So I got pulled over...

Doc Bernard said:
Since when is the officer the ?

Are you demanded payment on the spot? Or are you given an opportunity in court?

As to the example you gave.......well, it was your example. I just used it to make a point. But it seemed you knew more about that subject than you were saying, based on the wording. But the point of what I said/asked has been overlooked here. I ask it again.

I told you, using child molestation as an exemplar was a bad idea. How far should the investigation go to prove/disprove guilt/innocence?
Click to expand...

The officer decides you are suspect, searches the vehicle and decides you are innocent. See the judge element? Who signed the warrant, who passes an accusation, who decides I'm innocent? That extends far beyond what a policeman should be able to do. The policeman should not be able to accuse anyone or search if there is no real evidence, but the law practically allows that in the case of the car search.

I answered the question, you just didn't notice it. I would report it so that justice could look into it. Warrant and everything that goes with it. The Law defines how things should be done. The Law is intelligent enough to not leave such responsibilities on the hands of a policeman.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
The officer decides you are suspect, searches the vehicle and decides you are innocent. See the judge element?
Click to expand...

I do. But where do you draw the line? The officer is first on the scene and has to make a determination. Worthy of further investigation or not. Are you a danger to public safety? Or an individual who has committed a crime that is worthy of fine and/or arrest, according to the laws of the land? Point blank: If you violated a law, you are subject to whatever punishment is considered fair for that violation. And LEO's are there to catch people breaking the law or investigate if there were laws broken. They are entrusted to do so. What would you rather they do? Show up and do nothing?

Would you rather have the situation where you are considered automatically guilty until a lengthy investigation is concluded? It sounds like in Greece, as in the US, the officer is given discretion. It's not perfect, but what are your alternatives?

What would you consider fair and equitable? Something that guarantees an individuals rights but keeps the general public safe. That is a challenge every jurisdiction faces. And none have been perfect yet.

Again, I ask, what is the answer? Sorry if I seem abrupt with this, but had to deal with someone this week complaining constantly about something, but then when asked "Okay, what's your solution?" they just had a blank look on their face. Just me, if you don't have a real solution, stop complaining. Not you directly, Otis, but it seems associated.

Heck, Greece is the birthplace of democracy. If you really feel strong about your position, get involved. Advocate the changes you want to see.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
I do. But where do you draw the line? The officer is first on the scene and has to make a determination. Worthy of further investigation or not. Are you a danger to public safety? Or an individual who has committed a crime that is worthy of fine and/or arrest, according to the laws of the land? Point blank: If you violated a law, you are subject to whatever punishment is considered fair for that violation. And LEO's are there to catch people breaking the law. They are entrusted to do so. What would you rather they do?

Would you rather have the situation where you are considered automatically guilty until a lengthy investigation is concluded? It sounds like in Greece, as in the US, the officer is given discretion. It's not perfect, but what are your alternatives?

What would you consider fair and equitable? Something that guarantees an individuals rights but keeps the general public safe. That is a challenge every jurisdiction faces. And none have been perfect yet.

Again, I ask, what is the answer?
Click to expand...

I would like policemen to not be allowed to search when there is no solid evidence or a warrant justified by solid evidence. And when these searches happen, I would like policemen to be penalised for it. I'm talking about all those guys that are searched or strip searched based on how they look to the eyes of some policeman. It's about my rights. My phone calls and email are easily available to the authorities, that's a violation of my rights also. I would like to know what was achieved by this violation this year. Nobody asked me for it, but since it happened, I don't want my rights to be violated for nothing. When we loose our rights it's always supposed to be for our protection, but I don't buy that. I don't feel any safer or more protected and I see no evidence that supports that.

What is the answer to what? Can you please repeat/rephrase the question? I don't understand what you are asking.
 
Okay, what is "solid evidence" in your book? Let's start there. But then apply it across the board to every person and situation. You cannot have a "search and seizure law" that exempts certain people or situations under that law and expect equality. Having an officer observe the action, would that constitute "solid evidence"?

You can either expect complete rigidity to the law, or you can have discretion.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
Okay, what is "solid evidence" in your book? Let's start there. But then apply it across the board to every person and situation. You cannot have a "search and seizure law" that exempts certain people or situations under that law and expect equality. Having an officer observe the action, would that constitute "solid evidence"?

You can either expect complete rigidity to the law, or you can have discretion.
Click to expand...

I'm not a policeman, they should be trained about how these things are done. Did they see a suspicious transaction? I don't receive packages in strange places before entering a car. Why should they search my car? Random searches are hardly productive when the percentage of offenders is so small. It's a waste of resources. Random tests are effective when checking for alcohol level, because we know many people are driving around with high alcohol levels on a Saturday evening. Statistics justify the method.

And is the drug market getting any smaller because a couple of hundred grams are found in a car? Searching random cars for drugs in a big city is like the water supply company searching for leaks in my basin. Searching a ship makes sense, searching at the border make sense, you might get tons and catch some big fish, it's far more productive and you might save some lives.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
I'm not a policeman, they should be trained about how these things are done.
Click to expand...
They are. They don't train them to violate the law.

But using your suggestion, let's discuss further. Okay, place all law enforcement on the border and search only incoming vessels/vehicles, and focus on large suppliers/violators only. What about the local dealers? And local violators? What about petty theft? Reckless Driving?

By using your suggestion, you have just hobbled your own protection from petty criminals. The guy that breaks into your home and steals your TV/computer/camera gear. He was seen in the area by the local police, parked near your home, but now they cannot stop him for suspicious behavior (not belonging in that neighborhood at 3 am, or driving suspiciously, carrying your stuff out to his car), based on your suggestion. And many police, if assigned to a regular area, know what is normal or not. But now, just suspicion is not enough to stop someone.

It's a trade-off, sadly. But what other tools can they use? If you never saw them and cannot give eyewitness evidence.......

Just remember, they really don't search for drugs when they don't suspect it. Something to think about. I doubt they treat an octogenarian in a 40 year old vehicle to a full drug search. One would have to ask, has the person pulled over given some hint or clue that they might be carrying drugs? Overly nervous behavior is a red-flag. A belligerent attitude is another one.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
They are. They don't train them to violate the law.

But using your suggestion, let's discuss further. Okay, place all law enforcement on the border and search only incoming vessels/vehicles, and focus on large suppliers/violators only. What about the local dealers? And local violators? What about petty theft?

By using your suggestion, you have just hobbled your own protection from petty criminals. The guy that breaks into your home and steals your TV/computer/camera gear. He was seen in the area by the local police, parked near your home, but now they cannot stop him for suspicious behavior (not belonging in that neighborhood at 3 am, or driving suspiciously, carrying your stuff out to his car), based on your suggestion. And many police, if assigned to a regular area, know what is normal or not.

It's a trade-off, sadly. But what other tools can they use? If you never saw them and cannot give eyewitness evidence.......
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting placing all law enforcement on the border, it's just where you will want to look if you interested in really stopping the phenomenon.

I don't see something wrong with someone driving in a neighborhood. That would't justify a search IMHO. If he/she is carrying something out of the house or coming out of a window, you can arrest him. If he/she is waiting, he/she might be waiting for someone else carrying more evidence, so arrest both of them. If he/she is just sitting there, don't scare him/her away, wait until there is some evidence to make a case. I doubt he/she is just sitting there outside the house with evidence in the car. Dunno, how adventurous are we? Is there an ongoing crime, is there someone in danger? Enter the house waiving a gun. Or follow them to the warehouse or the dealer, good luck doing that with a police car. Then we can do the Mutt and Jeff routine. It's an interesting profession and most scriptwriters love it.
 
Batutta said:
Actually there have been a few I was pulled over stories, but I won't link them...All I'll say is that if you're my shade in the US, you don't say anything to the cops other than 'yes, sir' for fear of getting Rodney King'd.
Click to expand...

Or getting shot at while you drive away like in Diadema, São Paulo.

Nuts with guns should only be a description suited for homicidal psychotics, not law enforcers.
 
Chris Light said:
i liked this thread better when people were telling their "i got pulled over" stories. just sayin...
Click to expand...
Yeah, but this has taken an interesting intellectual direction. I do not discount Otis's position at all. Matter of fact I want more info from him on his side of this discussion.

He has an interesting position to me. I just want to understand where he is coming from, and see it from his perspective.

Sorry, if this has bored some people. I crave talking theory and philosophy regarding our present world. Otis has an opinion I find very intriguing.

Don't get me wrong, talking cameras, shots etc. is good stuff, but sometimes just meat and potatoes don't cut it. This seems to be the only site I can engage in philosophical debate, yet keep the discussion civil. That says a lot, for me.
 
LOL, yeah I have seen that video a couple of times. I'd say that officer was completely restrained and professional. The driver on the otherhand......total idiot.
 
fine with me Doc. you don't have to explain yourself to me. really. it was a fun thread when it started, that's all i was saying.

i'm about to throw a weighty metal scope thing with a Canon FD mount in the god damn trash if you (still) have no interest in it. yeah, it's still sitting on my desk. "just sayin"
 
And Battuta:

Originally Posted by Batutta
Actually there have been a few I was pulled over stories, but I won't link them...All I'll say is that if you're my shade in the US, you don't say anything to the cops other than 'yes, sir' for fear of getting Rodney King'd.
Click to expand...

I feel bad that this is a situation faced in the US. I am saddened by this. It is not my vision of America. And not something I support. Hell, I know it doesn't do much, but dammit, it's not the America I believe in. Freedom for all means just that.
 
i'm about to throw a weighty metal scope thing with a Canon FD mount in the god damn trash if you (still) have no interest in it. yeah, it's still sitting on my desk. "just sayin"
Click to expand...
Damn, I keep forgetting about that! Yes I want it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can come down that way this week........ What did we agree on?
 
Postmaster said:
@timbook2 - yeah, I remember that Tranststrecke pretty well. When you where crossing the border in Hof, it was like entering the dark empire. You where lucky, you could have also ended up in a Russian gulag. I had pretty bad experience with Vo-Pos.

Frank
Click to expand...

I am not going to tell the story that led me to treat the VoPo like this but let me just say that previously I had my experience with STASI in the DDR without having done anything and THAT led to my reaction.....
Anybody ever got pulled over by Mexican police?
 
groveChuck said:
Scary story, Nathan!

Cops- a chicken or egg thing.
How many of them were aggressive, power hungry borderline personality or sociopath types before joining the force, and how many change from too many stressful, negative experiences on the job? It's not like they deal with the nicest, most well adjusted people on the job when things get really tough.
Click to expand...

It's the only real negative experience I've ever had but it wow! And cops have never given me any real trouble, but that one time was enough.

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top