Police are going to far!!! - and now they are paying for it

[BlackSheep]

I can only go by what you've posted and what you've posted is nothing but opinion and guesses.

You just ignore all the arguments.

[Dieval]

You just ignore all the arguments.

I ignored all your useless opinions and guesses....get it right!

[BlackSheep]

I ignored all your useless opinions and guesses....get it right!

I had it right. If they were useless opinions then you show how they were merely opinions and useless. You ignored them.

[Dieval]

I had it right. If they were useless opinions then you show how they were merely opinions and useless. You ignored them.

I've pointed it out over and over.

[BlackSheep]

I've pointed it out over and over.

You stated it over and over. That is not the same thing. I went through some detail and then you simple said it was opinion. I explained how it was fact based evidence that went to sho state of mind and you simply said opinion.

[Zeebadee]

You stated it over and over. That is not the same thing. I went through some detail and then you simple said it was opinion. I explained how it was fact based evidence that went to sho state of mind and you simply said opinion.

Look, you said, "My assumption is based on two pieces of evidence that I repeated over and over. The officer did not act as if there was any threat as he would have had they been real and he never commented that the looked real. He only commented that their was a complaint."

You have absolutely no way of knowing what the officer thought or believed. You have absolutely no way of knowing why the officer acted as he did. Therefore, your "fact based evidence" is nothing more than your opinion.

There was absolutely no requirement that he needed to comment that they looked real. He told the old bag he was there in response to a complaint. Once there, if he thought there was a threat, he had every right to enter private property to check out that threat. Exigent circumstances have been established, if you want to claim otherwise, you'll have to prove that your opinions of the officer's actions are accurate. Tell us how you "know" how he would have acted if he really believed the threat was real. Your statement is partly correct, it's based on an "assumption".

[ruksak]

You just ignore all the arguments.

I ignored all your useless opinions and guesses....get it right!

I had it right. If they were useless opinions then you show how they were merely opinions and useless. You ignored them.

I've pointed it out over and over.

You stated it over and over. That is not the same thing.

OK OK....lol I'm getting motion sickness.

Look, you said, "My assumption is based on two pieces of evidence that I repeated over and over. The officer did not act as if there was any threat as he would have had they been real and he never commented that the looked real. He only commented that their was a complaint."

You have absolutely no way of knowing what the officer thought or believed. You have absolutely no way of knowing why the officer acted as he did. Therefore, your "fact based evidence" is nothing more than your opinion.

^^^gotta go with this.

What a cop says and what he thinks are two different things. They are a tricky lot. Under many circumstances, they have no requirement during the course of the investigation of a complaint to divulge information such as their every thought, upon request (i.e. Whether or not they actually thought the guns were real).

Police need to have some ability to investigate complaints such as this. It sucks when the cops get called on you over a mistake, but don't be upset with them for doing their job. If you have to be upset with someone, be upset with the misguided persons whom wrongly called the cops on you. Let them do their job and start off with respect so long as the respect is reciprocated.

[BlackSheep]

Look, you said, "My assumption is based on two pieces of evidence that I repeated over and over. The officer did not act as if there was any threat as he would have had they been real and he never commented that the looked real. He only commented that their was a complaint."

You have absolutely no way of knowing what the officer thought or believed. You have absolutely no way of knowing why the officer acted as he did. Therefore, your "fact based evidence" is nothing more than your opinion.

You are correct in that thee s no way I can know about what the officer thought or believed and I have never claimed such. I am offering fact based evidence that is evidence to the officers state of mind. I have even admitted that that is speculation, and explained that often that is how evidence works.

When finger prints are found at the scene of a crime it does not mean that the suspect was there at the time of the crime, but it is a piece of evidence that makes it possible. If the finger prints are incomplete it gives us a statistical likelihood of it being the same person and nothing more. We have no idea why the suspect was there it is all speculation.

There was absolutely no requirement that he needed to comment that they looked real. He told the old bag he was there in response to a complaint. Once there, if he thought there was a threat, he had every right to enter private property to check out that threat. Exigent circumstances have been established, if you want to claim otherwise, you'll have to prove that your opinions of the officer's actions are accurate. Tell us how you "know" how he would have acted if he really believed the threat was real. Your statement is partly correct, it's based on an "assumption".

I never suggested that there a requirement that he claim they were real.
The fact you call her an "old bag" shows a clear bias on your part.
Actually I do not need to prove anything. The officer, or in this case your side of the debate, needs to prove he had probable cause to breach their rights.

While I am not claiming he needed to say anything about them looking real, I am curious about why, if that was the basis of his probable cause, he did not. There is no reason for him not to state it and it was not a matter of him being silent. Instead he went on about the complaint. Does this prove anything? No, but it does make me wonder if he actually did feel the weapons were real.

As far as his actions went, again I am not claiming know what he was thinking, but his actions to not fit with an officer who felt there was a danger. Weapons are a potential danger, so why did he not use more precaution? We don't know, but again it suggests that he didn't feel there was any real threat.

This is real evidence that leads us to suspect the officer did not perceive these weapons as real and if he did not then he had no probable cause. Is speculation involved? Yes of course. Few pieces of evidence do not involve speculation. Most court battles are all about the interpretation of the evidence and in this case it is the officer who needs to demonstrate he had 'the right' to enter private property without permission.

Instead of complaining my evidence is purely speculation, you should be demonstrating evidence that he had probable cause and giving alternative explanations to the evidence I have provided.

[BlackSheep]

What a cop says and what he thinks are two different things. They are a tricky lot. Under many circumstances, they have no requirement during the course of the investigation of a complaint to divulge information such as their every thought, upon request (i.e. Whether or not they actually thought the guns were real).

I am quite aware of this. Police lie quite often in the course of their duties and their ability to due so has support from the highest courts, but that is not what is at issue here. I never suggested they had an obligation to divulge anything, I simply wonder why in this situation the officer didn't. There was no reason for him not to and he seemed eager to defend himself. The evidence I presented is not powerful by any stretch of the imagination, but it does make one wonder.

Police need to have some ability to investigate complaints such as this. It sucks when the cops get called on you over a mistake, but don't be upset with them for doing their job. If you have to be upset with someone, be upset with the misguided persons whom wrongly called the cops on you. Let them do their job and start off with respect so long as the respect is reciprocated.

I don't get upset with the police for dong their job and I have been arrested, charged and my life pretty messed up by them before.

I suggest the officer in question did not respect them or he would have stated what he needed to do rather that simply doing it. If the officer wanted respect then he should have offered it.

If I had been in the position of the people running the garage sale I would have acted similarly. If the officer approached and explained what had happened, I would have been more than happy to comply with his request. if the officer expected to be respected then he should have respected them.

[Zeebadee]

Y
Actually I do not need to prove anything. The officer, or in this case your side of the debate, needs to prove he had probable cause to breach their rights.

Ok, how's this? The authorities responsible for overseeing the officer, by not disciplining him, determined that the officer's actions were entirely correct, and did not "breach their rights". Therefore, your "speculation" did not rise to the level of "factual evidence".

Police lie quite often in the course of their duties and their ability to due so has support from the highest courts, ....

I'd like you to show some evidence that the "highest courts" support lying by the police. That's a ridiculous, asinine claim.

[BlackSheep]

Ok, how's this? The authorities responsible for overseeing the officer, by not disciplining him, determined that the officer's actions were entirely correct, and did not "breach their rights". Therefore, your "speculation" did not rise to the level of "factual evidence".

That is a process. When a complaint is raised and reaches a court or neutral investigative body it is the police that need to support their claim of probable cause.

I'd like you to show some evidence that the "highest courts" support lying by the police. That's a ridiculous, asinine claim.

It is true.

Attempting to reconcile such rulings, state courts and lower federal courts have come to draw a distinction between two kinds of lying to suspects: intrinsic misrepresentations, or those lies that relate to a suspect's connection to the crime; and extrinsic misrepresentations, or those that have nothing to do with the suspect's connection to the crime but attempt to distort his ability to make a rational choice about confessing. One of the leading cases recognizing this distinction is Holland v. McGinnis, decided in 1992 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That case affirmed the admission of a confession obtained after investigators falsely told the defendant, Holland, that they "had received a Chicago police report indicating that a witness had seen Holland's vehicle in the alley where the victim had been raped, and that Holland would have to explain why his vehicle was there." The Court reasoned:

Such misrepresentations, of course, may cause a suspect to confess, but causation alone does not constitute coercion; if it did, all confessions following interrogations would be involuntary because "it can almost always be said that the interrogation caused the confession." Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 605 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986). Thus, the issue is not causation, but the degree of improper coercion, and in this instance the degree was slight. Inflating evidence of Holland's guilt interfered little, if at all, with his "free and deliberate choice" of whether to confess, Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 106 S. Ct. 1135 (1986), for it did not lead him to consider anything beyond his own beliefs regarding his actual guilt or innocence, his moral sense of right and wrong, and his judgment regarding the likelihood that the police had garnered enough valid evidence linking him to the crime. In other words, the deception did not interject the type of extrinsic considerations that would overcome Holland's will by distorting an otherwise rational choice of whether to confess or remain silent.

The Straight Dope: What can the police lie about while conducting an interrogation?

And that is simply over gaining a confession, when there is n confession at hand they are much freer to lie. They can not of course lie in court.

[Zeebadee]

And that is simply over gaining a confession, when there is n confession at hand they are much freer to lie. They can not of course lie in court.

I thought you were referring to lying in court cases. Yes, I knew that the police could use lies and tricks to get evidence and confessions. No court or judge would allow such lying in sworn statements or while under oath.