# When the Crime is a Failure to Comply



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

https://chi.streetsblog.org/2020/02...or-breaking-a-minor-cta-rule-ends-in-tragedy/

Wavetops:
_Chicago government puts forth an initiative to step up enforcement on public transit. Within minutes of the official announcement, two officers spot a man stepping between train cars. This is an infraction, of some sort, but I have not been able to find anything specific on the severity of the infraction, or what it’s normal punishment is. By most accounts, it appears to be on-par with a parking ticket. 

The officers pursue the man, and attempt to place him under arrest. The man resists arrest. It is worth noting that his resistance was not violent; just a failure to relent to being detained. The accompanying videos show the altercation, and the man never swings, kicks, or attempts to gain an officers’ weapon. He just resists having his arms placed in a way to allow the officers to cuff him. 

In the course of the attempted arrest, and his resistance, the officers taze and mace him. Near the end of the attempt to subdue him on the ground, the nearest officer tells the supporting officer to “shoot him” several times. 

The man slips out of the grasp of officer #1, and begins to flee up a nearby escalator, at which point the supporting officer does shoot him. The man runs up the escalator, with the officers in pursuit, and they shoot him again near the top of the escalator (this second shot is not on camera, so the circumstances are not known). _



The question I see in all of this is; where, if anywhere, does the duty to comply end? Also, is there ever a point where the severity of the original crime invalidates any protection the government might have from the consequences of escalating it via an attempt to arrest?


In the Alton Sterling case, the original infraction of selling CDs illegally was admittedly very minor. In the course of the attempted arrest, Mr. Sterling tried to access a weapon, at which point the arresting officers matched the level of force being brought to bear.

This case, in my opinion, is much more disturbing. The suspect never appeared to make any sort of violent moves, other than resisting attempts to subdue him.

Are we expected to accept our government being willing, able, and protected in their mandate to subdue us, at any cost, regardless the severity of the infraction?


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

What happened to writing a ticket for something so minor?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

This is where our "police state " is headed . Next will be public Execution for disagreeing with the government.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Really? How inflammatory. 

There are several steps in between.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

robin416 said:


> What happened to writing a ticket for something so minor?


One has to comply before tickets can be written.
It seems he never complied at all, but instead tried to leave the scene.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

robin416 said:


> What happened to writing a ticket for something so minor?


I guess the challenge here was that they couldn’t write him a ticket if they couldn’t get his ID.

Many departments long ago instituted policies of non-pursuit in the case of non-violent vehicular offenses. The rationale being that the risk of injury to innocent bystanders outweighed the need to catch the bad guy... not to mention that most vehicles carry ID on the rear bumper, and the cops at least have a lead for future follow-up.

In a case like this one in Chicago, if the bad guy got away, they might have no way to ever follow up with him.

That said, aren’t some crimes so minor that the State’s authority to continue to escalate force should end at some reasonable point? 

Sure, the guy should have just stopped, taken his ticket or whatever, and answered to the court, but he didn’t. He didn’t commit a violent act, gave no indication of having a weapon, and gave no reason to believe that he’d harm anyone during his escape. Does the State have to “win” compliance every time, no matter the cost?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Really? How inflammatory.
> 
> There are several steps in between.



yep. I though the same thing.

That said, I’m pretty sure I’m not comfortable with the potential future reality @D-BOONE suggested, regardless how many steps it takes us to get there.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Seems like they could’ve just yelled at him to stop and when he took off, walked away.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I think a mentality has take over in police training to insist on compliance, at all cost. Maybe it is not that explicit, but practically speaking that seems to be the result.

I watch a lot of police ride along video, and am surprised sometimes by what they show. It is ALWAYS comply or else.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

This is really getting uncomfortable for me. My first instinct is to advise to comply and argue about it in court. At least you'll live to fight another day. The police are the everyday face of the government we've chosen (marginally perhaps) to represent us and form the rules of conduct we must? Should? abide by.

Defending this position is becoming harder and harder for me as I see more and more of our day-to-day freedoms eroding.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

when it gets to the point where they stop just anybody on the street for no reason and it escalates to them shooting the victim. I hope I am not around anymore..
almost BTDT . I didn't resist, though..was detained for almost an hour and then just let go.. the whole story is much longer than this..


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)




----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> _T_he question I see in all of this is; where, if anywhere, does the duty to comply end? Also, is there ever a point where the severity of the original crime invalidates any protection the government might have from the consequences of escalating it via an attempt to arrest?
> 
> Are we expected to accept our government being willing, able, and protected in their mandate to subdue us, at any cost, regardless the severity of the infraction?


Chicago is a symptom of what is happening in a lot of metro areas; police used as enforcers and debt collectors and revenue enhancers for persons and entities operating outside of the interests of the people.
There is a currently a lawsuit against the city of Chicago for impounding vehicles based on traffic violations (Chicago vs Fulton).

We visited one of our sons at college last week. In his city, on street parking was 30 minutes per quarter. In Chicago 25 cents will get you 5 minutes, though it won't prevent the meter patrol from ticketing you if you are too close to the curb, your bumper hangs over and into the next spot, your front wheels are turned out or, even if you are paid up, you exceeded the two hour max for that spot.
Collecting $200 or more each month off the typical urban driver for such infractions isn't in the best interests of the public, but it does serve those in power who need funding for projects, nepotism and bloated budgets.
Restraining a citizen for slipping between two cars and tasing them when a simple shout and short lecture would have sufficed is a preview of days and things to come. 
I am so glad I live in nowhere.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand if had stopped and taken the ticket, or spoke with the officers it would never have gotten to this level. On the other... the amount of force was definitely excessive for a slight infraction. But then I go back to if had stopped and complied he may not have even gotten a ticket. You don't want to blame the 'victim' but sometimes you have to look at them and just ask... why... what part of this sounded like a good idea to you?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

gleepish said:


> I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand if had stopped and taken the ticket, or spoke with the officers it would never have gotten to this level. On the other... the amount of force was definitely excessive for a slight infraction. But then I go back to if had stopped and complied he may not have even gotten a ticket. You don't want to blame the 'victim' but sometimes you have to look at them and just ask... why... what part of this sounded like a good idea to you?


That’s kind of where I am on this. I don’t think either parties’ actions were acceptable, but the wrong of each side is hugely imbalanced.

The suspect should have taken his licks for the minor transgression he committed. BUT, the transgression was extremely minor (up to and including the resistance) and never should have escalated to the point of deadly force.

The State nearly killed a man for a victimless crime of extremely minor importance.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

There is some thought-provoking reading on the case of John Bad Elk v. United States, for the interested. The case is from 1899, and the SCOTUS found that unlawful arrest could be used as an arguable defense, even in the case where the “suspect” kills the officer.

Unfortunately, the very thought of the government taking that position seems completely foreign to us today... because it is.

The last paragraph in the Wiki summary pretty much says it all:


> This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law in a growing number of jurisdictions. Most states have, either by statute or by case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States


The United States of America are the one place on earth where one should expect the government to recognize the people’s right to at least legally _argue_ self-defense in the case of unlawful arrest. That concept points directly to what used to be the core of our identity.
Sadly, that is no longer the case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The United States of America are the one place on earth where one should expect the government to recognize the people’s right to at least legally _argue_ self-defense in the case of unlawful arrest.


You can legally "argue" it.
You just have to argue it *after* it happens, and in court instead of on the street.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can legally "argue" it.
> You just have to argue it *after* it happens, and in court instead of on the street.


That makes absolutely no sense.
John Bad Elk shot a tribal police officer who was drawing a gun as part of an attempt to try to arrest him- notably for an offense that the officer had no warrant to arrest him.

The whole point of the discussion is cases where resistance to arrest may be justified, and to what level of escalation the State may protect their officers who take it there.

Sure, an unlawful arrest may be argued in court. But, in the context of liberty, the free man who believes he’s being arrested unlawfully may defend himself, AND THEN argue that point, should it ever go to court. This isn’t a unique or new concept. In fact, it’s generally held true in common-law.

The alarming point is that many states have disallowed the right to even use unlawful arrest as a defense in the case of self-defense resulting in the injury of an officer of the State. In that case, the court may find that the defendant was being unlawfully arrested, but still guilty of the “crime” of resisting arrest.

THAT is counter to what the United States of America are.

To not be outraged by that is to forget who We are.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Both my younger sister and brother-in-law are police officers in Prince George's County, MN (right outside of DC). High crime area. What they both say is "if a police officer tells you to do something, do it. You can sue them later if you think they were wrong." But, the respect for the police in our country has fallen so low that people will video a police officer being beat up rather than assist. Since I wasn't at the situation you listed, I'm not judging what happened. All in all, if the guy would have stopped and done what they told him to do, it would not have gone further.


----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

There are SOOO many things wrong here.

I wholeheartedly do not agree with any law that gives ANY officer the right to force compliance through the guile of threat!!!!!

The internet is full of videos of folks being pulled from vehicles ect for failing to give a name......no sir...you tell.me what crime I'm suspected of.....THEN I'll comply...

If I haven't broken a law, and there isn't a victim.....my name and other information is none of your damn business....period.....

We as a country have laid down our 4th amendment, one amendment at a time. Inch by inch....


----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Really? How inflammatory.


Not inflammatory at all......police commonly overstep. They have to communicate why they're detaining you.....and if some slimy law or rule exists unconstitutionally that allows it...its still wrong....and I will not submit.



hiddensprings said:


> if a police officer tells you to do something, do it


No disrespect...but this is BS, unless they can communicate a valid reason for delaying the person.


Bearfootfarm said:


> You can legally "argue" it.
> You just have to argue it *after* it happens, and in court instead of on the street.


I wholeheartedly disagree! You do not have the right to detain me without just cause. And minor victimless misdemeanors are not just cause. 



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The United States of America are the one place on earth where one should expect the government to recognize the people’s right to at least legally _argue_ self-defense in the case of unlawful arrest. That concept points directly to what used to be the core of our identity.


AMEN!


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

One of the reasons LEO are held in contempt by many citizens is just this. They are out there being forced to enforce laws against selling individual cigarettes, CD's and no doubt soon bagging up groceries with the wrong or a free bag. That is not their intended purpose. How about having these idiot politicians enforce their stupid laws against normal human commerce? If you don't pay your property tax on time, I believe that is handled as a civil matter. If you park in the wrong spot, they give you a ticket. No armed policemen shows up at your door until it has been through a judicial process.....at least yet.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

hiddensprings said:


> Both my younger sister and brother-in-law are police officers in Prince George's County, MN (right outside of DC). High crime area. What they both say is "if a police officer tells you to do something, do it. You can sue them later if you think they were wrong." But, the respect for the police in our country has fallen so low that people will video a police officer being beat up rather than assist. Since I wasn't at the situation you listed, I'm not judging what happened. All in all, if the guy would have stopped and done what they told him to do, it would not have gone further.


That’s the unfortunate dichotomy of this situation. The police _should_ be respected. They are citizens who’ve volunteered to take on the often thankless role of doing our collective bidding. 

They deserve our respect, and the recent degradation in implicit respect for the police, agents of the State, is disturbing. 

That said, it’s even more disturbing that the State has decreed that compliance to the will of the State is paramount. 

You cross the street in the wrong place, you’ll stop and answer to the State. If you choose not to stop, the State will deploy non-lethal force against you. If that non-lethal force proves insufficient, they’ll escalate all the way to deadly force til you comply. Should you survive the encounter, the court is not even willing to entertain your argument for self-defense. 



What about the case where a citizen is “caught” selling marijuana? That’s considered wrong, today. If he resists arrest and the altercation ends in death for either the officer or the citizen? That actual scenario has happened countless times since the 1930s. 

What about when using an improper gender pronoun is decreed hate-speech? The courts may throw out that law someday, but what about the citizen who resists an officer attempting to arrest them for that crime?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

By law if an officer requests to interview you and asks for identification for investigation or suspect elimination purposes, you must provide your ID or at least name and social security number.

Also most people fail to keep in mind that an investigation detention can include being hand cuffed and placed in the cruiser cage during the interview. When a investigation elimination interview is completed, the detainee is released.

Arrest occurs after the investigative phase and if not already cuffed after being detained , the detainee is cuffed and read their Miranda rights.

Unfortunately many think they can ignore a LEO interview request and escalate the situation by resisting or attempting to flee which are both chargeable violations.

With the increased contempt of the law , many LEOs forget that when they have a detainee choose to rabbit, they also must take into consideration the safety of the public around the detainee turned rabbit.

I remember back in 1980 , a city PD lost a car they were trying to stop as it got on the interstate heading north. Instead of high speed pursuing and PIT maneuvering the car , a state trooper slow pursued the car at 55 to 65 as other troopers blocked from the front and it ended about 30 minutes later.

Now in addition to individuals with contempt of the law and often driving at 100 mph and some LEOs forgetting the need to consider the safety of the public , it all combines to produce a society that has contempt of all law enforcement and the bad apple LEOs make it hard on the officers who enforce properly.

A couple years ago there was a motorcyclist here who was routinely speeding in excess of 100 mph because he had no license and knew the policy is not to pursue a cycle in excess of 90 as a wipeout at that speed is considered fatality potential.

A senior FTO sergeant came up with plan that ended it in three days because they knew the direction he normally went and speeded after seeing a cruiser.

He and other officers cruised the stretch the motorcycle flew through when pursued and took pictures of him as he passed them at normal speed and each night they extended the trail and on the third night they followed him to the apartment complex where he lived.

When they checked the unlicensed cycle, they found it was stolen from a state up north and the apartment manager helped them identify him.

When they got him into custody without incident they found he had a long rap sheet and an extradition back to where the cycle came from for some major felonies .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

bobp said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree! You do not have the right to detain me without just cause. And minor victimless misdemeanors are not just cause.


They had a cause. 
It makes no difference to them if you "disagree".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The whole point of the discussion is *cases where resistance to arrest may be justified*, and to what level of escalation the State may protect their officers who take it there.


There was no "justification to resist" in the case cited in the OP.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Sure, an unlawful arrest may be argued in court. But, in the context of liberty, *the free man who believes he’s being arrested unlawfully may defend himself*, AND THEN argue that point, should it ever go to court.
> 
> This isn’t a unique or new concept. In fact, it’s generally held true *in common-law*.


We don't go by "common law" when there's a written one.
What you "believe" doesn't change the wording of the statutes.

You're free to take whatever action you want, but don't act surprised if it gets you killed.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

People have voted into office legislators that have created laws. If its not worth enforcing then get rid of that law. There is no purpose in any law if its not enforced. If a law is ignored one time then why enforce any at all ?

Picking and choosing what laws to follow that day or in that mood is just not workable. Everyone has to follow the laws or the laws serve no purpose. 

There is NO reason to complain about the results of not following the rules.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We have too many laws


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yes, we have too many laws. The intent of a law is, no was, to protect the public and their liberties.
Laws are duplicated now, ie gun laws, hate crimes, for political purposes, and for money.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

D-BOONE said:


> This is where our "police state " is headed . Next will be public Execution for disagreeing with the government.


That's why they want us all to be disarmed....so they can have total control over everyone.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> We have too many laws


Very true.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Many of which are counter productive, IMO.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Loss of respect is their own doing. They dont follow the law to enforce the law. example:It is against the law to provide false information to law enforcement ,But they can lie to your face even to the point of entrapment. I no longer believe a thing they say.
If someone steals your property and runs away you cant shoot them in the back.But if a cop sees you jay walking says stop and you run he can shoot you in the back with no threat or no danger present.AS long as we have 2 sets of laws, one for citizens and another for cops society will continue to disrespect and lose faith in them.


----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

The OP about failing to comply being a crime is where I take severe exemptions....

IE: being pulled over without an explanation until AFTER they run your information. This is BS.....period..... its entrapment....they check for warrants ect first......

They owe you the citizen taxpayer a simple courtesy and respect of identifying their causaition for detaining you up front.

For instance 
" Good Afternoon sir, I pulled you over for a taillight being out" ect.......instead lacking an obvious primary violation they frequently go on fishing expeditions...to search folks backgrounds...this is a violation of the 4th.....


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no "justification to resist" in the case cited in the OP.


I don’t think anyone has said that the citizen’s resistance was justified. Based on the lack of severity of the infraction, an actual arrest seems unreasonable, but there are some missing seconds between the infraction and the attempted detainment. 
But, of course, that’s not the point. 

The point was whether or not the officer was justified in shooting a fleeing citizen who managed to avoid arrest non-violently. 

I know you always come down on the side of the police (and I usually do), but it doesn’t concern you that non-violent resistance to detainment was met with deadly force by the State?



Bearfootfarm said:


> We don't go by "common law" when there's a written one.
> What you "believe" doesn't change the wording of the statutes.


Common law, in a case like this, is a good sniff-check, if nothing else. It is the precedent by which written statues can reasonably be judged. 

If common law precedent says that the unjustly arrested can justly resist arrest, AND the SCOTUS even agrees, you’re really not the least concerned by state or local statute that removes that commonly held right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I don’t think anyone has said that the citizen’s resistance was justified.


You were the one who first mentioned it.



> GunMonkeyIntl said: ↑
> The whole point of the discussion is *cases where resistance to arrest may be justified*, and to what level of escalation the State may protect their officers who take it there.





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Common law, in a case like this, is a good sniff-check, if nothing else. It is the precedent by which written statues can reasonably be judged.


It doesn't negate the written law in any way.
Statutes can be "judged" any time in court, not on the street.

None of that changes the current laws.
You just keep repeating the same things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If common law precedent says that the *unjustly* arrested can justly resist arrest, AND the SCOTUS even agrees, you’re really not the least concerned by state or local statute that removes that commonly held right?


It says you can resist an *unlawful* arrest.
Not just any arrest you think is "unjust".

Challenge the statute in court if you don't like it.
It was written in response to the Supreme Court ruling.

There's still nothing that justifies the actions of the offender in the OP case.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Challenge the statute in court.
> It was written in response to the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> There's still nothing that justifies the actions of the offender in the OP case.


Forget about the damned “offender” for a minute. Forget about whatever infraction they committed. 

Is the agent of the State justified in shooting a fleeing citizen, who non-violently evaded arrest?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Forget about the damned “offender” for a minute. Forget about whatever infraction they committed.
> 
> Is the agent of the State justified in shooting a fleeing citizen, who non-violently evaded arrest?


No one 'non-violently evaded arrest".
You really have no idea why they shot him because you can't see him clearly at the time he was shot.

I have no interest in your hypothetical anti-govt fantasy scenarios.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Forget about the damned “offender” for a minute. Forget about whatever infraction they committed.
> 
> Is the agent of the State justified in shooting a fleeing citizen, who non-violently evaded arrest?


The State is never justified shooting at or shooting a fleeing person unless it is likely that person is a danger to others. But, I am just an anti-government whacko....


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

one can just about guess the age of a person by how they reply and respond to the "authorities".
someone mentioned having to respond by giving your name and social security number.
I think there is some confusion . the term is name , rank and serial number. and that applies to prisoner of war.
when us very much older people got our social security number cards, we were told to guard that number and never let anybody see it.. 
remember ??
the term "respect" the cops pops up a lot.
I haven't seen anybody mention the respect the cops are supposed to show to the citizens.
to be honest, I am scared to death to be pulled over by any cop, now a day..


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

bobp said:


> The OP about failing to comply being a crime is where I take severe exemptions....
> 
> IE: being pulled over without an explanation until AFTER they run your information. This is BS.....period..... its entrapment....they check for warrants ect first......
> 
> ...


Entrapment is also asking the driver if they know why they were pulled over. The answer is "no sir, I don't have a clue" but a lot of people don't know they don't have to answer that. 
With license readers in the patrol cars, they get your info just by being behind you.


----------



## StarSchoolFarm (Nov 29, 2013)

Entrapment is every law…as any lawyer will tell you. 

It’s only wrong if you get caught.

And then pay to get out of it


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I may be the odd one here but I get very polite and comply with orders from anyone, cop, soldier, or civilian who is armed and I am not. We can go in front of a judge later. At the moment I concern myself more about staying alive than being right. Even an angry old farmer that jumps up ten feet from me in his melon patch. It was "yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir" all the way to his front porch where I sat quietly waiting for the sheriff to come rescue me! Odd how looking down the wrong end of a double barreled shotgun can make a young punk mind his manners. I never saw that old geezer again. Spent a few nights in the crossbar hotel at the counties expense, ironed out my differences Monday morning on the judges front porch and that was the end of it. (Mostly)

The man in the story was an idiot. Risked his life over nothing!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shrek said:


> *By law if an officer requests to interview you and asks for identification for investigation or suspect elimination purposes, you must provide your ID or at least name and social security number.*
> 
> Also most people fail to keep in mind that an investigation detention can include being hand cuffed and placed in the cruiser cage during the interview. When a investigation elimination interview is completed, the detainee is released.
> 
> ...


In most states, you only have to provide identification if your suspected of committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime. Suspicion is not a crime. You cannot legal be detained for suspicion. These are fundamental 1st and 4th amendment rights. You do NOT have to communicate with law enforcement ever and you can disengage from the attempt! That's a choice you have to make.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Forget about the damned “offender” for a minute. Forget about whatever infraction they committed.
> 
> Is the agent of the State justified in shooting a fleeing citizen, who non-violently evaded arrest?


Yes they should be shot. No questions asked afterwards as long as the law enforcment camera shows them fleeing.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I may be the odd one here but I get very polite and comply with orders from anyone, cop, soldier, or civilian who is armed and I am not. We can go in front of a judge later. At the moment I concern myself more about staying alive than being right. Even an angry old farmer that jumps up ten feet from me in his melon patch. It was "yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir" all the way to his front porch where I sat quietly waiting for the sheriff to come rescue me! Odd how looking down the wrong end of a double barreled shotgun can make a young punk mind his manners. I never saw that old geezer again. Spent a few nights in the crossbar hotel at the counties expense, ironed out my differences Monday morning on the judges front porch and that was the end of it. (Mostly)
> 
> The man in the story was an idiot. Risked his life over nothing!



Yes !!! Lots of problems solved with that attitude. Figure it out in court.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> Yes they should be shot. No questions asked afterwards as long as the law enforcment camera shows them fleeing.


Will you explain your rationale for this belief?


----------



## StarSchoolFarm (Nov 29, 2013)

Get shot for “running” from revenue enforcement. 

Makes sense if you believe government should be in charge of everything you do. Be it a breathing or walking.

TAXATION IS THEFT


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Hiro said:


> The State is never justified shooting at or shooting a fleeing person unless it is likely that person is a danger to others. But, I am just an anti-government whacko....


Just because you are a whacko doesn't mean the government isn't corrupt.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Will you explain your rationale for this belief?


Yeah- I couldn’t figure that one out, either. 
Wasn’t sure if they were saying the citizen should be shot just for running... or the cop should be shot for shooting a fleeing suspect just for running.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Hiro said:


> Will you explain your rationale for this belief?


Jagermeister, and probably queso in the keyboard.


----------



## mrghostwalker (Feb 6, 2011)

If a person has been stopped by the Police for violating the law- they have to comply with the lawful orders of the Officers. That said, if that same person refused to comply he can be charged with an addition crime (Failure to Comply or whatever that particular State calls it). As has been said previously, If the arresting Officers act unlawfully they can be sued and arrested- depending on the situation. If a citizen believes he is being arrested illegally he may NOT use force to avoid arrest. Avoiding arrest is NOT self-defense. 
Now regarding the news story out of Chicago, every Law Enforcement Officer in the country knows that you don't shoot someone who is running away unless there is an imminent threat to someone else. All Officers are familiar with Tennessee vs Garner- that includes the Chicago Police. Obviously there is no excuse or rational for what happened, unless there is more to the story which we do not know.
That said, this situation is the exception, not the norm. Most Officer do not want to get tangled up in a rights-violation case.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Hiro said:


> Will you explain your rationale for this belief?


If a law enforcment officer stops you then comply. You do not have to agree. You do not have to be commenting a serious crime. Heck you do not need to be doing any crime. Just stop, do what your told. 

If you have problem then take it to court, at the officers bosses office or otherwise resolve the issue in a proper location. 

It’s hard to allow running from law enforcement for certain reasons. Where do you draw the line. So no exceptions, stop and take care of the situation. 



Run away and I could care less why you have to deal with a unpleasant or unfortunate issue.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> If a law enforcment officer stops you then comply. You do not have to agree. You do not have to be commenting a serious crime. Heck you do not need to be doing any crime. Just stop, do what your told.
> 
> If you have problem then take it to court, at the officers bosses office or otherwise resolve the issue in a proper location.
> 
> ...


Your view of what it means to be a citizen of the United States is truly disturbing. 


And I suspect it would be incredibly disappointing to those old powdered wig wearing folks who started shooting back at the government that shot at them.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

mrghostwalker said:


> If a person has been stopped by the Police for violating the law- they have to comply with the lawful orders of the Officers. That said, if that same person refused to comply he can be charged with an addition crime (Failure to Comply or whatever that particular State calls it). As has been said previously, If the arresting Officers act unlawfully they can be sued and arrested- depending on the situation. If a citizen believes he is being arrested illegally he may NOT use force to avoid arrest. Avoiding arrest is NOT self-defense.
> Now regarding the news story out of Chicago, every Law Enforcement Officer in the country knows that you don't shoot someone who is running away unless there is an imminent threat to someone else. All Officers are familiar with Tennessee vs Garner- that includes the Chicago Police. Obviously there is no excuse or rational for what happened, unless there is more to the story which we do not know.
> That said, this situation is the exception, not the norm. Most Officer do not want to get tangled up in a rights-violation case.



According to case law (including a SCOTUS ruling), resistance to unjustified arrest actually can be self-defense. 

No matter how minor the infraction, if a citizen transgresses a law put in place by the representatives of the People, they should be held accountable. Running from the police is _almost_ never the right thing to do, and the folks who do it _almost_ always have done something that they need to answer for.

Unfortunately, almost nothing is always true. 

Our justice system favors the accused for good reason. When compared to the power of the collective, the power of the individual is usually insignificant, but our unique society is structured to favor the right of the individual wherever possible. If we let ourself get to a point where the individual is supposed to do what they’re supposed to do, just because the group says so, then we’ll have lost our identity. 



I tend to think that anyone stepping between train cars, despite the group having told him not to, is probably a jerk. But, even more than I think that, I don’t want to be any part of a group that thinks it’s OK to kill him for being a jerk.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> If a law enforcment officer stops you then comply. You do not have to agree. You do not have to be commenting a serious crime. Heck you do not need to be doing any crime. Just stop, do what your told.
> 
> If you have problem then take it to court, at the officers bosses office or otherwise resolve the issue in a proper location.
> 
> ...


If a law enforcement officer stops you and gives a reasonable order, you should comply. I have had LEO shout dumbass commands, like stop while crossing against a signal.....yeah, that is brilliant. I am going to stop here in the middle of the street. Should I have been shot as I kept walking?

You are giving too much authority over life and death to actors of the State. It should be a judgement call on the LEO's part whether to pursue. They should be locked up for attempted murder for shooting at a fleeing suspect that has not engaged in some violent crime or is not fleeing in such a way as to be a danger to others....but again, I am an anti-government whacko.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...................The initial situation is equivalent to a Cop chasing a guy who ran a Stop sign ! So , the cop starts pursuing the person through residential neighborhoods and finally onto 4 lane streets and 1 cop turns into 4 or more cops and they're all running 60 to 100 mph and ALL drivers are supposed to react to their lights and sirens like they are participating in the Indy 500 . 
....................The Cops are as much of a Hazard to the general public as the Idiot who 'Ran' from the first cop in the first place ! SOME cities have had enough sense to put a stop to these types of road races , but some still allow cops to pursue ANY driver who refuses to stop , regardless of the potential danger to the public that such pursuits create ! , fordy


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................The War on Drugs is responsible for the loss of a lot of the freedoms that citizens are experiencing on basic traffic stops that previously resulted in either a warning Ticket OR a simple notification from the cop about the problem ! NOW , most cops use a simple burned out tail light as an excuse to force the driver from their vehicle so they can conduct a complete search for drugs OR anything they can charge you with !
...................The total corruption of the Law Enforcement community on a national basis is best exemplified by the Misapplication of the Civil Forfeiture statutes which have shown HOW Cops Steal money , homes , or any assets they think they can take with OUT filing any charges against the legal owners of those assets ! IF they file charges against anyone that action will be subjected to normal court procedures which will quickly FAIL once they are required to provide proof of guilt ! , fordy


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> But, even more than I think that, I don’t want to be any part of a group that thinks it’s OK to kill him for being a jerk.


No one killed anyone "for being a jerk".
You still don't know why they decided to shoot, or how the physical altercation started and ended.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

And all of the above was caused by someone running and then you get the mess described above as a result of the law officers doing their job. Running as a general rule does nothing to help solve problems. If there is a problem then get it fixed. Pay your fine. Get the officer wrote up, fired, whatever. Why run away ?

If any of you can avoid laws and their enforcement, ignore it, run from it then why does anyone need to follow the law? Let’s just get rid of the whole LEO organization. Save some tax money for each of us. Then each and everyone of us can be responsible for handling issues as they arise in our life. Hmm, maybe that’s not a great idea and we need laws and they need enforced. 

Yes there are cases when things are borderline. We the citizens have allowed laws to be passed, accepted, enforced. Many of them are bad ideas, silly, waste of resources. All of it can be sorted out if you all want to. Running is not a solution.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Redlands Okie said:


> Yes they should be shot. No questions asked afterwards as long as the law enforcment camera shows them fleeing.


..........................................................................................................
...............Nobody but a Cop could express such a Completely WRONG statement as this ! There is a video on Utube that shows a poor black man trying to run away from a cop and the cop proceeds to put several rounds into his torso . Then , the cop walks up to this dead man and handcuffs his hands behind his back like he is going to get up and run off . The cop was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to prison for a number of years for his actions . , fordy


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I am not saying the law enforcment should not follow the law, or deal with the consequences of their actions. I am saying if someone things they are above the law and wants to run, then they should be willing to deal with the results. If as a result of someone running there is any borderline decisions then let it favor the officer. 

Way to many problems with people not wanting to be responsible for their actions and accountable for the results.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

fordy said:


> ..........................................................................................................
> ...............Nobody but a Cop could express such a Completely WRONG statement as this ! There is a video on Utube that shows a poor black man trying to run away from a cop and the cop proceeds to put several rounds into his torso . Then , the cop walks up to this dead man and handcuffs his hands behind his back like he is going to get up and run off . The cop was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to prison for a number of years for his actions . , fordy


Then the officer was held accountable for his actions. Good. The guy running away had to deal with the results of his decision. If he had not run two life’s would not have been messed up. No lost sleep here for either of them.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> I am not saying the law enforcment should not follow the law, or deal with the consequences of their actions. I am saying if someone things they are above the law and wants to run, then they should be willing to deal with the results. If as a result of someone running there is any borderline decisions then let it favor the officer.
> 
> Way to many problems with people not wanting to be responsible for their actions and accountable for the results.


You advocated shooting a fleeing person for the crime of fleeing. That is not following the law. I do not understand your logic.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I did not say it was legal. I did not say it was ok to shoot someone solely for fleeing. I said it should be ok as long as they could document the issue while he was fleeing. 

The fleeing person put himself in danger, and other passengers on the train in danger as a result of his actions. Large financial issues also possible as a result of his actions. The officers attempted to arrest him as a result. Seems he did not want to be arrested and held accountable. After struggling with the officers and resisting arrest he takes off. 

So he put himself in danger, the other passengers in danger. Overpowers and escapes a arrest attempt by two officers using different forms of non lethal force. This seems to have been documented in a variety of ways at the scene. So he should be allowed to this with no consequences? Should he be allowed to do so again in the future with no consequences? 

Well it seems one of the officers shot him while he was fleeing. He was not shot for fleeing. Seems it’s documented at the scene. The actions of the idiot that started all of this should be factored in on any decisions about the officers. 


No lost sleep here on him being shot while fleeing.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

There are a couple of things that are starting to bother me now about the obey now and fight it out later belief that always seemed logical to me. One is, what seems to me to be, an ever decreasing level of intelligence and common sense in the recruitment pool of officers.

Another is the loss of freedom that we as a collective are willing to accept in order to gain what we believe to be added safety or security. A case in point might be the current corona virus situation. Suppose, just for giggles, that the State or Federal legislature decided it was in our best interest to institute a law which justified emergency entry to your home and seizure of its occupants for quarantine and testing, even sans evidence of contamination?

Would you blindly comply and submit? Or resist and flee?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Now that would be scary. Interesting question. 

Stay for the benefit of the population would be the logical answer. I think. Probably....... hmm


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Now that would be scary. Interesting question.
> 
> Stay for the benefit of the population would be the logical answer. I think. Probably....... hmm


By stay, do you mean “comply and submit” per gilberte’s question? Just trying to make sure I understand your response. 

If in the case of the virus, and the State demanding you enter your home and test you, you support the State doing that “for the benefit of the population”, what about the real-world example that happened outside Boston a few years ago?

A bombing suspect is thought to be fleeing through the area. Are you OK with the State being able to forcibly enter your home to search for them?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

fordy said:


> ..................The War on Drugs is responsible for the loss of a lot of the freedoms that citizens are experiencing on basic traffic stops that previously resulted in either a warning Ticket OR a simple notification from the cop about the problem ! NOW , most cops use a simple burned out tail light as an excuse to force the driver from their vehicle so they can conduct a complete search for drugs OR anything they can charge you with !
> ...................The total corruption of the Law Enforcement community on a national basis is best exemplified by the Misapplication of the Civil Forfeiture statutes which have shown HOW Cops Steal money , homes , or any assets they think they can take with OUT filing any charges against the legal owners of those assets ! IF they file charges against anyone that action will be subjected to normal court procedures which will quickly FAIL once they are required to provide proof of guilt ! , fordy


What he said.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> If any of you can avoid laws and their enforcement, ignore it, run from it then why does anyone need to follow the law? Let’s just get rid of the whole LEO organization. Save some tax money for each of us. Then each and everyone of us can be responsible for handling issues as they arise in our life. Hmm, maybe that’s not a great idea and we need laws and they need enforced.


While there are a few in society that actually are asking for the police to go away, I don’t think they realize the true ramifications of what they’re asking for, and I don’t see anyone participating here suggesting that.

Laws should be followed, and laws should be just. When someone is found guilty of breaking a just law, they should be punished. When someone is presently acting as a danger to those around them, they should be stopped, at any cost up to and including deadly force. I don’t think any of that is in dispute.

The questionable thing is the concept of the State taking immediate deterrence, up to and including deadly force, in a case where the infraction is really minor, non-violent, and does not present an immediate danger to others- just because the State is the authority and you must comply or die.

That’s not American.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> While there are a few in society that actually are asking for the police to go away, I don’t think they realize the true ramifications of what they’re asking for, and I don’t see anyone participating here suggesting that.
> 
> Laws should be followed, and laws should be just. When someone is found guilty of breaking a just law, they should be punished. When someone is presently acting as a danger to those around them, they should be stopped, at any cost up to and including deadly force. I don’t think any of that is in dispute.
> 
> ...


I do not have the wherewithal to answer this. It is a very ponderous situation.

What should be the final and ultimate result of a person of interest that will not submit to capture, and flees all pursuit?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Perhaps he might join with others of like mind and maintain/form a government suitable to their beliefs?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I do not have the wherewithal to answer this. It is a very ponderous situation.
> 
> What should be the final and ultimate result of a person of interest that will not submit to capture, and flees all pursuit?


Person of interest in what way? Per the OP, it would have been walking between train cars.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.


However, the current interpretation is a valid one.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> By stay, do you mean “comply and submit” per gilberte’s question? Just trying to make sure I understand your response.
> 
> If in the case of the virus, and the State demanding you enter your home and test you, you support the State doing that “for the benefit of the population”, what about the real-world example that happened outside Boston a few years ago?
> 
> A bombing suspect is thought to be fleeing through the area. Are you OK with the State being able to forcibly enter your home to search for them?


In case of a medical issue I would be concerned if someone was a carrier and continued to spread a illness. Many areas require shots before a child can attend school. We have more than a few cases where people have been quarantined against their will issues. And as it turned out it was done for nothing. And we have cases where people were told to stay home, did not due so and infected others. 

https://www.pressherald.com/2020/03...party-after-testing-positive-for-coronavirus/

That guy needs some attitude adjustment. 


If I was not home and they thought the guy was in there I would probably not have a issue as long as I did not have to pay the repair bills. 

Every case is different as we all know. 

I guess my question would be why is force needed ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

gilberte said:


> Perhaps he might join with others of like mind and maintain/form a government suitable to their beliefs?





gilberte said:


> Perhaps he might join with others of like mind and maintain/form a government suitable to their beliefs?


Or we might insist that our public servants act in accordance to their lawful, original intent.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

How's that working out?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Person of interest in what way? Per the OP, it would have been walking between train cars.


Did he break a law? I used the term to describe a person thought to have broken a law.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I was basing my response on the quote below.
_"What should be the final and ultimate result of a person of interest that will not submit to capture, and flees all pursuit?"
It wasn't clear to me if you were speaking generally or specific to this instance.
There is the law, the spirit of the law and the intent of the law, etc.
If an officer of the law has discretion ie a misdemeanor, yet none related to a felony, whose interest does it serve to physically restrain and/or escalate a matter such as walking between a train, jaywalking, crossing against a "don't walk" signal?
Is shooting the poi while fleeing serve the public interest any more or less that say giving the guy with a few ounces of weed a pass?
If you stay with this specific example, I believe the public is best served from the spirit of the law, even though the officer's discretion carries weight in court._

_
_


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

gilberte said:


> How's that working out?


Sort of like the woman telling her husband, "Your not the man I married, but the neighbor is single and like minded."


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

gilberte said:


> Perhaps he might join with others of like mind and maintain/form a government suitable to their beliefs?


Who is ‘he’ in your suggestion?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

"It is a very ponderous situation" HDRIDER..


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> What should be the final and ultimate result of a person of interest that will not submit to capture, and flees all pursuit?


What “should” happen is easy, but sometimes the bad guy gets away. 

Sometimes he’s caught later. 

Sometimes not. 

Most people wouldn’t run from the cops after a minor infraction, but the person is borne of freewill. Some will run. 

In serious cases, the State will put their resources behind trying to catch them later. Sometimes they’re still never found. In less serious cases, the follow-up goes “below the line”, and they get away with it. 

Sometimes the State just doesn’t win.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> When someone is presently acting as a danger to those around them, they should be stopped, at any cost up to and including deadly force.


Including the cops.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gilberte said:


> "It is a very ponderous situation" HDRIDER..


Did I make a funny?


----------



## mrghostwalker (Feb 6, 2011)

The idea of using the argument that the arrest was unlawful and therefore I was defending myself is a setting for potential disaster.
First- Just because you believe the arrest is unjustified- doesn't mean it is. Ask anyone in LE and they will tell you that most people who are arrested believe they should not be arrested.
Secondly-Even if the arrest is not justified, if you kill or injure a LE Officer you will be held accountable for your actions. 
The best avenue would be to comply, so long as you life is not endanger. Whether and arrest is a violation of one's rights is something that is decided at a later date- not while standing on the side of the road. 
If the arrest is unconstitutional you can then be the beneficiary of a large amount of compensatory money.


----------



## romysbaskets (Aug 29, 2009)

Tragic but relieved this man survived! Made me think of 12 years ago....We lived in a small town in a big rental home...there was a small home near it on adjacent property. One day I saw out the window my girls pull up in my daughters red car. The neighbors had a red car also. Suddenly a swat team pulls up and jumps out weapons drawn!!! I was just on the phone with the swat commander telling me they will be arresting my neighbor and to stay inside moments prior. However they were advancing on my daughter and her sister fast! I calmly and quickly walk out my front door and call to them with my hands up. I point to the home next to me and tell them they have the wrong car. My daughters were so scared. They lowered their weapons and I went to my girls to get them inside. apparently the neighbor had stolen computers from the military base where he worked. He also had drugs inside. I am not sure how far it may have gone had I not stopped the swat team. One of my daughters is very calm in emergencies but the other one is not.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

If a cop tells you to stop....

STOP.

You have to be many bricks short of moron grade to not get that one.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Alder said:


> If a cop tells you to stop....
> 
> STOP.
> 
> You have to be many bricks short of moron grade to not get that one.


I know. Right?

You’re either mentally defective... or not loyal to the crown, like you should be, peasant.


One of the two, anyway.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

Alder said:


> If a cop tells you to stop....
> 
> STOP.
> 
> You have to be many bricks short of moron grade to not get that one.


I'm going to have to disagree....a LEO, cop ect....is just a MAN......with no more rights to infringe upon me thannindo upon him.......forcing compliance to the word stop, or enforcing a stop and identity law, makes this is a willfull forfeiture of my 4th amendment rights...we are not after all in some occupied communist nation.......think 1940 Germany.....

I am the best judge of whether or not I've actually broken a law.......I was there.....and I'm dead honest....I've had a couple of speeding tickets..and when the officer pulled me over..I took em without incident....paid before court and took it as a lesson learned....

Several years ago in the small town I live in, (before cell phones)
I had forgotten a promise to call a sherriff's department detective back after work who was working on a string of stolen tree stands in our area. (Mine was one of the stolen tree stands) I was in a line of traffic and met an oncoming line of traffic, one of which was a local cop.....I went down the road and turned around atbthe church to go back to the pay phone at the conveniencestore.....while I'm on the phone with the Sherriff's detective the cop pulls in lights running and steps out behind his door and pulls his weapon.......pulls his weapon!......and orders me to step out of my vehicle......(I'm pulled up to a pay phone mind you) since I hadn't broken any laws....I ignored him.....he came around front and yelled to get off the phone and get out of my vehicle.....(the detective asked about the commotion he could overhear and suggested I tell him who in on the phone with lol)...I told him calmly the detectives name i was speaking to and would be with him in a minute...he screamed and pointed his weapon at me and said I was underarrestand to exitthe vehiclenow.....I said hold your horsesI'll be done shortly......(the detective giggled)..once I finished, I started the truck and pulled forward 3-4' so I could get out.....boy he came unglued and said I was now charged with fleeing....lol
A couple of sherriff's deputies showed up and asked what was going on..they asked me to get back in my truck and sit down.....I explained my side, which wasn't much.....this officer obviously was lost or had taken too much medication or something as he was trying to arrest for using the phone....
Up until now no one knew why the officer wanted to speak with me....apparently he was accusing me of speeding.....we met in a line of traffic both of us moving......in a line of traffic and he had me for speeding........I asked how this was possible when at the time not even all our state troopers had running radar.....I said let's look at the saved radar setting......the sheriff's deputies said well he doesn't have any proof he was guessing by how fast you passed him.....I laughed about it... what a corn dog....
Just because they're LEO doesn't mean they're right or that they have the right to detain me...without just cause...
Bottom line I left without a citation and an apology from the deputys for the delay.....
This type crap was regular occurrence....

I once bought 2 85 and 86 Toyota 4wd pickups in the same week....I loved em for hog hunting rigs...the following week I
got pulled over in the same town....I was within my legal rights of 30 days to tag...and all was good....I figured no visible tag gave just cause sonic pulled over with out incident......
The very next day.......note I said the next day I get pulled over in the other new to me pick up....by the same cop......
He took the information without asking me any questions and went to his car.....he came back with a citation for failure to register and falsifying information.....I said falsifying what? He said sir....I just pulled you over YESTERDAY and you had different paperwork....that's falsifying documents....I laughed....omg are you kidding....he said not today sir....I saidits a different truck..this ones red the other ones brown....he said it's the same truck good try.....I asked him are youfor real? Another officer pulls up......(here is where I got angry) I said call Dispatch check out your notes...its an 86 this is an 85, I bought this one from so and so anther 86 from so and so.....the other cop taps my other window and says put your hands on the wheel sir......I said for real? He said that citation is for real sir.....I threw it out the window and told him to smoke it.....he opened my door and ordered me out..I refused....your a joke and not cop enough to arrest me for doing nothing wrong.....then a sherriff's deputy pulls up.....3 cops now and I've not broken a law except maybe littering with the ticket...he came and told them to stand back, a shift sergeant was notified and he stood and discussed it with me.....o happened to know him he had hog hunted with me previously.....he went back and tried to diffuse the idiot cop who was livid and now claimed I assaulted him with the ticket.....and I was under arrest....lol....I threw it on the ground....the sergeant shows up speaks to everyone and I leave.....without a ticket....my wife came by a few minutes later and said it looked like the sergeant was reading him the riot act......

Another time I had the chief of police on this same town who was running in front of me in a 35mph zone when out of the blue he pulls a starsky and hutch maneuver i see his front wheels jerk left, into the turning lane in the middle flips on his lights and pulls behind me...I pull over
He said sir I pulled you over for following too close....
I said how do you know that? He said because I'm trained to see those things.....I said ok.....but I saw your tahoes wheels turn...im.in a silveradob1500 4wd .....how could I be too close and see that....trying to discuss the issue....he yanks my door open and says sir step out of the vehicle...I closed it saying nope not until you explain to me how you have evidence of my crime.....just explain to me logically what your point is and I'll take a ticket......but not until.......he yanks the door open again....lol
I close it again......he said stop closing the door I open that's attempted escape......lol...I said escape what I'm not captured yet....I was laughing my but off and he was about to strike out....he pulls his weapon out and opens the door again....a sherriff's deputy pulls up ( notice a trend of sherriff's deputies being dispatched to check on situations)
I close the door and tell him if he damages the door he'll get a bill, they're not meant to be jerked on like that.....
The deputy walks up and says damnit bob what's going on....I said this idiot is trying to arrest me....hs yells to the deputy to step back hes obstructing an officer in his duties......the deputy said let's all calm down here.....and starts asking questions.....
After he got done he said well....do you have a rear facing camera ect....any proof? This has gotten out of hand let's just discuss it like adults......the chief now has 3 other local officers and the sheriff's sergeant on site.....and I'm still setting in my truck....in about 15 minutes of discussion I left for work and didn't take a ticket with me......

Law Enforcement Officers nationwide have some sense of entitlement and holier than thou process that makes them feel like they can lord their badges around like wepons.......its not right they're just citizens too with a job to do....and that doesn't include infractions upon my civil rights....

Leave good hardworking folks alone and go hunt up a criminal....


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

You might have been in the right. But some actions such as described above makes the news fairly regularly.

Citizen shot. 

Officer might be fired, might not. You might be in the right, but its just silly to wind up the officer. Most places I have lived its just a matter of time till they even up the score. Legally and with proof. It’s not right but its a fact of life. At least it keeps the news interesting and I guess lawyers have to eat and pay bills also.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

bobp said:


> Leave good hardworking folks alone and go hunt up a criminal....


Despite whether one has an opinion about your actions, those were some very entertaining stories.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I know. Right?
> 
> You’re either mentally defective... or not loyal to the crown, like you should be, peasant.
> 
> ...


Or deaf, or you just didn't hear them.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/police-brutality-and-deaf-people

I'm not a fan of some jerkwad cop sticking a gun in my face because they are mentally deficient. Hubby and our son were once held at gunpoint by a cop in a case of mistaken identity. Fortunately a higher up on the force came along and yelled at the jerkwad he had the wrong people. Hubby and son were on our property working, didn't even have firearms on them. Never did get an apology. Someone had reported someone shooting at other people so the cops were skittish but that's no excuse.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

If you don't listen to the officer...don't come whining to me.
If you can. Hahaha!

But..but...but...
You picked your own poison.


----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

Bottom line we as a country have allowed failure to enforce long standing laws, and subsequent fear mongering to be used as a platform for more and more of our rights to be lost........LEO were fundamentally empowered to protect, now it's standard to treat ALL citizens as criminals......without any fundemental respect and basic human rights....


----------



## TroyT (Jun 24, 2008)

I think what's happening is that with the proliferation of cameras, the public is learning that the police are no more honest than the general public. Some will lie, fabricate evidence, even kill people without a legal reason. The saddest part about all this is that it appears that the "good cops" seem to stand bye and do nothing and allow it to happen or fail to report it. Which tells the public that there aren't many truly "Good Cops".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

TroyT said:


> I think what's happening is that with the proliferation of cameras, the public is learning that the police are no more honest than the general public. Some will lie, fabricate evidence, even kill people without a legal reason. The saddest part about all this is that it appears that the "good cops" seem to stand bye and do nothing and allow it to happen or fail to report it. Which tells the public that there aren't many truly "Good Cops".


I agree with most of your post, but vehemently disagree with the last sentence. There are a damned lot of good cops (quotation marks or not), and I’ve been honored more than I deserve to know a bunch of them. 

That might be part of why I hate the bad ones so much. 


Well, that and my fiercely patriotic streak.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

A certain group is never going to comply if they see a possible means of escape. I often see where a bunch of guys are in a stolen car. They are going to run until they crash and then get out and run.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

that's why we have dogs that speak German.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Where can I get me one of them dogs that "speak" German?


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

ask you local K9 unit


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

gilberte said:


> Where can I get me one of them dogs that "speak" German?


It’s legit. 
I did some work with the German KSK, and they had dogs. 

When I got home I started paying attention to the German Shepard’s around here, and the bark was spot-on. 
No discernible accent, even.


----------

