Comments for US: Law-abiding citizens arrested for claiming rights guaranteed by Constitution. »
Posted By zplan 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsThis story is from this website... http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html from the article heading - US: Law-abiding citizens arrested for claiming rights guaranteed by Constitution. The youube url is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_h_g0JtX4o Apparently the lady was sitting in her car reading. See for yourself.
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 17
-
Neutral
zplan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please listen closely to what these officers say. I do not believe this is systematic, but I think this is a good illustration of an effort to influence professional groups.. or maybe these officers are just bullies. The video begins at the interview stage, I believe the car was parked and the lady was reading. If that is so I see no reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. Decide for yourselves.
Reply -
Neutral
BronxBomber1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OMG! That is sooooo unbelieveable!! My jaw hit the floor at that atrocious display of abuse of power run amok! The State trooper himself had unequivoally stated that Ms. or Mrs,Hoffman hasn't violate ANY laws WHATSOEVER, and yet she is clearly manhandled like a common criminal!
Just because she had clearly invoked her constitutional rights! To which the FBI and the extension of this current administration clearly is stating in they're documents that any citizen, that is a christian and any legal gun owner are in the league as terroristic anarchist's.
What are the "probable cause" of the cop's actions? The literature that, that poor woman possesed in her car to which they police had searched ILLEGALLY! With NO justifiable cause! This country if not repulsed soon, will instantly turn into a facist police state. With ALL your rights taken away if the powers that be, this: "New World Order" has it's way.
Reply-
Neutral
BronxBomber1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But the most nauseating part is towards the end of the tape where an innocent man was bitten and quite possibly mangled by a police dog for no reason! Like Mrs.Hoffman he hasn't done anything! He hasn't done one thing to merit that abuse from self-absorbed, arrogant,brutish police force! That obscene, and yes criminal actions that are done by these "bastions" of society is astounding to say the least! I am outraged! Thanx for this expose' of a putrified goverment, and it's enforcers of innocent citizens zplan.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
zplan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yeah,BronxBomber. I feel something such as this, since being released about three days ago, should have everyone talking, but that is not so. I just gotta go Hmmm. The lady was arrested for resisting arrest, but to resist arrest one has to be informed they are under arrest. I think maybe the magnitude of this is not realized. There are many bill of rights implications in this (I believe illegal) search and seizure. For starters (as far as I can tell) there was no moving violation to begin with. I still think this video shows an end result of an effort by a very few to alter a way of life. But, then it just may be a case of Who The Hec Hired These Guys!
I think something is amiss here. What is it? Why is there no public outcry? She was vindicated, but why was she arrested?
Hooray for the judicial!
Reply-
Neutral
berkeley1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there are two classes of viewers. the ones who know cops do stupid/illegal stuff like this all the time, and the ones who wouldn't believe it could happen because this is 'merica.
some members of the first group gave up on outcry some years back, after doing it over and over again with no results. some are relative newcomers, and will complain, and some of the time, achieve some version of justice.
but for political change, larger numbers are helpful, and the powers-that-be know the media can and will prevent that.
see
http://books.propeller.com/story/2008/05/14/how...
Reply-
Neutral
zplan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent article, Berkely. It validates what I feel has been really going on. What gets me is willful indifference. MLK has suggested it is indifference towards the act that will be our undoing. Can so many really be so ignorant today? I think not. Perhaps it is a form of Anomie (normlessness) from strain that is no longer contained in certain communities or areas, but is now encompassing a greater part of society as disparity of wealth increases? We (as a society)can no longer control the wants and needs of others in our society. Then, what will it take for most to realize that prosperity may soon not be achievable, because there are those who cannot or will not control their appetites?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is yet another example of activists baiting law enforcement. The Supreme Court has upheld that random checkpoints are Constitutional. This woman had pre-planned to have her "harassment" recorded. Albeit, she had no idea she would be stopped, but she was hoping she would be one of the cars stopped. This is becoming an all too common incident. Her refusal to co-operate is a legal, valid reason to be detained, not arrested, until her identity is established.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The officer in the video had the legal right to reach in and turn off her car when she refused. However he WAS incorrect in arresting her for obstruction of justice. He would have been correct had he cuffed her and DETAINED her to assertain her identity. Also since clips like this are cherry picked and edited to support the posters agenda. What was the checkpoint for? Seatbelt warnings? Inspection reviews? Looked too early in the day to be a DUI checkpoint. Were they looking for a particular vehicle that was wanted and hers was an identical vehicle? The video doesn't show these things. However, right from the start she was uncooperative. Both were in the wrong.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
zplan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some states now have laws that allow search and seizure based on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Officers are allowed to stop a person in a public place to determine if a person has committed or is about to commit a crime; and frisk if the officer has reasonable concern for their own safety. All these are supposed to be grounded in observation of unusual conduct. Detainment for questioning, not for arrest until there is probable cause.
I think turning the car off would be considered detaining and asking the driver for I.D. is O.K. It was what the officers said about the drivers personal effects that bothered me. They were in plain sight, but the charge was resisting arrest although the officers did not explain what the lady was being arrested for, in order for her to resist being arrested.
Reply-
Neutral
zplan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It bothered me, placing someone under arrest for resisting arrest, when there was no declaration of arrest with charges first.To justify a stop, reasonable suspicion must be anchored in specific objective facts and logical conclusions based on the officer's experience. Facts must be specific and objective.
The gray area. The lady could have just shown ID, having done this would probably actually helped her case in court more, should the officers decide to arrest her on reasonable suspicion only. Also, it needs to be realized that some states have particular laws concerning vehicles. These are readily available.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
zplan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As a general rule:
In order to stop and detain someone under the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Constitution requires that a law enforcement officer justify the stop on something more than articulable and reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. In developing and articulating reasonable suspicion, a profile [such as a drug courier profile] can be a useful tool in categorizing and attaching particular significance to otherwise innocent behavior. However, each decision to detain an individual must be judged on the individual facts available to an officer at the time of the stop, viewed in light of the officer's training and experience.[Source: William U. McCormack. "Detaining Suspected Drug Couriers." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 1991, pp. 31Ã;;Ã;¢;;32.] However,states have jurisdiction over most traffic stops.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.