which you can answer by yourself. I'm not going to hold your fucking hand while you figure it out, because I'm not an elementary school teacher. Go find the application for the search warrant and you'll have your answer. If you want to learn about LE (instead of harass and troll LEOs in GD) and have a legitimate question, post a thread in BOTS and we'll have this discussion in a different environment with a different tone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 10:09:33 PM EDT
[#49]
You have been pinned ZMV. A man would admit it and move one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 10:11:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While you could say that anytime anything is found, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Police have been caught on video planting drugs as evidence before. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. How does one know they didn't plant the grinder and pipe? I'm sorry to say, I don't trust cops anymore While you could say that anytime anything is found, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Police have been caught on video planting drugs as evidence before. Why would they plant a pipe and a grinder and not MJ or other drugs? BTW the guy came in here and admitted to having the pipe and grinder in his car. |
|
|
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.
