News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
They have moved on to citizens. Not long now, they are getting practice in at detaining them to try to cow people out of resisting once they start actually arresting them in throwing them in ICE facilities.
Also:
IDK what this guy means by "standing up for your rights" but I suspect it means "start an argument with the cops and in the process slip up and give them some good legal reason to arrest you which they will be happy to do, because you have no idea about the law." Maybe I'm wrong. But if anyone is in this situation I would really advise you not to get all aggressive with the cops thinking that's going to be the move that saves us all.
It probably means refusing to answer questions or provide documents you're not legally required to. Or refusing a search of your vehicle without probable cause.
The police aren't going to wait for an argumentative civilian to slip up and give them a legal reason to arrest them. They're just going to arrest them because they feel like it. Random people don't necessarily know the law, but police also don't know the law. They're not even required to know if the thing they're pulling you over for is even illegal.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/4/9095213/police-stops-heien-v-north-carolina
In your mind, does that include your name and birthday?
In your mind, does that include providing your ID (let's just say on a traffic stop)?
Do you mean refusing verbally while not preventing them, or do you mean physically refusing to cooperate with it (not getting out of the car so they can search for example)?
Just want to check up how you did in law school. If you pass, then yes, I think it's a good idea for you to stand up for your rights. If you don't know the answers to these questions, then "standing up for your rights" can get you in a whole shitload of trouble you didn't need to be in.
You are required to provide your license and registration if pulled over for a traffic stop. For a non-traffic stop, the police need an actual crime they suspect to require anything from you. For a border checkpoint you're not required to provide proof of citizenship if you're a citizen. Other than those requirements, you're not required to answer police questions. They're not your friends.
Police cannot search your vehicle without either a warrant or probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime (or voluntary consent that you shouldn't ever give). You must follow lawful orders (vague term so risky to challenge), so if they tell you to get out, you probably should, but getting out of your vehicle when instructed does not in any way then allow them to search your car outside of the above reasons. Just being pulled over for a moving violation doesn't mean they can then go fishing for something more serious.
All that said, if the cops don't know the law, you can assert your rights all you want and they'll still search your vehicle and/or arrest you for nothing. Your only recourse is waiting for someone who does know the law to release you, and if they performed an illegal search to get the results thrown out. It's easier for most people not to assert their fourth amendment rights. Even if you're innocent you can still be screwed by the arrest so people take the path of least resistance.
I have never known refusing to give consent for a vehicle search to stop the police from searching that vehicle. You still should never give it, but it just can help you in court and getting released before trial by the prosecutor. You can still get arrested, get your car towed and charged exorbitant fees every day to sit in an empty lot surrounded by razor wire. The police have way too much power.
And they want more. I guarantee you that they were loving every word that was coming out of Stephen Miller's mouth, especially the part about being unleashed. That's music to a cop's ears.
* you 100% should, in literally every single situation I can think of unless your name is Tyre Nichols
Correct... but advising people to "stand up for their rights" if they start searching it anyway (with or without a legal basis that the person doesn't understand on the spot), I think is a lot more likely to get them arrested for obstruction than it is to change the cops' mind about doing the search. And then once they're arrested for a pretty solid reason, they can do a tow inventory without worrying about the search getting tossed out later, so they're on ironclad footing as far as whatever they find. You're technically right but I think explaining a little more detail about what you are talking about would probably be a better way to talk about it, in terms of what will happen to anyone who listens to you, even if the idea is right.
It absolutely does. They can call for a dog, they can see something that's in plain sight, they can allegedly smell burnt marijuana and there's nothing on the bodycam to show that they didn't. They can ask you incriminating questions in a friendly fashion, which if you are smart you won't give much of any response to. They can decide you have glossy eyes and they want you to get out and do a field sobriety test, and then they can pat you down to make sure you don't have any weapons for officer safety. There are certain limits on how they can go fishing for something more serious, but they absolutely can make the attempt, and if they find something without crossing certain boundaries, then it's fair game and you can be fucked. And there are some boundaries on how you're allowed to resist their fishing that a lot of people don't have a clear understanding of the details of.
On the whole most of what you are saying is right. You are substantially ahead of the curve as far as Lemmy law knowledge. The little caveats above are just little nitpicks honestly. But my point is, people are idiots and frequently get themselves arrested because they took advice like "stand up for your rights" seriously and went to bat about it, without really understanding what their rights are and how to stand up for them. I think more detail and understanding is important to provide. That's all I'm saying.
As to the police saying you have glossy eyes, anyone at any time driving a vehicle they could pull over, accuse of being impaired, and in their expert opinion arrest you. People don't realize that the laws actually allow them to charge you for impaired driving even if blood tests they get a warrant for shows zero drugs and zero alcohol. The system really is that fucked. And nobody in Authority ever wants to admit they were wrong about anything and they were all raised to have nothing but contempt for the rest of the population.
100% true, although a good lawyer will be able to prevent any "legal" penalties ultimately, they can sure fuck up your day in the meantime. This is one reason I was recommending against certain ways of antagonizing them for no reason.
For sure, and we have all seen the videos of people trying to stick up for their rights in the wrong way and getting themselves in a world of trouble. And I have been there and it is very hard to tread the line between sticking up for yourself and not getting fucked worse by the police because they have so much power and unaccountable Authority. If they want to arrest you they will. And cooperating on things like sobriety tests outside of a breathalyzer which you cannot refuse without consequence, we'll just give them probable cause as they will lie.
100%. Never ever cooperate with the sobriety test. Just say something like, "I feel like those tests are pretty subjective, so no, I don't want to do that. You can breath test me, blood test me, whatever [because yes those do have consequences if you refuse], because I'm sober [because you ARE sober, as opposed to careening around on the road trying to get my nieces killed RIGHT?]. But no, I'm refusing the field sobriety test, if you want my answer on that."
You'll probably get arrested. It will be a pain in the ass. But, that might have happened anyway, so you might as well start setting things up to advantage yourself in your case. Honestly you can make your own judgement whether maybe it's worth doing a quick HGN test because the cop is for real not sure whether you are sober or not... in general, though, if they're talking to you about DUI, you should ask for a PBT and refuse any physical sobriety test (recognizing that it will make it way more likely that you get arrested). Your lawyer will thank you and you'll basically be fine.
I don't know why people focus so hard on the "getting arrested" part of the equation and not on the "beating the case" part of it, when the second part is far more important. Cops know that, and part of the manipulation that they'll do is kind of making it sound like cooperating with them is going to make getting arrested less likely. The case is the big deal part of it though.
I was accused of being drunk or high and did one of those tests and they said it was a failure even though I didn't show any impairment of motor skills. Arrested me, Drew my blood in the hospital, towed my car, then released me the next morning without charge, only to file charges 14 months later for supposedly having one nanogram per milliliter of THC despite the fact that I had not smoked at all anytime in the range. Had to pay 3K for a lawyer that got it dropped. Plus several hundred to get my car out of impound.
Yeah. Somewhere on YouTube there are plenty of lawyer videos about how to deal with those stops, but basically TL;DR: Refuse the field sobriety tests, be calm and polite, don't answer questions or engage in discussion (aside from providing your name and IDing yourself), cooperate with any kind of medical / chemical test they want you to do.
My least favorite is shining the light directly into my eye at night. I refuse that one straight up. I find it very uncomfortable to have bright lights in my eyes and I do not trust those dipshits and anybody that tells them and is not bad for your vision, and they're doing it in bad faith anyway. Plus I was completely sober. They do that to check the dilation of the pupils apparently. Most illegal drugs do like big pupils but opiates do small.
I don't think most of that is true. Mostly the field sobriety eye test is checking whether your eyes will twitch when they go to the edge of the field of view. They have to shine enough light near your face to be able to see your eyes obviously but if they're shining it right in your eyes they are definitely doing it wrong.
(Fun fact, when I was younger I passed one of those when I should not have. The cop was holding a pen near the edge of my field of view and I could literally see the pen shaking because of my eyes twitching, and for some reason he passed me on the test. I was not especially drunk, so maybe I was below the threshold, but I had been drinking. Who knows. Anyway, don't drive drunk kids. I just saw a bodycam video yesterday of a woman who had gotten in the car just to move it, while she was pretty drunk, and she managed to run over her husband who was near the car and kill him. She was shattered, looked like just a sweet woman who was out having fun and now her life was irrevocably destroyed, I did not finish watching the video.)
I won't say that there are not cops out there that will shine light in your eyes to check your pupil size or something (and definitely small pupils are a sign of drug use... I think mostly it is stimulants shrinking your pupils as almost all of what they're looking for; psychedelics will make your pupils big but that's not what most people they're looking to bust for DUI drugs have taken I think). The standard test is looking for twitching though.
You are talking about a different test assuming it is the same.
No, I am talking about the standardized HGN test. I specifically said I wasn't sure that there were not also cops out there doing something different like you described. The one I was talking about is the present-day standardized field sobriety test with the eyes, though (HGN test).
I had previously let the cops shime a flashlight directly into the eyes to before it is different than what you are talking about it is to check for hope you or cocaine or other drug use that dilates your pupils or consricts them.
I take it to mean what it literally says. Standing up for your rights vs just letting a cop hassle you for no reason and do whatever they please as if those rights don't exist.
Example, you don't have to allow a cop to search your vehicle without probable cause. But do you want to risk challenging the cop? What if they end up finding something else to bring you in on?
What's even more fucked up is that even if you don't have a reason to worry about them searching your car, giving up your right to refuse could very well allow a cop to plant evidence during a search. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
See, this is a great example. Three possible scenarios:
A lot of YouTube lawyers think that behaving like #3 is going to lead to a #1 outcome. It is not. It is going to lead to additional charges, and your lawyer (assuming we're still in a legal landscape where probable cause things are still relevant at all) is going to be mad at you for fucking up so badly at dealing with the cops. A lot of people do #3 and think they are "standing up for their rights." Those people usually spend some time in jail (and if ICE is involved, God help you if you hand them some additional rope to hang you with all on your own volition, I don't even know what that gets you.)
#2 is enough to protect you legally. Now I don't really know whether you or the Reddit guy are advocating for #3. I have no idea. Maybe you mean having a recording of the cops, maybe you mean having legal aid on standby and making sure you make a record of the illegal search so a good lawyer will be able to toss the case. I have no idea, I'm just speculating. All I'm saying is, I have seen a ton of people who seem to believe they are "standing up for their rights" when they are in reality fucking themselves to a really extreme degree. Please know what you are talking about if you decide to stand up for your rights.
You can be Anne Frank's family, or you can be Oskar Schindler or Ben Ferencz. Or whatever you want to do. What I am saying is that standing up when the Nazis are stopping you and asking for papers and getting in their face and pointing your finger and yelling about how this isn't right, man, is probably a tactical mistake (and in in our modern legal system I've observed that the type of people who like to do this seem to have this common skill and habit for committing bunches of extra crimes they don't realize they are committing while they are standing up for their rights, in their mind.)
Why are you assuming anyone is advocating for 3?
This isn't just a normal cop on a power trip, these "task force" agents were just given the federal government's blessing to go wild. They have individuals from the department of wildlife getting to live out their authoritarian fantasies and take out their frustrations on an entire city.
I need you to do a quick Ctrl-F for "Now I don't really know".
I need you to do a quick Ctrl-F for "probably a tactical mistake". Yes, I get that especially these particular cops are not necessarily going to behave like ordinary city cops. That makes it a worse idea to commit extra crimes and antagonize them, it doesn't mean it all of a sudden becomes a good idea or an effective way to push back against fascism.
I grew up in Memphis. I've known more than one person that had something planted on them during a search by a regular cop during regular times. They didn't do anything except end up pulled over by the wrong cop because they "seemed suspicious."
In high school, I knew someone who was stopped and searched while walking in the wrong part of town, then arrested as a minor for carrying too many condoms in their purse. They were a trans 17 year old, and the cops put them in jail with adult men and laughed while they cried bc they were so scared.
You do not have to do anything wrong to end up a victim of unjust fascist bullshit. You never have. Now, under an authoritarian takeover, it's not just a possibility that it could always happen, it's almost a guarantee.
And I've observed many times people reacting to all that that you just laid out, by getting super-hostile with the cops and committing additional crimes in the course of that hostility. Never once did it overthrow the system of fascism or make their life any easier. If you want to talk about how to change all that system and make the justice back again part of the equation, then sure, I think that's super worthwhile and we should talk about it (very genuinely.)