Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

The US Constitution 4th Amendment suggests that you cannot be stopped, searched, your vehicle stopped, your vehicle searched, or detained without probable cause. The reason why you can go on youtube and see so many video records of cops, border cops, and any other sorts of cops hassle motorists and finally let them go is because there is a 4th Amendment and finally some coppers get tired of the struggle and let the innocent go on their legal way without interruption or interference.



Then there are the other coppers who just go ahead and arrest the innocent traveler for "disorderly conduct" or on some similar garbage can charge.

Well, you are almost right. After a quick google search I learned that there is a exception carved out of the 4th amendment which allows for sobriety checkpoints.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Sure, I seem some difference...although not a whole lot of legitimacy in the comparison.

But what is the cause of the difference, if ours, like the Nazi court, do not have any goal of seeking actual justice?

[sheltiedave]

Wilson, realizing he will be thrown on the front lines after the grand jury gets released, suddenly has had a change of heart and is preparing to resign.

Like many situations, multiple people are going to be right on multiple points. Hopefully Zeke can learn this distressing point and apply it moving forward. Cops ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT in every regard. And in regard to being scared and wrong, the ability to then kill someone does not make them right.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

But what is the cause of the difference, if ours, like the Nazi court, do not have any goal of seeking actual justice?

If you prefer your definition it's not a problem for me. IMHO we don't have a justice system, never have, never will.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by barbara

Well, you are almost right. After a quick google search I learned that there is a exception carved out of the 4th amendment which allows for sobriety checkpoints.

They can have all the sobriety checkpoints they want. But when it comes down to detaining someone without probable cause, if they don't think they can make a case that the driver was acting in a way that provided a sufficient level of probable cause, they know they have no right to detain that driver.

You can see in the video that the driver does not provide any information to the police because we aren't required to, the driver repeatedly asks if they intend to detain him and they won't answer. The get belligerent and attempt to intimidate him into it, but he won't be intimidated and asks again if they plan to detain him. He's clearly not DUI and they let him go because they have no probable cause to detain him.

This isn't about whether the cops can have a sobriety checkpoint. They can have sobriety checkpoints on every corner all day long if it is entertaining for them. Detention is something else.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

They can have all the sobriety checkpoints they want. But when it comes down to detaining someone without probable cause, if they don't think they can make a case that the driver was acting in a way that provided a sufficient level of probable cause, they know they have no right to detain that driver.



You can see in the video that the driver does not provide any information to the police because we aren't required to, the driver repeatedly asks if they intend to detain him and they won't answer. The get belligerent and attempt to intimidate him into it, but he won't be intimidated and asks again if they plan to detain him. He's clearly not DUI and they let him go because they have no probable cause to detain him.



This isn't about whether the cops can have a sobriety checkpoint. They can have sobriety checkpoints on every corner all day long if it is entertaining for them. Detention is something else.

Right.... This isn't about if law enforcement can have sobriety checkpoints.

I was just correcting your first statement.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by barbara

It's against the law for police to have checkpoints???

Not in the slightest.

What they can't be is targeted.

So, you either have to stop EVERY car (DUI checkpoints) or have some randomizing factor like "every nineteenth car."

That's a wide, wide base.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

You think this country has a "justice" system don? It doesn't. It has a legal system that often (perhaps more often than not) has very little to do with justice.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

But it is supposed, nonetheless, to have a goal, however imperfectly attainable, of justice. As I was saying, if we abandon that as a goal, we don't need courts at all, do we? Just let the cops go ahead and 'enforce' as seems good to them, without all the pretense.

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Justice has nothing to do with it. Justice, or the concept of it, is not a goal. As long as most of the people we put into office in the legislatures are lawyers, the fix will be in to maintain a system that will remain beneficial to lawyers and not to those who are at the distinct disadvantage of not being "officers of the court." It is what it is.

This is excellent and I thank you both.

It's nice that those horrible pics are in the past, isn't it?

Originally Posted by barbara

Well, you are almost right. After a quick google search I learned that there is a exception carved out of the 4th amendment which allows for sobriety checkpoints.

The court always expands the power of government, in this case police, over time. How is being 'stopped' NOT being 'detained'?

There's a lot of YT vids about folks arguing at citizen check points (if DUI checkpoints are OK why not citizen?) - 'Am I being detained?' 'Am I free to go?' -cracks me up I've seen at least one guy do that at a DUI checkpoint too (on YT).

Pete

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

The court always expands the power of government, in this case police, over time. How is being 'stopped' NOT being 'detained'?

You ARE being detained, your car searched for things in plain site, your tags run, DL can be forcibly verified (with warrant check) and much more if an officer decides to escalate based upon observation.

Step One for, "oh, this will be fun" is whether a guy asks if he's been detained. Don't answer and let him start his car and/or put it in gear...

It's awesome.

Or, a citizen can just quickly prove they're not inebriated and have a valid DL in about thirty seconds.

Choices.

Of course, it could be argued an officer "caused" the issue by choosing to stop a particular car.

Not true, he's either stopping everyone or you were randomly selected: this is merely how things played out. Of course, there's no point in explaining how officers are legally protected on this issue, especially when you're whining about "being detained..."

[piece-itpete]

It's a false choice, like the argument that if you're doing nothing wrong [insert thing] doesn't matter.

Pete