All Forums | General Discussion

Is there an actual law that black people aren't allowed

Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 2988
Posts: 138
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15740
Posted: #101
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


It's a horrible example because that would never happen.  They would test me on the spot and let me go on my merry way.

If the cops had no ill intent and are only out to serve public safetly then I'm fine with that.   

Is there really any difference if I got caught up in a sobriety checkpoint?

The situation above has happened probably thousands of times. My guess is if it happened to you, you wouldn't be so dismissive of individual rights. Every day, people are wrongfully arrested, charged, and convicted.

 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #102
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


They did a field sobriety check on me.  From there they let me go after passing the tests.

I was told they have breathalyzers in the patrol car.  I also heard some are taking blood.  

You are maybe referring to dirty cops which is a whole different subject....


you're lucky they let you go.

i've never seen a breathalyzer done at the scene, but i guess some states do that. 

here, if the cops think you are driving drunk, they arrest you and take you to the jail.  if you agree to blow in the breathalyzer at the jail and blow 0.00, then they assume you are on drugs and ask for blood.  those blood results come back in 3-6 months. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #103
dui checkpoints are different.  it's just one of those things carved out in the law that lets the police set up checkpoints to catch drunk drivers.  but, they have to follow very specific rules, at least theoretically, and they aren't supposed to use it as an excuse to stop and/or search people for other garbage. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #104
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



we aren't understanding each other.  i said the cops can always ask questions if they want to and investigate that way.  that is a far, far cry from the kind of arrest that happened here.  

in this case, they can ask the girl if she's in any harm.  presumably, if she was being kidnapped and a cop is there to help her, that would be a good time to tell the cop she's being kidnapped.  that's one way.  they can ask the black guy what's going on.  that's another way.

sure, we could have a system where the cops do whatever they want and take people away to a government building for interrogation whenever they want to explore any suspicions they have but we have a constitution that does not allow the government to intrude upon people's freedoms whenever they want or to satisfy any suspicions they have.  some countries, such as north korea and somalia, don't have such consttitutional protections.  in those countries, the government is unrestricted and people's rights don't matter.

now, are there situations where crimes occur because a cop isn't free to do whatever he wants without regard to constitutional freedoms?  sure, but that's the tradeoff we accept when we enact a constitution that forces the government to articulate actual evidence of criminal activity before they arrest people.   every right we have comes with a cost.  but i think a constitutiuonal system that places restrictions on our government to allow for certain freedoms for the people is a good system, even if it's not designed to catch every crime before it happens. 

What if she is a runaway or her mom sold her and told her to be good?

What you are talking about is dirty cops.  Most cops don't do what you are saying.  They use discretion and probable cause.   I think you are taking it a step too far.  

I know you want alot of things to be black and white but unfortunately many things in life has grey areas.  Not everything is clear cut and dry.


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #105
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



you're lucky they let you go.

i've never seen a breathalyzer done at the scene, but i guess some states do that. 

here, if the cops think you are driving drunk, they arrest you and take you to the jail.  if you agree to blow in the breathalyzer at the jail and blow 0.00, then they assume you are on drugs and ask for blood.  those blood results come back in 3-6 months. 

Somebody must of agreed with that procedure for it to be done like that.  If you don't like it then write to the governor.  
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #106
if there is evidence she's a runaway or being trafficked, most states will have a system for that and the cop should be able to take her to juvenile detention at that point.  that would also be some indication of a crime and they could investigate the adult with her. 

i agree not most cases are not black and white but whatever the situation is, it's one thing for a cop to ask questions, it's another entirely for a cop to arrest someone without evidence of criminal activity.  cops can come up with what ifs and maybes all day in any situation but those are not sufficient to arrest people.  if they were, our constitutional protections are meaningless.


 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #107
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


They did a field sobriety check on me.  From there they let me go after passing the tests.

I was told they have breathalyzers in the patrol car.  I also heard some are taking blood.  

You are maybe referring to dirty cops which is a whole different subject....

They did a field sobriety check on you based on what?  Did they smell alcohol?  Did you slur your speech?

I got pulled over a long time ago in Virginia.  We had beer in the car....none were open.  We were driving back from the President's Cup first round.  He smelled alcohol on my breath (I had 4 beers at the gold course).  I went through the road sobriety tests and passed them all.  He said, "you're not in any trouble, but if you want to take a breathalyzer just to see where you are at, I'll give you one." Like a moron, I took it (I was quite confident I was under the limit).  I was only .04 (well under the limit).  

But think about it.  That was the dumbest thing I could have ever done. He had no probable cause, but just asked me if I'd like to give up my rights....and I did.  Learned a lot that day.  

I realize cops have a tough job, but they made a horrible decision as far as how they approached this situation.  How one can argue otherwise is beyond me.  
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #108
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

if there is evidence she's a runaway or being trafficked, most states will have a system for that and the cop should be able to take her to juvenile detention at that point.  that would also be some indication of a crime and they could investigate the adult with her. 

i agree not most cases are not black and white but whatever the situation is, it's one thing for a cop to ask questions, it's another entirely for a cop to arrest someone without evidence of criminal activity.  cops can come up with what ifs and maybes all day in any situation but those are not sufficient to arrest people.  if they were, our constitutional protections are meaningless.



And how do you suppose a cop is suppose to do that?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #109
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

The situation above has happened probably thousands of times. My guess is if it happened to you, you wouldn't be so dismissive of individual rights. Every day, people are wrongfully arrested, charged, and convicted.

 


It's happened to me but I don't think it's as big of a deal like you are making it.  Probably more than one occasion also.

Have you or anyone you know been arrested and convicted of a crime they didn't commit?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #110
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



you're lucky they let you go.

i've never seen a breathalyzer done at the scene, but i guess some states do that. 

here, if the cops think you are driving drunk, they arrest you and take you to the jail.  if you agree to blow in the breathalyzer at the jail and blow 0.00, then they assume you are on drugs and ask for blood.  those blood results come back in 3-6 months. 

Some people are lucky to get a ride to the local station for a breathalyzer.  I've heard that if they blew at the scene they would be over the limit but since they were given time for the ride they blew under the legal limit.

Since it looks like laws depend from state to state or whatever, who makes these laws?
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #111
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


And how do you suppose a cop is suppose to do that?


ask questions.  ask her name and call it into dispatch.  follow their training within the bounds of the constitution.  there are ways to get information short of an illegal arrest.

but look, in our society, sometimes the cops just aren't going to get all of the answers.  the reason is because our constitution doesn't alow them to trample all over anyone's rights to get answers they want or appease their suspicions.  there are countries where th cop's desire to get every answer and turn over every stone to appease his suspicions trumps yours and my rights to be free from government intrusion.  fortunately, this isn't one of them.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #112
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


Some people are lucky to get a ride to the local station for a breathalyzer.  I've heard that if they blew at the scene they would be over the limit but since they were given time for the ride they blew under the legal limit.

Since it looks like laws depend from state to state or whatever, who makes these laws?


depends.  some people may be benefited by the 2 hours or so between a traffic stop and the actual breathalyzer test. 

dui is a state law and the state legislature of each state decides its own dui laws. 

search and seizure laws we've been talking about come from the state legislatures and the state courts and the federal courts. 

procedural issues like whether to give the breathalyzer at the scene or at the jail may be dictated by the state legislature or as far down as the particular sheriff of that police department. 


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #113
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:


They did a field sobriety check on you based on what?  Did they smell alcohol?  Did you slur your speech?

I got pulled over a long time ago in Virginia.  We had beer in the car....none were open.  We were driving back from the President's Cup first round.  He smelled alcohol on my breath (I had 4 beers at the gold course).  I went through the road sobriety tests and passed them all.  He said, "you're not in any trouble, but if you want to take a breathalyzer just to see where you are at, I'll give you one." Like a moron, I took it (I was quite confident I was under the limit).  I was only .04 (well under the limit).  

But think about it.  That was the dumbest thing I could have ever done. He had no probable cause, but just asked me if I'd like to give up my rights....and I did.  Learned a lot that day.  

I realize cops have a tough job, but they made a horrible decision as far as how they approached this situation.  How one can argue otherwise is beyond me.  

It was about 3am so they pulled me over saying I was speeding.  I told them I might have drove fast but I wasn't speeding.  There's the excuse for the test.  I was obviously drinking so I said I had about 3 in the past 4 hours.  Did the test and passed it.  They kept asking 'leading questions' like they did to you.
   You know what, they used a stupid excuse for pulling me over but big deal.  How many times have people driven buzzed or even drunk and have not gotten pulled over.  Everyone acts like they are so innocent when they know fully well they keep breaking the law and haven't gotten caught.  
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #114
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



ask questions.  ask her name and call it into dispatch.  follow their training within the bounds of the constitution.  there are ways to get information short of an illegal arrest.

but look, in our society, sometimes the cops just aren't going to get all of the answers.  the reason is because our constitution doesn't alow them to trample all over anyone's rights to get answers they want or appease their suspicions.  there are countries where th cop's desire to get every answer and turn over every stone to appease his suspicions trumps yours and my rights to be free from government intrusion.  fortunately, this isn't one of them.

So they ask question, got answers, called the mom, no answer.  From there what should they do?

I doubt the cops were looking to turn over every stone.  They just saw something out of the ordinary and decided to look into it further.  
If anything, cops rather hang out and congregate at the donut shop or station and wait until a call comes in but more is expected of them than that.   
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #115
well in this case, they got legitimate answers so they should have moved on.  once it was clear the cops didn't have specific evidence a crime was being committed, it was illegal to arrest anyone. 


one thing cops often do in a situation with multiple vehicle occupants when there is some evidence of criminal activity is to separate them and ask them the same simple questions.  where are you going, where are you coming from, etc.  if they are legitimate, they'll usually answer those questions consistently.  if they not, then maybe there is something more to the story. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #116
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



depends.  some people may be benefited by the 2 hours or so between a traffic stop and the actual breathalyzer test. 

dui is a state law and the state legislature of each state decides its own dui laws. 

search and seizure laws we've been talking about come from the state legislatures and the state courts and the federal courts. 

procedural issues like whether to give the breathalyzer at the scene or at the jail may be dictated by the state legislature or as far down as the particular sheriff of that police department. 



I'm gonna guess you are probably in your 20s or early 30s.  As you get older you will appreciate the police protection.  
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #117
I doubt the cops were looking to turn over every stone.  They just saw something out of the ordinary and decided to look into it further. 

and if that's all they did, maybe the people are pissed but this isn't a huge issue.  when it turns into an arrest, then it becomes a problem and a constitutional violation. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #118
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


I'm gonna guess you are probably in your 20s or early 30s.  As you get older you will appreciate the police protection.  


no, 40's and i've been dealing with the police on both sides of these issues in liberal counties and what people like to call conservative counties for almost 15 years now.  i'm pretty familiar with how cops operate at this point.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #119
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

well in this case, they got legitimate answers so they should have moved on.  once it was clear the cops didn't have specific evidence a crime was being committed, it was illegal to arrest anyone. 


one thing cops often do in a situation with multiple vehicle occupants when there is some evidence of criminal activity is to separate them and ask them the same simple questions.  where are you going, where are you coming from, etc.  if they are legitimate, they'll usually answer those questions consistently.  if they not, then maybe there is something more to the story. 

Illegal as in the cops should not have handcuffed and took them to the station?  

Would it be okay to handcuff them at the scene for police safety and leave them in the back of a police cruiser or on sidewalk for however many hours it took them to sort things out?  
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #120
low 40's 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #121
Quote Originally Posted by tjohnsont:


Illegal as in the cops should not have handcuffed and took them to the station?  

Would it be okay to handcuff them at the scene for police safety and leave them in the back of a police cruiser or on sidewalk for however many hours it took them to sort things out?  


yes, not criminal illegal but unconstitutional illegal.  handcuffing and taking to the station = an arrest and there was no legal basis to do it.

as to your second question, i'd say no.  but that's arguable.  if the cops are legitimately suspicious, then it would be ok to separate them and talk to them to see if there is any foul play involved.  again, cops are trained to do this, or should be, without making an illegal arrest.  i would think they could do this by having a couple of officers there, making sure no one is armed and separating them without handcuffing anyone but officer safety isn't something to darn around with so if the guy was raising hell for what he believed was improper treatment, maybe additional steps would need to be taken to make sure he wasn't a threat.  but just the need to separate and ask questions wouldn't be a reason to handcuff anyone, especially when one of the parties is a child.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #122
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



no, 40's and i've been dealing with the police on both sides of these issues in liberal counties and what people like to call conservative counties for almost 15 years now.  i'm pretty familiar with how cops operate at this point.

Maybe you need to move to sunny California.  Live in a beach house, enjoy the salty air, and not worry about cops.  
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 11794
Posted: #123

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

I doubt the cops were looking to turn over every stone.  They just saw something out of the ordinary and decided to look into it further. 

and if that's all they did, maybe the people are pissed but this isn't a huge issue.  when it turns into an arrest, then it becomes a problem and a constitutional violation. 

I agree with this- and that sounds great- but at 3am in a store parking lot with occupants "passing through"- how on earth could the officer verify or validate the story? He had to make a decision-

What would your opinion be if the whole story was bullshit but because the officer had no specific evidence of crime- he let them go, against his better judgement- and they raped / murdered the child?

I mean- do we just say tough garbage- those are the breaks?

 

 

 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #124
i do need to do that.  i used to do that (except for the beach house part), but i'm (mostly) a criminal defense lawyer now (used to be a prosecutor).  i can't escape it. 
 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #125
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



yes, not criminal illegal but unconstitutional illegal.  handcuffing and taking to the station = an arrest and there was no legal basis to do it.

as to your second question, i'd say no.  but that's arguable.  if the cops are legitimately suspicious, then it would be ok to separate them and talk to them to see if there is any foul play involved.  again, cops are trained to do this, or should be, without making an illegal arrest.  i would think they could do this by having a couple of officers there, making sure no one is armed and separating them without handcuffing anyone but officer safety isn't something to darn around with so if the guy was raising hell for what he believed was improper treatment, maybe additional steps would need to be taken to make sure he wasn't a threat.  but just the need to separate and ask questions wouldn't be a reason to handcuff anyone, especially when one of the parties is a child.

If it's unconstitutional then they have a nice case.  Give ACLU or NAACP a call.  That's what they are there for.  

Was the child handcuffed?   

Have you seen some of these people that these cops have to take down?   You do realize some cops are not as big and strong as the people they are arresting.  If anything, it's smart to get handcuffed since that prevents anyone from getting hurt.  If the guy tries to go for the gun or something he might accidentally end up dead.  Something handcuffs could have prevented.  
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.