Arrested For "Taxes=Theft" Sign / Filming Police

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 13961
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Chicago

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 6:44 pm » by domdabears


boondox681 wrote:yo bears...i just noticed your big ass sig.

awesome.i'm stealing it :D

thats cool.
i made it yesterday
Image

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 13961
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Chicago

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 6:48 pm » by domdabears


domdabears wrote:
boondox681 wrote:yo bears...i just noticed your big ass sig.

awesome.i'm stealing it :D

thats cool.
i made it yesterday

if you wanna think of another slogan i can do one for you.
Image

Initiate
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:33 pm

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 7:17 pm » by Georgedragon


Please notice morons, there are no Laws violated in this case, only Codes!

Codes, statutes and acts are not Law, and the real criminal is the moron cop!

And now that you morons have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between these terms, i suggest that you go to the library and educate yourself!...you know...Books! :ugeek:
Be the change you want to see.

Initiate
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:36 am

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 8:01 pm » by pandoras


georgedragon wrote:Please notice morons, there are no Laws violated in this case, only Codes!

Codes, statutes and acts are not Law, and the real criminal is the moron cop!

And now that you morons have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between these terms, i suggest that you go to the library and educate yourself!...you know...Books! :ugeek:


Thank you for opening the door....

Listen fuckwit...before you start throwing names around around here, I suggest that you go back and read the other posts.
No one said anything about being in contravention to law. What was referanced as opposed to said, you fucking illiterate, retarded imbicile, was they were in contravention to the statutes and acts that governs the society that they are currently residing in.
I'm not going to whip out my Blacks 8th to try and explain further to you as you are clearly an attention whore (you come off as a crazed, ranting meth-head) whom has watched a few YT vid's and think you are well versed in the FOTL way of life.

Now, fuck off and go back to your Saturday 'toons, son.
You may come back after 20 more years of jail and fines. Because you strike me as a PERSON whom goes of half cocked.

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 11163
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:08 am

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 9:08 pm » by Boondox681


that one is perfect bro.

thanx
Image
"I wish i was there when the horse was stole,but I reckon I'll see the tracks when I get there"
-Abraham Lincoln

Initiate
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:33 pm

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 9:14 pm » by Georgedragon


I wrote: Please notice morons...

You answered!
Be the change you want to see.

Initiate
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:33 pm

PostSat Apr 30, 2011 11:56 pm » by Georgedragon


The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Seizure The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is meaningful interference by the government with an individual's possessory interests, such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence. The Amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of their persons, including a brief detention.

A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained. The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.

A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave. As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the courts will usually consider the police contact to be a "citizen encounter" which falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure.

ExceptionsThe government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed. Further, in Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that, absent articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable.

Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.

Roadblocks may be used to capture a particular fleeing criminal or locate a bomb.

Arrest When a person is arrested and taken into police custody, they have been seized (e.g., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a Terry stop than to a formal arrest. A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime. A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, if the arresting officer has probable cause.

Probable cause:
When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that “the term probable cause...means less than evidence that would justify condemnation[,]” reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,” that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, nontechnical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances."

At common law, a police officer could arrest an individual if that individual committed a misdemeanor in the officer's presence or if the officer had probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony. For misdemeanors, probable cause to believe that a wrongdoer committed a misdemeanor is not sufficient for an arrest; the police officer has to actually witness the misdemeanor.

The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime. Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.



By the way, i'm not american, but i can read, and in this case as in so many others from the USAFascist dictatorship, the cops are the criminals. :ugeek:
Be the change you want to see.

Initiate
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:33 pm

PostSun May 01, 2011 12:04 am » by Georgedragon


Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas.

International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.


I hope it's not to much to read, but do try anyway, you might learn something. :ugeek:
Be the change you want to see.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6298
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: coast

PostSun May 01, 2011 3:04 am » by Mediasorcerer


boondox681 wrote:look,i'm fucking pissed too,but i'm not out committing crimes(they call it protesting :headscratch: )and then expecting sympathy for my stupidity.

cops have one job.busting your coconut open.
these people are lucky.

hey,evil,sorry if i came out sounding like a dick towards you,brotha'.
when i re-read it it seemed to come off as such.

YOU KNOW WE'RE ROLLIN',BRO :flop:
Image


off topic,but that sig kills me.

idjiots,dont give any excuse,be smart,play by the rules.
with the power of soul,anything is possible
with the power of you,anything that you wanna do

Initiate
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:33 pm

PostSun May 01, 2011 1:58 pm » by Georgedragon


pandoras wrote:
georgedragon wrote:Please notice morons, there are no Laws violated in this case, only Codes!

Codes, statutes and acts are not Law, and the real criminal is the moron cop!

And now that you morons have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between these terms, i suggest that you go to the library and educate yourself!...you know...Books! :ugeek:


Thank you for opening the door....

Listen fuckwit...before you start throwing names around around here, I suggest that you go back and read the other posts.
No one said anything about being in contravention to law. What was referanced as opposed to said, you fucking illiterate, retarded imbicile, was they were in contravention to the statutes and acts that governs the society that they are currently residing in.
I'm not going to whip out my Blacks 8th to try and explain further to you as you are clearly an attention whore (you come off as a crazed, ranting meth-head) whom has watched a few YT vid's and think you are well versed in the FOTL way of life.

Now, fuck off and go back to your Saturday 'toons, son.
You may come back after 20 more years of jail and fines. Because you strike me as a PERSON whom goes of half cocked.



georgedragon wrote:The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Seizure The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is meaningful interference by the government with an individual's possessory interests, such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence. The Amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of their persons, including a brief detention.

A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained. The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.

A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave. As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the courts will usually consider the police contact to be a "citizen encounter" which falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure.

ExceptionsThe government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed. Further, in Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that, absent articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable.

Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.

Roadblocks may be used to capture a particular fleeing criminal or locate a bomb.

Arrest When a person is arrested and taken into police custody, they have been seized (e.g., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a Terry stop than to a formal arrest. A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime. A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, if the arresting officer has probable cause.

Probable cause:
When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that “the term probable cause...means less than evidence that would justify condemnation[,]” reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,” that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, nontechnical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances."

At common law, a police officer could arrest an individual if that individual committed a misdemeanor in the officer's presence or if the officer had probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony. For misdemeanors, probable cause to believe that a wrongdoer committed a misdemeanor is not sufficient for an arrest; the police officer has to actually witness the misdemeanor.

The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime. Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.



By the way, i'm not american, but i can read, and in this case as in so many others from the USAFascist dictatorship, the cops are the criminals. :ugeek:



georgedragon wrote:Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas.

International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.


I hope it's not to much to read, but do try anyway, you might learn something. :ugeek:



Nothing coming out of pandoras box!...Did i slam the lid to hard? :ugeek:
Be the change you want to see.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook