Is it a citizen's duty to know their rights, or should they be informed by police?

[rambone]

If you have an Indiana's driver's license, you've already consented.

No I haven't. I'm not giving you any body samples. Consent denied.

 

[hornadylnl]

I will give you that many on here cannot agree on gun laws. I will also give you that it is nearly impossible to know ALL of the LAWS. But, researching and attempting to understand the RIGHTS that pertain to your everyday life is not all that time consuming or difficult.

As far as case law goes, I would rather not get into that.

I'll repost the same scenario I did above.

So if they pass an obscure law that says it's a jailable offense to skip down the sidewalk on Tuesday, it's my duty to know that law. But if I'm arrested for it on Wednsday, is the arresting officer liable for all inconveniences and costs to me when he didn't know the law?

Again, if I violate a law, I'm guilty whether I knew it was a law or not. If I unknowingly waive my rights that leads to me being arrested, cuffed, and thrown in jail, that is solely my responsibility.

But what exactly is the arresting officer's responsibility if he wrongly arrests me and costs me hundreds if not thousands of dollars in court fees, potential job loss, etc? It appears he has absolutely no responsibility and I have no recourse against that officer to be made whole again. Again, I have to know the law or face the consequences but when the officer doesn't, I get a "whoops" in return.

If officers that violated the rights of others were personally held accountable financially and legally, I'm sure they'd study up on the laws that they are trying to arrest us for breaking.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'll repost the same scenario I did above.



Again, if I violate a law, I'm guilty whether I knew it was a law or not. If I unknowingly waive my rights that leads to me being arrested, cuffed, and thrown in jail, that is solely my responsibility.

But what exactly is the arresting officer's responsibility if he wrongly arrests me and costs me hundreds if not thousands of dollars in court fees, potential job loss, etc? It appears he has absolutely no responsibility and I have no recourse against that officer to be made whole again. Again, I have to know the law or face the consequences but when the officer doesn't, I get a "whoops" in return.

If officers that violated the rights of others were personally held accountable financially and legally, I'm sure they'd study up on the laws that they are trying to arrest us for breaking.

I've often thought that in every court case, civil or criminal, the prevailing party should be entitled to reimbursement of their legal fees. Require a bond be posted with the court prior to bringing an action. That would prevent coin flip cases from being brought.

The argument is that everyone should be entitled to their day in court and have their case heard. I agree. However your right to sue me should not be at my ultimate expense. Just like the state's authority to charge me should not lead to my personal financial demise if I prevail.

 

[rambone]

This poll is so intresting.

One minute everyone wants the gov't OUT of their lives. Let us smoke what we want to smoke. Stop kicking in our doors. Quit teaching our kids what we don't want you to teach. Let us eat what we want to eat. Scared that the FBI bought .50 rifles. Don't want to pay more in taxes.

Then on the other hand no one wants a crack head to break in their house. They want the drug dealers next door out of town. They aren't willing to teach THEIR OWN kids. They want help when they have heart problems from too many cheese burgers. They want to own .50cal rifles. They want better roads and services.

I'm going to assume you are at least somewhat directing at me since I'm the one who posted this interesting poll.

I don't see the connection. An extra condition on performing unjustified searches... fits exactly with my philosophy of wanting government out of my life.

An even better solution would be to quit Nannying us and leave us the hell alone. Quit snooping through our personal space. But fat chance of that ever happening with the control-freak attitude we have cultivated in this country.

Now here we have a case where the majority that voted in the poll WANT the gov't in their lives. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

This poll, in no way, shape, or form, encourages government in our lives. This is a discussion of what happens when you are already being stopped by government agents, and they are trying to probe their nose through your stuff. Having them say an extra sentence regarding your rights is NOT WANTING THEM IN OUR LIVES. By the time this idea comes into play, government is already forcing itself into your life.

To be brutally honest what I see here is I'm too weak, lazy, and stupid to understand my rights. Please exercise them FOR me.

Well guess what, not everyone had your parents and when to the schools you went to. Some people really have no idea where police power ends and your rights begin. And not all of those people are drug dealers or whomever you enjoy seeing violated by police. It could be your own family, friends, etc. Not everyone knows the ins and outs of this like we do. That doesn't make them weak, lazy, or stupid. I don't feel they should be easy prey for the police to shake down either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No I haven't. I'm not giving you any body samples. Consent denied.

If you have an Indiana's Driver's license, you surely have. You would be in violation of a binding contract, which you yourself signed, and no one every reads or remembers. If you want to take the year DL suspension hit, that's fine... but you can also be forced "using any means" to submit a sample, and then if you physically refuse, you'd be charged with RLE.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I'm going to assume you are at least somewhat directing at me since I'm the one who posted this interesting poll.
No it wasn't directed at you personally. I honestly find the poll intresting.

I don't see the connection. An extra condition on performing unjustified searches... fits exactly with my philosophy of wanting government out of my life.


An even better solution would be to quit Nannying us and leave us the hell alone. Quit snooping through our personal space. But fat chance of that ever happening with the control-freak attitude we have cultivated in this country.
What you ask for IS nannying. Please tell me what I can/can not do. Please tell me what my rights are because I am too stupid/lazy to find out for myself. We also have cultivated a state of people that RELY on the gov't for everything. Entitlement programs and the like. Now people are advocating the gov't to hold your hand. Knowledge is power and only can be given to those who seek it.

This poll, in no way, shape, or form, encourages government in our lives. This is a discussion of what happens when you are already being stopped by government agents, and they are trying to probe their nose through your stuff. Having them say an extra sentence regarding your rights is NOT WANTING THEM IN OUR LIVES. By the time this idea comes into play, government is already forcing itself into your life.


Well guess what, not everyone had your parents and when to the schools you went to. Some people really have no idea where police power ends and your rights begin. And not all of those people are drug dealers or whomever you enjoy seeing violated by police. It could be your own family, friends, etc. Not everyone knows the ins and outs of this like we do. That doesn't make them weak, lazy, or stupid. I don't feel they should be easy prey for the police to shake down either.

Then who needs to be taught? Flag waving here on INGO really won't do much. Been to any rallys lately? Given any speaches lately? It's one thing to sound the alarm here on INGO. Many agree or already know. So what is really accomplished? Nothing.

You really want to tell people about their rights? Become a LEO or a lawyer. You'll have plenty of opportunity (I don't know that you aren't). Head out to 5th and Broadway in Gary and hand out pamphlets.




Knowledge is power and only can be given to those who seek it.






This is in no way a personal attack rambone. If I didn't like your threads I'd just not read them.

 

[rambone]

If you have an Indiana's Driver's license, you surely have. You would be in violation of a binding contract, which you yourself signed, and no one every reads or remembers. If you want to take the year DL suspension hit, that's fine... but you can also be forced "using any means" to submit a sample, and then if you physically refuse, you'd be charged with RLE.

Submission? Well that's a bit of a problem...

Why don't they just blood-sample everyone on the road? We've all consented to being penetrated by the long arm of the law, am I right? Want my blood? MOLON LABE!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Submission? Well that's a bit of a problem...

Why don't they just blood-sample everyone on the road? We've all consented to being penetrated by the long arm of the law, am I right? Want my blood? MOLON LABE!!

That's exactly what will happen, with RS, of course

 

[rambone]

This is in no way a personal attack rambone. If I didn't like your threads I'd just not read them.

I appreciate the input, no bad feelings here.

As I and others said, this is not my first choice in approaching this problem. I'd really like to repeal the reasons for searching cars arbitrarily which would pretty much nullify the need for this idea.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Have you ever thought that if police had to inform people of the rights they already should know, it would have an overall detrimental effect? Right now your rights are clearly defined, and the information exists, over and over, on how to protect/express your rights. Surely, if such a thing was to pass, that would not be the end of it. Right now, your best defense is knowing your rights and not waivering.

A great many arrests come from consent searches (ie PC doesnt exist to get in the vehicle). If that tool is rendered "moot," because law enforcement have to advise, people who didnt listen in school, or take their rights seriously, something, I can assure you will take it's place.

I think most have already agreed that driving is not a right, but rather an privilege. You are issued a driver's license and allowed to drive on govt roads, at the pleasure of the state. Even in the obtainment of your license, you agreed that if an officer "suspected" you were driving "under the influence," that you would submit to chemical test. This is simply called "implied consent," and it is perfectly legal. Again, since driving ISNT a right, how would you feel if "implied consent" was expanded to include vehicle searches? Hopefully that day will never come, and if does while I'm on the job, I'll make a quick exit from the profession, but it could happen.... and why? Because people that didnt know their rights. People who couldnt read a book, browse a website, or listen in school.

People that don't care to know their rights until it applies to them, are more dangerous than those who would take our rights away. Why? Because they don't complain until there gone.... which is obviously too late.

I highlighted and turned red a part of your quote I will address.

Then why are the police not informed themselves of our rights? you would think if your profession involved having authority to take away peoples freedoms and accuse them of crimes that more police officers would take an active interest in learning laws and rights of the public they serve.

Police are public servants, that means when they mislead the public, lie to the public, abuse the public, they are violating their oath as public servants and violating the trust that they were given by the people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I highlighted and turned red a part of your quote I will address.

Then why are the police not informed themselves of our rights? you would think if your profession involved having authority to take away peoples freedoms and accuse them of crimes that more police officers would take an active interest in learning laws and rights of the public they serve.

Police are public servants, that means when they mislead the public, lie to the public, abuse the public, they are violating their oath as public servants and violating the trust that they were given by the people.

You're making a generalization en masse and have no numbers to support your premise. I will freely admit, that there are officers that don't know that law the way they should. Hell, I've told a younger officer "you can't do that," as I he attempted to go into somebody's vehicle because the citizen said there was a gun in it. However, there are a great many officers that do know what your rights are. The problem? No one ever writes up "kudos" about officers respecting their rights.... but everybody writes up narratives about officers abusing their rights. Thus, perception can be misleading.

 

[Keyser Soze]

No I haven't. I'm not giving you any body samples. Consent denied.

I have probably cause to believe that you have operated a vehicle while intoxicated. I must now offer you the opportunity to submit to a chemical test and inform you that your refusal to submit to a chemical test will result in the suspension of your driving privileges for one year. If you have at least one previous conviction for operating while intoxicated your refusal to submit to a chemical test will result in the suspension of your driving privileges for two years.

Will you now take a chemical test? : I'm not giving you any body samples. Consent denied.

I prepare a probably cause affidavit listing all of the evidence I have gathered that makes be believe you are intoxicated. A judge and prosecutor reviews the evidence and usually finds cause granting a search warrant for your blood or urine.

If the results come back and you are over the per se limit Your going to be charged with OWI refusal automatically lose you license for a year or two. On top of that you are still being charged with operating while intoxicated, and operated per se.

 

[PatriotPride]

Yes. Great poll. Too often have I seen police officers pressure people into allowing a search of their vehicle with no PC.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes. Great poll. Too often have I seen police officers pressure people into allowing a search of their vehicle with no PC.

You don't need to pressure anybody if you have PC.
And if you don't mind me asking, could you relay a instance in which you have "seen" this pressure applied. I view pressure as coercion, which isnt legal.

 

[PatriotPride]

You don't need to pressure anybody if you have PC.
And if you don't mind me asking, could you relay a instance in which you have "seen" this pressure applied. I view pressure as coercion, which isnt legal.

I don't mind you asking. I don't need to explain---but I'll provide one such example. I'm sure most persons here have experienced this: You're pulled over for a minor violation, or speeding. Not a big deal. You're respectful to the officer. He hands you a warning, then stops and says that before he goes would you mind him searching your vehicle, just so, you know, he can make sure you don't have anything you're not supposed to have. You refuse, at which point the officer becomes...belligerent and attempts to interrogate you as to WHY exactly you are refusing to allow him to search your vehicle. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I don't mind you asking. I don't need to explain---but I'll provide one such example. I'm sure most persons here have experienced this: You're pulled over for a minor violation, or speeding. Not a big deal. You're respectful to the officer. He hands you a warning, then stops and says that before he goes would you mind him searching your vehicle, just so, you know, he can make sure you don't have anything you're not supposed to have. You refuse, at which point the officer becomes...belligerent and attempts to interrogate you as to WHY exactly you are refusing to allow him to search your vehicle. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

When you assume....ah never mind. Ive never experienced that. Or done that. OR witnessed any of my fellow officers do so. So out of the 20,000 I find it hard to believe that most have experienced what you are describing. We could make another poll in the political form may be a little bias.

But ill humor you a little bit. Lets say this really were the case. Who's fault would it be intimately. So the stop is completed right? . Your stuff is handed back to you. Couldn't you just throw them deuces up and leave? Avoid being harassed.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

When you assume....ah never mind. Ive never experienced that. Or done that. OR witnessed any of my fellow officers do so. So out of the 20,000 I find it hard to believe that most have experienced what you are describing. We could make another poll in the political form may be a little bias.

But ill humor you a little bit. Lets say this really were the case. Who's fault would it be intimately. So the stop is completed right? . Your stuff is handed back to you. Couldn't you just throw them deuces up and leave? Avoid being harassed.

First of all I'll buy you dinner at Morton's in Indy if you're really an LEO. Troll of the bridge doesn't count. Neither does claiming to have spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express. That aside.

Yeah it happens. It has happened to me several times. Conversation usually goes something like this:

Do you know why I pulled you over?

No.

Do you have any weapons?

Not that qualify under Terry.

Do you have any weapons?

Not that qualify under Terry.

How do you know about Terry?

I used to be you.

Conversation usually stops there. If it goes on, it's kinda like this:

You have anything in your vehicle I should know about?

Nope.

Is it OK if I take a look in your vehicle?

No, it's not OK.

Why not?

You don't have probable cause.

How do you know I don't have probable cause?

Because if you did I would be handcuffed behind the car and you'd be searching it.

I want to look in your trunk. Open it.

No.

Why not?

Because in law school I learned you can't do that without probable cause.

Conversation's over. It might go on a bit longer, but the only time I had my car searched was when I was 16. Now you might surmise that I don't present myself as a strungout meth head or someone that's easily pushed around. Quiet but firm.

Bottom line is if you let someone make you their punk b**h you are a punk b***h. No amount of warning changes that.

 

[irishfan]

YES! YES! YES! YES! great poll. If I were a govt teacher, I would tell every child in my class exactly what their rights are, and why they should NEVER open their mouths and talk to the police. maybe i'll go substitute teach for a while.

Ranger a government teacher???? That is one class I would like to see

 

[level.eleven]

Bottom line is if you let someone make you their punk b**h you are a punk b***h. No amount of warning changes that.

Just to note, you are an ex-cop with a law degree. You are blessed with intelligence, the drive to digest law, and the experience of enforcing the law. Those who are most vulnerable to suspect practices are the polar opposite of you.

 

[E5RANGER375]

You're making a generalization en masse and have no numbers to support your premise. I will freely admit, that there are officers that don't know that law the way they should. Hell, I've told a younger officer "you can't do that," as I he attempted to go into somebody's vehicle because the citizen said there was a gun in it. However, there are a great many officers that do know what your rights are. The problem? No one ever writes up "kudos" about officers respecting their rights.... but everybody writes up narratives about officers abusing their rights. Thus, perception can be misleading.

well one generalization I will make is all you (95%) INGO cops are the same, and require people to ***** foot around on making a comment about cops. so let me clarify so you dont cry.

EVERY cop that I personally have ever known as a friend, or am related too (includes a deputy chief), didnt know as much as I would have hoped when it comes to the laws. seems as if as long as you got the traffic violations, domestic cases, drug laws, pedophile ****, covered that you will rise to the top.
As much as you cops talk about getting shot at and being a target every damn shift , one would think you would get to know a little about gun laws involving legal gun owners. The only reason I can think of why you wouldnt claim to know the gun laws is so you could claim ignorance later when your in court defending yourself against violating someones rights. but us citizens are held to a higher standard of "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

and as far as the generalization you claim I made earlier ...... I bet those numbers wouldn't be hard to prove for the majority of cops not knowing the law like they should.

If I was a cop, it would truly bother me knowing or not knowing if I violated or was violating someones rights. no matter how ghetto, or redneck, rich or poor they were. I know some police still give a **** about doing things the right way and I support them and would give my life to back them up. for the rest of the cops that enjoy ****ing with people or pushing things over the legal limit, I hope they burn in a fire. Its not the rest of the worlds fault you have a small penis and were bullied your whole life, so now you hide behind a badge to do to others what was done to you. thats not the kind of cops we need, and Im sad to say I have known and worked with a lot of cops just like that who wanted to come into my professional playground and sucked at that too, and endangered peoples lives. So when I talk about my opinions on what a lot of cops do, its based on my personal first hand knowledge of cops I know or have met. believe me, I wish I would have never met some of the deusch bag cops I have through my past work. If it was up to me they would have been hog tied and dropped off in the desert.