Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3944003" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Important point incoming. WHO eroded those protections? Or to break it down to its basic components, on whose behalf were the erosions initiated? On whose behalf were the laws eroding those protections passed? On whose behalf were the "legal" erosions fought in the courts, all the way to SCOTUS, so the caselaw would support eroding those protections.</p><p></p><p>When you know the answer to those questions, then you understand the reasonable distrust of the "justice" system. To put a finer point on things, I believe far more LEO's fail to understand that "just because you can. doesn't mean you must", than are openly hostile to constitutional protections. Still, they erode that basic trust that must be maintained between the governors and the governed. Both sides suffer when that trust is eroded. Too often the system fights to maintain its authority, rather than maintaining balance. If you want an example, look no further the RCSO not having any body cams, but they have a fully functional MRAP! <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's the way the system views it, but it's not accurate. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sadly, yes. Rogers Co. has had its share of issues with the judiciary side of the "justice" system as well. That's not to say it's just a small jurisdiction issue. After all, the federal FISA court judges were rubber stamping the FBI's specious warrants against US citizens too. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That makes it sound like you can be stupid, or you can be fearful, but you can't be right. That's not right. </p><p></p><p>I think the key should and can fall back to one crucial word: reasonableness. It may not have been reasonable to do what the RCSO deputies did on the side of the road. It may have been reasonable under the circumstances they had knowledge of, which the subject of the stop wasn't aware of. Maybe they shouldn't have cuffed him and maybe they should've, only they will ever know. What they may have done is explain <em>why</em> they did what they did, once they knew they were pumping a dry well? You'd have to examine whether it was a case of bruised ego that they came up dry, didn't feel they should explain themselves because "he's just a kid who won't know any better", or they're trained not to give explanations because that opens them up to more questions. It could be a combination of all three. Or it could be they honestly believe the subject is a bad actor who just happened to not be holding <em>this time.</em></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze beyond what's already been wrung out of this case. OP and son went to the agency and aired their concerns. Said concerns were heard and acknowledged. Whether remedial training will be applied is beyond the purview of the citizen, as there's no legal requirement to comment on individual internal matters. The subject could sue, but to quote Mal from Firefly, "That’s a long wait for a train don’t come.” </p><p></p><p>I do know that if I'm stopped in Rogers Co., I'll help them out by recording the contact for them, since they can't as of yet. <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3944003, member: 1132"] Important point incoming. WHO eroded those protections? Or to break it down to its basic components, on whose behalf were the erosions initiated? On whose behalf were the laws eroding those protections passed? On whose behalf were the "legal" erosions fought in the courts, all the way to SCOTUS, so the caselaw would support eroding those protections. When you know the answer to those questions, then you understand the reasonable distrust of the "justice" system. To put a finer point on things, I believe far more LEO's fail to understand that "just because you can. doesn't mean you must", than are openly hostile to constitutional protections. Still, they erode that basic trust that must be maintained between the governors and the governed. Both sides suffer when that trust is eroded. Too often the system fights to maintain its authority, rather than maintaining balance. If you want an example, look no further the RCSO not having any body cams, but they have a fully functional MRAP! :( That's the way the system views it, but it's not accurate. Sadly, yes. Rogers Co. has had its share of issues with the judiciary side of the "justice" system as well. That's not to say it's just a small jurisdiction issue. After all, the federal FISA court judges were rubber stamping the FBI's specious warrants against US citizens too. :( That makes it sound like you can be stupid, or you can be fearful, but you can't be right. That's not right. I think the key should and can fall back to one crucial word: reasonableness. It may not have been reasonable to do what the RCSO deputies did on the side of the road. It may have been reasonable under the circumstances they had knowledge of, which the subject of the stop wasn't aware of. Maybe they shouldn't have cuffed him and maybe they should've, only they will ever know. What they may have done is explain [I]why[/I] they did what they did, once they knew they were pumping a dry well? You'd have to examine whether it was a case of bruised ego that they came up dry, didn't feel they should explain themselves because "he's just a kid who won't know any better", or they're trained not to give explanations because that opens them up to more questions. It could be a combination of all three. Or it could be they honestly believe the subject is a bad actor who just happened to not be holding [I]this time.[/I] I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze beyond what's already been wrung out of this case. OP and son went to the agency and aired their concerns. Said concerns were heard and acknowledged. Whether remedial training will be applied is beyond the purview of the citizen, as there's no legal requirement to comment on individual internal matters. The subject could sue, but to quote Mal from Firefly, "That’s a long wait for a train don’t come.” I do know that if I'm stopped in Rogers Co., I'll help them out by recording the contact for them, since they can't as of yet. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom