Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Cops doing that open themselves to lawsuits like in the link I posted about those NM cops. And furthermore, the police here had no legitimate reason for even considering the people "suspects."
Not doing that put's them at risk.
I side with the cops on this one. We don't know what was said, or how it was said from either side.
I would say they acted in the best interest of the safety of all. (from the little information provided in the article)
I could be wrong, but the photos really don't say anything.
How would the police know,isn't it better to err on the side of caution and have every traffic stop be a felony stop where the occupants are made to get on the ground and be handcuffed?
It is the best way to keep the police safe.
Haven't you seen the numerous videos of police being shot at traffic stops?
Maybe this sort of thuggery is normal in DC but it's totally unacceptable to most people. And there will be charges or a lawsuit.
Can't stop people from filing frivolous lawsuits, but I doubt anything will happen. No one suffered anything but inconvenience. There will certainly be no charges filed.
How would the police know,isn't it better to err on the side of caution and have every traffic stop be a felony stop where the occupants are made to get on the ground and be handcuffed?
It is the best way to keep the police safe.
Haven't you seen the numerous videos of police being shot at traffic stops?
That's why (at least when I've been stopped in my car) one officer was on each side of the car, with the one on the passenger side, his weapon was drawn. Of course, when I am at work, they are super polite and wave me on!!
But then I didn't have a visible weapon.
That's why what was said at the time and how it was said makes a difference.
I side with the cops on this one. We don't know what was said, or how it was said from either side.
I would say they acted in the best interest of the safety of all. (from the little information provided in the article)
I could be wrong, but the photos really don't say anything.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That applies to cops, including this case. The stop itself was illegal since there was no reason to believe illegal activity was going on (the cop being ignorant that it was a legal shooting area does not justify the detention). On that alone they violated the people's rights. ANd then after they became aware of that fact they continued to hold them, attempting to trump up something to justify their illegal stop.
Furthermore, in Florida v. J.L., the SCOTUS clearly stated there is no gun exception to the protections of the BOR against illegal/unreasonable searches. Officer safety does not trump civil rights. The cops signed up for the job, they knew the risks. A cop is not allowed to just stop me and handcuff me because I have a gun. Read that case I linked to about those NM cops detaining a person open carrying a handgun. That's how the courts have been handling this sort of thing...ruling against the cops.
Can't stop people from filing frivolous lawsuits, but I doubt anything will happen. No one suffered anything but inconvenience. There will certainly be no charges filed.
Civil rights violations are not "inconveniences" and lawsuits over that are not frivolous in the least. Tell me, did you support segregation in the 60's?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That applies to cops, including this case. The stop itself was illegal since there was no reason to believe illegal activity was going on (the cop being ignorant that it was a legal shooting area does not justify the detention). On that alone they violated the people's rights. ANd then after they became aware of that fact they continued to hold them, attempting to trump up something to justify their illegal stop.
Furthermore, in Florida v. J.L., the SCOTUS clearly stated there is no gun exception to the protections of the BOR against illegal/unreasonable searches. Officer safety does not trump civil rights. The cops signed up for the job, they knew the risks. A cop is not allowed to just stop me and handcuff me because I have a gun. Read that case I linked to about those NM cops detaining a person open carrying a handgun. That's how the courts have been handling this sort of thing...ruling against the cops.
Since I don't know all the "laws" of that area, I can only go by in areas i've been in. In some places i've lived it is illegal to hunt with in a distance from a public road. Could that be the case here? I've only see mention of boundries related to the tribe and not much more.
Since I don't know all the "laws" of that area, I can only go by in areas i've been in. In some places i've lived it is illegal to hunt with in a distance from a public road. Could that be the case here? I've only see mention of boundries related to the tribe and not much more.
No. They hunted in a legal area. If you read the article in the first post you'd notice the state and local officials stated the hunters were entirely legal and the tribal cops were wrong...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
