http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/justice/mississippi-highway-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Fake cop pulling people over in Mississippi and then shooting them dead.
Here's another reason:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18...or-profit-case
Tennesee Police Take Money from out of State Drivers Because They Can
MONTEREY, Tenn. -- "If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America." That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee. For more than a year, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has been shining a light on a practice that some call "policing for profit." See previous stories: "NC5 Investigates: Policing For Profit" In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.
"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby. As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice. "I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong." Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding. A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash. "I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money." That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money. "Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates. "Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered. Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious. "The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer." "But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted. "No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for." NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?" "And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted. Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all. "This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles. A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area. He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard. That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case. "It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added. George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it." In fact, Reby had proof on his computer. But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency." Read Officer Bates' affidavit "On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates. "Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed. "It's possible," he admitted. NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car? "He did," the officer acknowledged. "But you did not include that in your report," we noted. "If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there." So why did he leave that out? "I don't know," the officer said. Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it." "That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him." And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates' affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine. That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted. "Were you convicted?" we wanted to know. "No, I wasn't convicted," he answered. But Officer Bates says that arrest -- which he acknowledged was old -- was still part of the calculation to take Reby's money. "Am I going to use it? Yes, I'm going to use it because he's been charged with it in the past -- regardless of whether it's 10 or 15 years ago," he said. Attorney John Miles said he's frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee's civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal. "We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution -- and nobody cares," Miles said. "Nobody cares." This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these "policing for profit" issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session. After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money -- if he'd sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue. They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check. He got the check, but no apology. "If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?" Reby said. And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror. "I really don't want to come back here," he said. As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income. It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people. And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police. He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money -- $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees. Miles called that "extortion."
"Policing for profit"
Should read, "policing for theft."
Well, first thing you should know is that they're not legally allowed to search your car without your permission or a warrant. You can always refuse a search.
Modern jurisprudence surrounding the issues of traffic stops, police detention and arrest is completely out of touch with reality. Courts have consistently ruled that the subject of arrest essentially has a duty to not only to comply but also to cooperate with his own arrest. Anything short of this is potential grounds for a resisting-arrest charge. This is all built on the "public safety" doctrine - police are just trying to restore public safety and peace as quickly as possible; if they arrest a few extra people, that's no big deal. You might spend the night in a comfortable (ha!) cell and be released the next morning after the judge has a chance to take a look at the facts. In this way, your safety, the officers' safety and public safety are all maximized.
This is all a fairy tale, of course. The fact is that any form of stopping, detaining or arresting is a kind of kidnapping and imprisonment. No one has the legitimate right to tell anyone else "you must stand here and not move", let alone bind the person in handcuffs or cage them in a prison cell. In a private law society, I think detention would happen but it wouldn't happen the way we have it today where anyone, anywhere is subject to arrest at any time for virtually any reason so long as the arresting officers claim it was "for public safety." It would likely be more of a bond system and would exist to get someone who is being sued for a serious offense to agree not to flee until the suit has been settled. Unless the person in question is very rich and can afford to put up a massive bond, the terms of the agreement might include staying at one of Bob Murphy's Hotel California Prisons for the duration.
The moment you abrogate this obvious, common-sense principle, you open Pandora's Box to all sorts of extortionate behavior. Arrest in itself is a terrifying threat - it is a massive disruption of any person's activities who isn't a child, a retiree, a trust-fund baby or on welfare. In other words, everyone has someplace they need to be, by a certain time, or else. "I'm sorry, boss, I just couldn't show up for the presentation because I happened to be walking through the park when there was a protest and the police arrested everyone for public safety. Consider losing this client as part of giving back to the community! You're just doing your part to keep us all safe, boss..."
Clayton -
This guy wasn't even arrested.
"If you're not sure, ask for it" - isn't it already too late by that time??
This is what just bugs the hell out of me about this police-state bullshit. Anybody can walk up to your front door, bang on it and yell "Police, open up!" or "Police! Get down! Get down on the ground!" after kicking in your front door. If you err on the safe side and use deadly force to defend yourself, you will be charged with murder.
As the US becomes increasingly authoritarian, there are bound to be more and more instances of this going on. These are good opportunities to spread the message - setting the tone of the debate in preparation is a good idea. "We called it" is a powerful argument, so just getting out there and making the predictions is an important step.
I think people should also study cases related to search and seizure, the fifth amendment's protection against self incrimination and fourteenth amendment due process rights to understand just what their rights are and what circumstances might warrant a forced entry, a terry stop, an illegal forced entry etc.
In these cases of people impersonating officers, that's a real toss up. You cannot know for sure if you're dealing with a real cop or not right off the bat. Perhaps it will be too late by the time one finds out.
You cannot know for sure if you're dealing with a real cop or not right off the bat.
That's exactly my point. There is this built-in assumption that either (a) the actual legitimacy of a purported authority is always instantly ascertainable or (b) it doesn't matter, people must just obey, you have to break a few eggs if you want an omelette. I think the courts/law academics are more (a) and the legislature/police are more (b).
If you find (b) repugnant to decent society, then the question of (a) must be dealt with because it's simply false. Determining officer legitimacy is crucial to personal safety and this determination simply cannot be performed in the circumstances of forced entry, detention by plainclothes - and in some circumstances, even uniformed officers - and so on. Traffic stops place the individual being stopped in a very vulnerable position and once the victim realizes he has been duped by an impostor, it's too late, the impostor already has the upper-hand. Police tactics promote these vulnerabilities and the more heavy-handed the police become, the more vulnerable the public will become to impostors.
Any kind of stop places the person being stopped in a vulnerable position, whether it be in their home, at their place of work, walking down the street, while driving etc.
But how are police going to do their job if they can't stop people?
I mean this is a trade off. The problem is that because they can stop people, there is the potential for abuse.
If they couldn't actually stop people then yeah I guess no one could take advantage of that but then there would be no way for police to detain suspects or whatever.
In my mind, as unfortunate as this is, I'd rather cops be able to stop people and take the risk that there will be douchebags like these guys taking advantage than have a system where cops could not stop people.
That being said I hope they catch both of those dudes.
bloomj31: I mean this is a trade off.
I mean this is a trade off.
And of course, we all must democratically agree that this is a good trade off to make, or else... Whoever yells the strongest about making their "trade off" gets to impose it on everyone else. Makes sense.
That's the name of the game. I dunno what else to tell you.
bloomj31:That's the name of the game. I dunno what else to tell you.
I know what to tell you - we happen to highly dislike "the game", to the extent that we're trying to end it. Make sense?
Edit: of course it does, because you already know full well about this.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
"That's the name of the game. I dunno what else to tell you."
One of these days, there might be someone willing to fight you, guns in hands, to keep you from forcing your will on them. Just sayin...its happened before.
It's always a possibility.
Though I doubt this issue in particular-as disconcerting as it is-will be the turning point but I do not have a crystal ball.
bloomj31: It's always a possibility. Though I doubt this issue in particular-as disconcerting as it is-will be the turning point but I do not have a crystal ball.
I dunno, ever hear of the Rodney King riots?
Sure.
So then you must realize that people have actually found the issue of police overstepping their authority to be disconcerting enough to riot?
Yes. As I said it's always a possibility.
The facts of the two cases are very very different but for some people I suppose that might not matter.
Well, the point of this thread had been that the more authority the police have, the more dangerous it gets for citizens. People have already demonstrated that they won't tolerate certain kinds of abuse of police power. If the police were to increase their power to a point where it is dangerous to be pulled over, then I think it's a very likely possibility that people will fight back one way or another.
K.
limitgov: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/justice/mississippi-highway-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Fake cop pulling people over in Mississippi and then shooting them dead.
Heard about this and wondered what legal recourse one might have if pulled over, say on a deserted road. Being that police protection is not a right (many people don't know this, but Glenn Beck goes to great details to talk about it in his book Arguing with Idiots), it leads one to believe they are--indeed--helpless on the road.
If flashing lights are behind you, you have a decision to make: 1) Pull over, risking being shot by the guy inpersonating the police officer, which is a small but possible chance or 2) Keep going, which would be good if the guy behind you was the killer, but if not you're going to jail. So it's a wager of sorts; unfortunately, all of the people who decide to pull over, when pulled over by the killer, will likely die after being shot.
It's just another reason to remain armed imo, although that alone comes with a ton of rules, regulations and scrutiny by the police state. It's a pretty disgusting scenario, one where law-abiding citizens are rather helpless.
Clayton: "If you're not sure, ask for it" - isn't it already too late by that time?? This is what just bugs the hell out of me about this police-state bullshit. Anybody can walk up to your front door, bang on it and yell "Police, open up!" or "Police! Get down! Get down on the ground!" after kicking in your front door. If you err on the safe side and use deadly force to defend yourself, you will be charged with murder. As the US becomes increasingly authoritarian, there are bound to be more and more instances of this going on. These are good opportunities to spread the message - setting the tone of the debate in preparation is a good idea. "We called it" is a powerful argument, so just getting out there and making the predictions is an important step. Clayton -
Exactly. It's like the stupid women who swear they're ok to walk in the Bronx alone at night because they have their cell phone and they can call the police. Really?!?! LOL When you only have a second, the police are minutes away. It's pathetic reasoning. It makes citizens helpless and gives a huge advantage to thieves.
In case you didn't read the article or watch the video, the police are advising locals to call 911 when they get pulled over to verify whether or not it's a real officer pulling them over and to try and find a well-lit, populated area to stop at. Local police are going to be notified of this development so I'm sure they'll be expecting people to take a little longer to pull over than usual in some cases.
Mississippi carry laws are actually quite lax. You do not need a permit to carry a concealed weapon in your vehicle.
"(2) It shall not be a violation of this section for any person over the age of eighteen (18) years to carry a firearm or deadly weapon concealed in whole or in part within the confines of his own home or his place of business, or any real property associated with his home or business or within any motor vehicle."
EDIT: It's also important to note that authorities are not sure if these two crimes were actually committed by people pretending to be officers as there were no witnesses to the shootings. They're just speculating based on the evidence.
but then there would be no way for police to detain suspects or whatever.
Oh noes!
Seriously, how did anatomically modern humans survive their first 299,900 years on planet Earth without police with the authority to detain suspects???
It's only a "tradeoff" to disinterested parties, such as you and me. To the person being pulled over and victimized, it's a complete loss. Which leads to the central question, "from whose perspective?" This is the whole problem with Western law, it's all built on the armchair opinions of disinterested parties. When your ass is actually on the line, it fundamentally changes how you think about the problem. Experiencing the feeling of utter powerlessness that being a victim imposes on you tends to change your views regarding gun control and other issues surrounding the production of defense.
It is ofcourse possible that we could manage just fine without cops who could pull people over and detain people or whatever, but I have no interest in a world like that. For me the trade off is totally worth it.
I've been pulled over before and I did not feel powerless but that's because I study the law, I know my rights, I know the process, I carry legal insurance with a 24 hour legal hotline, I'm clean cut, I'm well spoken and I speak to officers respectfully.
I actually had an experience where I was pulled over for an expired tag but it turned out I'd had my license revoked for getting a really high speeding ticket while under the age of 21 so I was effectively driving without a valid license. The usual procedure is to impound the car and arrest the driver but the officer was extremely gracious and friendly and gave me ample time to call my aunt. She came out, drove my car home for me and I wasn't arrested. The officer just confiscated my license. But this story never makes the news because it's not sensational.
EDIT: What does gun control have to do with this btw?
For me the trade off is totally worth it.
And it's totally irrelevant - you're not the one who has been pulled over and robbed by a fake cop. My point is that the opinions of people who are not affected by a matter are irrelevant and should be excluded from consideration in the matter.
Ook, well that means your opinion is irrelevant too, so let's ask that one dude who got robbed what he thinks....o wait he's not here. Now what?
Your standard basically disqualifies everyone on this forum from talking about this issue unless they say they've been a victim of the same type of crime, a claim that is likely to be unverifiable.
Your standard basically disqualifies everyone on this forum from talking about this issue
Not at all. It just disqualifies gut-check opinions on matters that have real consequences to people other than yourself. If you're choosing whether to buy a blue or green sweater, gut-check suffices because the decision is yours to make. When you're choosing whether police should have the power to issue "lawful orders" and taze people for failure to comply, gut-check is no longer a sufficient basis.
But according to your standard, unless someone has personally been given a lawful order they didn't like or been tazed for failure to comply, they really have no standing to offer an opinion on the value of lawful orders.
Even if it has happened to them and they do have an opinion, it only relates to that specific incident, not some generalized question about lawful orders in all circumstances. All they know is what happened in that particular moment in that particular context, that's the only insight they've gained.
I don't think this standard makes any sense. I don't think there are completely disinterested parties when we talk about the law because the law effects or stands to effect everyone at some point or another. The consequences of changing the system would effect everyone, so we all have an interest in how the system works even if we're not all personally acquainted with every single possible outcome of the system at any given time.
Let's be honest you're trying to disregard my opinion on this particular case because it doesn't agree with yours. You don't think I've ever been pulled over by a fake cop and robbed. But maybe I have, you have no way of knowing. You're just assuming that my values would be different from what they are now had such a thing happened to me presumably because had it happened to you, you'd be ready to tear the whole damn system down. Don't just assume that we're the same, we might not be.
Your opinion isn't even based on what the victim is saying because he's not advocating the abolition of lawful orders or traffic stops though presumably you think he should be.
I'm considering your opinion in terms of its implications. The obvious consequence of disallowing police to perform traffic stops, for instance, is that they could no longer detain people who are caught driving over the speed limit. The other consequence is that cases like this would be less likely to happen. So now we have an interest to weigh: pulling over speeding drivers vs the risk of abuse of authority.
How we weigh this interest is entirely personal but everyone's opinion matters to some degree because everyone stands to be effected by the determination, not just the people who've already been effected. Thus I find your standard invalid.
bloomj31, you are totally missing Clayton's point. Think of it in terms of just a regular theft. A steals from B. B decides to forgive A, but C comes along and decides to prosecute A for the theft. WHAT!??!?! C was not involved. B wants to forgive, but C won't let it happen...This is probably more common with statutory rape. I'm sure you've seen in the papers every once in a while that the state wants to prosecute two underage teenagers for having sex even when the parents don't want to press charges? Everyone involved in the actual act does not want state intervention, yet the third party prosecutor comes along and decides that it is a "crime" that must be punished.
Of course not everyone will arrive to the same conclusion as Clayton even if they are a victim of abuse of authority. But that's not what Clayton is getting at. By what right do third parties have to impose their will upon the actual parties to the dispute? Sure, you might be of the opinion that people should just be tased and be done with it. And maybe even someone who is tased by police will agree that it was for the best (though I seriously doubt that this is likely). But what about the people who are tased when they shouldn't have been? When they have committed no crime, but the police decided it was for the public safety? Why should your opinion matter? The person who was tased didn't want it. Their opinion matters.
Here is a link to an article on police brutality. One of the videos has an old man tasered in his own home for no lawful or just reason whatsoever. Tell me, why should your opinion outweigh the opinion of the guy who was tasered?
What is the context for these considerations?
To whom is my opinion supposed to matter?
For that matter, to whom is their opinion supposed to matter?
Are we talking about this forum? A court of law?
EDIT: It sounds like we're going back to a moral argument rather than a legal one. It sounds like you're trying to get back to might makes right again.
I think it's worth pointing out that the only reason any of us are allowed to express our opinions on this particular forum is because we're allowed to. If the moderators wanted to, they could ban everyone and then no one could have an opinion. So it's only by the grace of the moderators that our voices are even present at all on this website.
We are talking in this forum about something that would be occurring in a court of law - specifically, challenging what is euphemistically termed "the police power." Stopping, detaining, arresting, imprisoning, use of the "continuum of force" to enforce compliance, and so on. My first response to OP was simply pointing out that crimes of impersonation are bound to increase as the power of police increases. Citizens have no choice but to "play it safe" and be as compliant as possible in the hopes that something terrible will not happen to them. This makes them much more attractive targets to private criminals.
I'm pointing out that not only is the police power morally repugnant before any consequential considerations enter the picture but it has predictable bad consequences. To characterize these bad consequences as a "tradeoff" is to either assert that we can perform inter-subjective utility comparison (false) or to assert that your opinion matters in real disputes to which you are not a party.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion in this forum. The trouble is when your opinion encourages and is shared by politicians, for example, who have the means to actually interfere in the affairs of others. So long as you're merely expressing an opinion, that's all it is, an opinion. But when you or someone on your behalf acts on your opinions, that's a different matter.
Well then I suppose the best way of saying it is that I hope that my opinion will be shared by those with the power to actually make a real decision regarding "the police power."
I hope that they will make the same value judgment that I have.
I'm personally irrelevant but my support of the current political system lends legitimacy to the people with real power.
How do they get the right to tell people what "the police power" will be? By having power of their own.
As to whether or not my opinion matters in this particular forum; I've consistently been, for a couple years now, in the drastic minority on almost every issue so I think it's safe to say I'm a nonfactor on these forums.
What context for what considerations?
I thought I was clear about this. You are a third party. Why should your opinion matter to the actual parties to the dispute?
I see that you and Clayton are dealing with this one.
You can pretend that morality has never entered for you, but then you would have to be of the opinion that the Jim Crow laws were good, because after all, they were the law. But you dodged that one in another thread by saying you weren't alive then, so you don't know how you would feel about them.
I don't believe might makes right, but as you have amply shown, it is what you believe. You can say that you really believe might makes relevant, but none of your stated beliefs have ever actually supported that, and they all indicate that you support might makes right.
That appears to be the difference between many of us here and you. You believe in might makes right, and we happen to form our sense of what is moral, just, and what ought to be considered lawful on a different set of beliefs.
I think it's worth pointing out that this is a pretty obvious statement. It's also perfectly in line with the libertarian sense of justice and law. What isn't perfectly in line with the libertarian sense of justice and law is when agents of the state beat and murder people who didn't commit a crime. But, obviously, since might makes right, it is just and lawful behavior according to you.
I hope that they will make the same value judgment that I have. I'm personally irrelevant but my support of the current political system lends legitimacy to the people with real power. How do they get the right to tell people what "the police power" will be? By having power of their own.
There's some kind of contradiction in this - on the one hand, you say they can take care of it themselves yet, on the other hand, you say that your support lends them legitimacy.
Anyway, you've never explained the connection between might and right. Might has brought about untold horrors. The only difference between the might of the State and the might of the mugger is the time of day. I don't understand why you expect moral/efficient outcomes from this.
I would say that my moral system is just far more agnostic than yours. I don't pretend to be able to really know right from wrong definitely or objectively, I see morality as being guesswork based on premises that are either accepted or rejected for whatever reason.
This doesn't mean I cannot disagree with laws on moral grounds, it just means that I don't rely on moral objections to make legal arguments. I try to find case law/legislative statutes to support my opinion. If there are none, I make them up and hope they stick in other people's minds.
I maintain that moral systems are ultimately irrelevant if they haven't the power to be enforced. Thus might makes relevant the question of moral right or wrong.
I would say that in legal terms might does make legal right as without might legal rights can only exist in the ethereal de jure sense rather than the material de facto sense. This means, in essence that while one can know what the law has been, one cannot necessarily know what the law will be until they're in court. Even then decisions are constantly being overturned, remanded, upheld at appeal but redefined.
I think the issue of police murdering innocent people is outside the scope of this thread as it is only tangentially related to the cases presented by the OP and the second poster. If you want to talk about those I'd be glad to but only after we both acknowledge that they have nothing to do with the original thread.
EDIT: It is going to be difficult for me to carry on two conversations about similar material at once. Just saying.
I see morality as being guesswork
Guesswork about what?
Clayton:There's some kind of contradiction in this - on the one hand, you say they can take care of it themselves yet, on the other hand, you say that your support lends them legitimacy.
State agents are capable of accomplishing these things by themselves in the short run but for those efforts to be sustained for longer measures of time, they require the support of the governed. It's a symbiotic relationship. I need them for their power and they need me to support their uses of power over time.
Clayton:Anyway, you've never explained the connection between might and right. Might has brought about untold horrors. The only difference between the might of the State and the might of the mugger is the time of day. I don't understand why you expect moral/efficient outcomes from this.
I am more concerned with the existence of a final arbiter than I am with the outcomes being entirely moral/efficient.
Might is just an effective means to that end.
In the system as it is now, we trade a certain amount of morality and efficiency for finality and conclusivity (if that's a word.) It's a balancing act that sometimes doesn't work out for people. Is it worth it? That's a subjective value judgment. To me, yes it is. To you no it's not.