OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:09 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

These are all city or state laws in Ca.
Are you saying a cop is NOT required to enforce them, even though they ar still laws on the books in Ca.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california?page=0

So, should a cop know AND enforce those laws also?
What part of NO isn't getting through to you?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:11 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
So you are saying that a cop can pick and choose which laws he decides to uphold, even thought they swear to uphold ALL the laws in their jurisdiction.

If thats the case, why have laws at all, or cops?

And if a cop, by your own admission, isnt required to know or enforce ALL the laws he is charged with enforcing, how then can you blame the cop in Mass for not knowing the law when he arrested Gates?

Either a cop is supposed to know all the laws or he isnt.
You cant have it both ways.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:22 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So you are saying that a cop can pick and choose which laws he decides to uphold, even thought they swear to uphold ALL the laws in their jurisdiction.

For starters, you just made that up. Here's the oath:

Quote:
I do solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that i will act at all times to the best of my ability and knowledge in a manner befitting a police officer

I will preserve the dignity and will respect the rights of all individuals

I will discharge my duties with integrity and will promote understanding and conciliation

I will exercise my authority as a police officer in the manner intended by the law

I will faithfully obey the orders of my superiors and will be ready to confront danger in the line of duty

I will act with honesty, courtesy and regard for the welfare of others, and will endeavour to develop the esprit de corps

I will act justly and impartially and with propriety towards my fellow officers

I will constantly strive to honour this oath in my service as a police officer



mysteryman wrote:
If thats the case, why have laws at all, or cops?
Too stupid of a question to answer.

mysteryman wrote:
And if a cop, by your own admission, isnt required to know or enforce ALL the laws he is charged with enforcing, how then can you blame the cop in Mass for not knowing the law when he arrested Gates?
Because he arrested him without knowing, you fool. This is a clear cut violation of Gate's constitutional rights.

mysteryman wrote:
Either a cop is supposed to know all the laws or he isnt.
You cant have it both ways.
For at least the 5th time: He isn't expected to know every law on the books. He is under no obligation to enforce every law he's aware of. He has an absolute obligation to NOT arrest someone without having "probable cause" that the party is in violation of a Statute that HE IS familiar with. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or do you really have no alternative?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:28 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
He has an absolute obligation to NOT arrest someone without having "probable cause" that the party is in violation of a Statute that HE IS familiar with


And since "probable Cause" is subjective (you may think there is probable cause and another cop may not), you are using your personal bias to assume that the cop didnt have probable cause.
He apparently felt he did, and since neither you nor I were there, we will never know.

Its up to the prosecutor to determine if an arrest is valid or if there are going to be charges filed.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:44 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
He has an absolute obligation to NOT arrest someone without having "probable cause" that the party is in violation of a Statute that HE IS familiar with


And since "probable Cause" is subjective (you may think there is probable cause and another cop may not), you are using your personal bias to assume that the cop didnt have probable cause.
Nonsense. My argument is based entirely on Crowley’s own statements. After seeing Gates ID, which proved Gates couldn't possibly have committed the crime he was investigating, Crowley held his ID and called more cops. From this point forward, he had already violated Gates' rights. No reasonable person could have believed he had Probable Cause at this juncture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Whether your obtuseness is deliberate or not, you've become a bore. Why ask questions, if you’re not interested in learning?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:55 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
mm is not only a bore, but a troll too! He's following me all over a2k, so I put him on Ignore.

His childish questions doesn't cease until you cut him off.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:00 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
From this point forward, he had already violated Gates' rights.


This is where we disagree.
Just asking someone to step outside is not a violation of their rights.
Under the circumstances, it is a prudent move for both the officers and the homowners safety.

I am not claiming that there was another person in the house, nor am I saying that there MIGHT have been.

But, the cops didnt know that, so asking the homowner to step out while they do a quick search is a prudent move.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:03 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
From this point forward, he had already violated Gates' rights.


This is where we disagree.
Just asking someone to step outside is not a violation of their rights.
Under the circumstances, it is a prudent move for both the officers and the homowners safety.

I am not claiming that there was another person in the house, nor am I saying that there MIGHT have been.

But, the cops didnt know that, so asking the homowner to step out while they do a quick search is a prudent move.



What does that have to do with anything? Gates wasn't arrested for not leaving his home when requested. He was arrested for creating a public disturbance - which he did not do.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
He was arrested for creating a public disturbance - which he did not do.


That goes back to the earlier discussion...Is your front porch in public or not?
I say it is, others say it isnt.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:06 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
From this point forward, he had already violated Gates' rights.


This is where we disagree.
Just asking someone to step outside is not a violation of their rights.
Under the circumstances, it is a prudent move for both the officers and the homowners safety.

I am not claiming that there was another person in the house, nor am I saying that there MIGHT have been.

But, the cops didnt know that, so asking the homowner to step out while they do a quick search is a prudent move.
Neither did the cops claim they were concerned that another person may have been in the house. Nor did they investigate that possibility, so your fantasy excuse is wholly irrelevant as well. This is what happens when you scramble to fortify a preconceived, erroneous, conclusion.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:12 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Neither did the cops claim they were concerned that another person may have been in the house. Nor did they investigate that possibility, so your fantasy excuse is wholly irrelevant as well. This is what happens when you scramble to fortify a preconceived, erroneous, conclusion.


I have reached no conclusions, either way.
Mainly, I dont care either way.

I am simply presenting options, based on what little I know.
The whole case and resultant brouhaha is a huge waste of time to me, and is nothing more then a huge photo-op for everyone involved, including Obama.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:18 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
He was arrested for creating a public disturbance - which he did not do.


That goes back to the earlier discussion...Is your front porch in public or not?
I say it is, others say it isnt.
Wrong again. Private property is defined by the General Laws of the State of Massachusettes, Chapter 266: Section 120. If he was on improved land, even, it is considered private property by definition. Why try so hard to make up an excuse?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:22 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Neither did the cops claim they were concerned that another person may have been in the house. Nor did they investigate that possibility, so your fantasy excuse is wholly irrelevant as well. This is what happens when you scramble to fortify a preconceived, erroneous, conclusion.


I have reached no conclusions, either way.
Mainly, I dont care either way.

I am simply presenting options, based on what little I know.
The whole case and resultant brouhaha is a huge waste of time to me, and is nothing more then a huge photo-op for everyone involved, including Obama.
Laughing So you make up every idiotic thing you can think of trying desperately to not see the light and then claim it's a waste of time to you? You see the plain hard facts repeated and every one of your silly possibilities proven false and you still haven't reached a conclusion? Laughing You sir are a waste of time.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:38 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Mystery man confesses to holding the conventional wisdom that this case is a tempest in a teapot, and nitwit Bill concludes that this means that MM is a waste of time.

All is normal at a2k today.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:08 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
He has an absolute obligation to NOT arrest someone without having "probable cause" that the party is in violation of a Statute that HE IS familiar with


And since "probable Cause" is subjective (you may think there is probable cause and another cop may not), you are using your personal bias to assume that the cop didnt have probable cause.
He apparently felt he did, and since neither you nor I were there, we will never know.

Its up to the prosecutor to determine if an arrest is valid or if there are going to be charges filed.


Please substantiate your claim that probable cause determinations are subjective. If you're going to make declarations, you ought to back them up with citation to authority. (If you examine U.S. Supreme Court authority, you will have to admit that you're wrong.)

Please substantiate your claim that it's up to the prosecutor to determine if an arrest is valid. A prosecutor may employ his/her prosecutorial discretion and refuse to prosecute based on his/her opinion that the evidence is insufficient to obtain a conviction, but the prosecutor doesn't determine whether probable cause existed to justify a warrantless arrest--a court makes that determination.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:21 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Please substantiate your claim that probable cause determinations are subjective


Jesus Christ you are an idiot....90% of what the cops do is subjective. We need to have the cops do there jobs, so we need to allow the cops to make subjective evaluations, so long as they do it in good faith.

Are you REALLY, REALLY, sure that you went to law school.....
Debra Law
 
  2  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Please substantiate your claim that probable cause determinations are subjective


Jesus Christ you are an idiot....90% of what the cops do is subjective. We need to have the cops do there jobs, so we need to allow the cops to make subjective evaluations, so long as they do it in good faith.

Are you REALLY, REALLY, sure that you went to law school.....


To quote mm, BS.

Unlike mm, however, I will prove that your assertion is BS.

The USSC explicitly stated the following:

"If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police."

BECK v. OHIO, 379 U.S. 89, 97 (1964).



The OBJECTIVE test for a probable cause determination is as follows:

The United States Supreme Court wrote:
Whether that arrest was constitutionally valid depends in turn upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it - whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 -176; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 . . . .

* * *

When the constitutional validity of an arrest is challenged, it is the function of a court to determine whether the facts available to the officers at the moment of the arrest would "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that an offense has been committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 . If the court is not informed of the facts upon which the arresting officers acted, it cannot properly discharge that function.


Source: BECK v. OHIO, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

SEE ALSO:

The United States Supreme Court wrote:
We described Robinson as having established that "the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action." 436 U. S., at 136, 138. . . .

Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.


Source: WHREN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES 517 U.S. 806 (1996)


It is apparent, hawkeye 10, that you're the idiot. That's not a subjective assessment because you're a disrespectful ass, but rather an objective one based on the stunning ignorance you displayed in your post and which is obvious to a reasonably prudent person.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:36 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra, Thank you for providing the correct answer and source for your answer.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra, Thank you for providing the correct answer and source for your answer.


You're welcome.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Fri 31 Jul, 2009 09:57 pm
I wish to make a correction in my previous post.

It was Finn dAbuzz who wrote "BS" without substantiating his opinion.

MM, on the other hand, is the one who questioned the statement that a law enforcement officer is presumed to know the law.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1386
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 05:56:34