Mission Kansas Police Assualt Mother In Front Of Children .

[Captain Crawfish]

The fat baldy is a power trip faggot!

[cyclonescott]

A frisk is not a search, it has been deemed in court over and over again. You have the right to frisk someone for your safety. This lady was frisked and it appears searched because she was under arrest.

Per the video, all that had happened was that the officer asked her for ID and she had the audacity to ask why. She wasn't under arrest, doesn't even seem like the cops had asked her what was happening. If a cop was to treat my wife like that in front of my child they would not have to worry about being put on paid administrative leave.

[Chili]

A frisk is not a search, it has been deemed in court over and over again. You have the right to frisk someone for your safety. This lady was frisked and it appears searched because she was under arrest.

There are still conditions for a Terry Frisk, are there not? You cannot just go around frisking anyone you want without case. Understanding that the requirements are much less stringent that those required for a search.

" To justify the stop, a law enforcement officer must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed."

Probably met in this case, assuming the woman had been described to 911, and that the caller indicated a criminal act had been committed.

Per the video, all that had happened was that the officer asked her for ID and she had the audacity to ask why. She wasn't under arrest, doesn't even seem like the cops had asked her what was happening. If a cop was to treat my wife like that in front of my child they would not have to worry about being put on paid administrative leave.

Another thing that many people seem to miss, a cop cannot demand an ID without cause. At a minimum they are going to need to meet the standards mentioned above.

The problem is that so many cops ask for ID's and / or consent to search when they do not have an articulable reason, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. But they do so in such a way to imply that they will search either way, through intonation and wording. And in most cases, they are not required to explain to you that you have the right to refuse. Then, in cases where they may have PC or reasonable suspicion, they "ask" in the same manner, and if refused shit is escalated quickly.

So that leaves the general public in fear of questioning justification or refusing, because even if their right, the cop may escalate and get physical.

While I never think it is a good idea to try and "argue" your legal case with a cop on the side of the road, certain questioning should be within our right without getting shut down or facing retribution (verbally or physically).

I guess all we are really left with, as I have seen recommended by many, is to simply ask: "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?". If they say you are free to go, cease contact and leave immediately. If they say you are not, comply even if you think they do not have reasonable suspicion or probably cause, and if something is found or if they attempt to use statements you make later, attempt to get that "evidence" thrown out, as it was not consensual and they did not meet the requirements for the "search".

I have seen others recommend that when they ask for a search or ID, that you ask if that is a command or a request for consent. If they say command, comply, and argue in court if necessary. If they say it's simply a request, follow that with "am I free to leave". This will help keep them in check with their Jedi mind tricks without possibly exposing you to getting body slammed or otherwise censured.

[Machx2]

There are still conditions for a Terry Frisk, are there not? You cannot just go around frisking anyone you want without case. Understanding that the requirements are much less stringent that those required for a search.

" To justify the stop, a law enforcement officer must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed."

Probably met in this case, assuming the woman had been described to 911, and that the caller indicated a criminal act had been committed.



Another thing that many people seem to miss, a cop cannot demand an ID without cause. At a minimum they are going to need to meet the standards mentioned above.

The problem is that so many cops ask for ID's and / or consent to search when they do not have an articulable reason, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. But they do so in such a way to imply that they will search either way, through intonation and wording. And in most cases, they are not required to explain to you that you have the right to refuse. Then, in cases where they may have PC or reasonable suspicion, they "ask" in the same manner, and if refused shit is escalated quickly.

So that leaves the general public in fear of questioning justification or refusing, because even if their right, the cop may escalate and get physical.

While I never think it is a good idea to try and "argue" your legal case with a cop on the side of the road, certain questioning should be within our right without getting shut down or facing retribution (verbally or physically).

I guess all we are really left with, as I have seen recommended by many, is to simply ask: "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?". If they say you are free to go, cease contact and leave immediately. If they say you are not, comply even if you think they do not have reasonable suspicion or probably cause, and if something is found or if they attempt to use statements you make later, attempt to get that "evidence" thrown out, as it was not consensual and they did not meet the requirements for the "search".

I have seen others recommend that when they ask for a search or ID, that you ask if that is a command or a request for consent. If they say command, comply, and argue in court if necessary. If they say it's simply a request, follow that with "am I free to leave". This will help keep them in check with their Jedi mind tricks without possibly exposing you to getting body slammed or otherwise censured.

Yes, you need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.... As for the ID thing, you can "ask" anyone for anything, doesn't mean they have to give it to you. Now in this case, she would have to. I don't know where you are getting that if you don't give an officer what he asks for or let him search your car then he will verbally or physically abuse you. If I don't have probable cause and they tell me I can't search, it is followed by the word, Okay. Most of the time if you do have probable cause, yes you still ask to search. If they say no, you tell them tough.

[Machx2]

Per the video, all that had happened was that the officer asked her for ID and she had the audacity to ask why. She wasn't under arrest, doesn't even seem like the cops had asked her what was happening. If a cop was to treat my wife like that in front of my child they would not have to worry about being put on paid administrative leave.

I am done addressing your stupidity. Have a nice day.

[cyclonescott]

Yes, you need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.... As for the ID thing, you can "ask" anyone for anything, doesn't mean they have to give it to you. Now in this case, she would have to. I don't know where you are getting that if you don't give an officer what he asks for or let him search your car then he will verbally or physically abuse you. If I don't have probable cause and they tell me I can't search, it is followed by the word, Okay. Most of the time if you do have probable cause, yes you still ask to search. If they say no, you tell them tough.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC7n69Wu9as[/ame]
Yeah a cop would never freak out about not being able to search someones car.

Why would you ask to search someones car if you don't have probale cause? Again what did this women do that was illegal?

[Craizie]

I hope that pig got fired for that.

[cyclonescott]

I am done addressing your stupidity. Have a nice day.

Well the average police IQ is well below mine. http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...story?id=95836 Looks like they intentionally hire people with low IQ’s. By looking at your avatar I can easily tell that you have the mentality of the cop’s in the video. You are also either missing the point or are unable to understand it. Just because you have a badge doesn’t give you the right to trample on someone else’s rights. You are law enforcement, you should know the laws. Instead police just make shit up as they go and infringe on the public’s freedoms.

[Chili]

Yes, you need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.... As for the ID thing, you can "ask" anyone for anything, doesn't mean they have to give it to you. Now in this case, she would have to. I don't know where you are getting that if you don't give an officer what he asks for or let him search your car then he will verbally or physically abuse you. If I don't have probable cause and they tell me I can't search, it is followed by the word, Okay. Most of the time if you do have probable cause, yes you still ask to search. If they say no, you tell them tough.

My point was that when "asked" for ID or consent to search, because they are often "asked" in the same manner when they have PC or do not, you may be refusing when the cop believes they do have PC. And when you question the cop when they do have PC, things are likely to get ugly fast. And with some cops, questioning anything they say or "request" can make things get ugly fast. I'm not saying that anyone that questions a cop is guaranteed a beat down, but because the perspectives can sometimes be so far apart, while I may think that my questioning is reasonable, the cop may likely think that it is non-compliance with a lawful order, and choose to go "hands on".

Does that make sense? Not sure if I am explaining myself well.

Also, keep in mind, that although you may never go off on a person, or act unreasonably towards a person while on the job, does not mean that there aren't other officers that would not. And just like you don't know my motivations for my actions, I do not know yours. So even if I have only seen one cop completely abuse his power and largely overreact, for self preservation I have to assume every cop I encounter has that potential. Therefore, even when 100% justified, it puts me in a position to not want to question a cops actions.

IMO, a big step in the right direction, would be that when you are simply making a request, and not a command, you should be saying "you are not obligated to comply, but can I....". But I also understand why cops don't want to do that.. Because if you are that transparent, it's likely that everyone would say no. That's what I meant by "jedi mind tricks".

Hell, just watch the show cops.. There are plenty of times where a cop "asks" for consent to search, and it is given, and then they actually find something. IMO, in those scenarios, the people are giving consent because only because they don't fully realize that they are giving consent. They are just acknowledging what they perceive to be an order, rather than agreeing to something that they are fully justified in refusing.

Some cops will also gain consent by what I consider to be extortion:

"Can I search your car?"
"Not without a warrant."
"That's fine, if you don't want to give me consent then I am going to have to call out a K9 officer, which may take hours, you are going to be stuck here on the side of the road in the mean-time, and I am going to end up searching your car anyways once the K9 arrives"

I have known several people that have had that happen to them.. Complete bullshit.

Even if only a small percentage of cops abuse their powers, I have to react based on worst case scenario. So the only way to guarantee that I won't get the shit kicked out of me, I have to assume that every "request" is an order, and that I am obligated to comply.