# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal

## michaelr

*Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal Behavior*So in Police State America, the cops can pull you over, of course pat you down, lie by calling you a thief or some shit, and what the fuck else they wish to do, and YOU WILL NOT RESIST ELSE THEY'LL LOCK YOUR ASS UP FOR THAT ALONE!!

IT'S OVER, THIS COUNTRY IS DONE!!

----------

Coolwalker (04-12-2016),Jim Rockford (04-12-2016),Knightkore (04-12-2016),Slayer98_l (04-12-2016)

----------


## Corruptbuddha

They still have to establish reasonable suspicion.  They can't just pull you over and start frisking you.  

Please stop with the hyperbole.

They knew this guy was a scumbag from the legal wiretaps.

----------

KSigMason (04-13-2016),TBO (04-12-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> They still have to establish reasonable suspicion.  They can't just pull you over and start frisking you.  
> 
> Please stop with the hyperbole.
> 
> They knew this guy was a scumbag from the legal wiretaps.


Bullshit statist, bull damn shit, they can make up cause, did you fail remedial reading too!?

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2016)

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> Bullshit statist, bull damn shit, they can make up cause, did you fail remedial reading too!?



No, but you did.  Nowhere in that piece does it give cops carte blanch.

You know it and I know it.


Get a grip.

----------

TBO (04-12-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> _So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion._


That says, I'm doing this for the reading impaired, that says that they can falsely state cause without reasonable suspicion.

And of course they used a slam dunk TO SET THEIR PRECEDENT!

Holy shit, some would be happy walking themselves in front of the firing squad! Fine, just leave the rest of us alone!

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> No, but you did.  Nowhere in that piece does it give cops carte blanch.
> 
> You know it and I know it.
> 
> 
> Get a grip.



The hell if it doesn't. I'm in no way responsible for your lack of understanding, and you have no right telling me what I know! Find your delusional comfort elsewhere.

----------

Coolwalker (04-12-2016),Knightkore (04-12-2016)

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> That says, I'm doing this for the reading impaired, that says that they can falsely state cause without reasonable suspicion.
> 
> And of course they used a slam dunk TO SET THEIR PRECEDENT!
> 
> Holy shit, some would be happy walking themselves in front of the firing squad! Fine, just leave the rest of us alone!


*So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop

*From your own damn link.

----------

TBO (04-12-2016)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

"Sir, I stopped you because you had a box of donuts on your car and it fell off. Now i'm gonna search you for sprinkles"

----------

Coolwalker (04-12-2016),DeadEye (04-12-2016),Knightkore (04-12-2016),St James (04-12-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> *So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop
> 
> *From your own damn link.


Read it all!! I posted 100% not 50% as you did!

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2016)

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> The hell if it doesn't. I'm in no way responsible for your lack of understanding, and you have no right telling me what I know! Find your delusional comfort elsewhere.



The lack of understanding is yours.

_So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop

Reasonable suspicion.

__Jesus..try reading just one of these articles through real world glasses, eh?​_

----------

TBO (04-12-2016)

----------


## DonGlock26

> I did, they're plastered all over this thread. You can also read page 2 of the summary in the ruling.


I thought so. When asked, you cannot provide any evidence to support your assertions. 




 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## michaelr

> I thought so. When asked, you cannot provide any evidence to support your assertions.


Hell you think this is about phone taps, do you honestly think that I give a fuck what you think?

----------


## michaelr

_So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion.


_

----------


## TBO

> _So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion.
> 
> 
> _


1st part - he has lawful reasonable suspicion, so he can stop them. 

2nd part - if he has lawful reasonable suspicion to stop he can,  and because the stop is lawful, he can use investigatory techniques, such as deception, while engaged in a stop based comlpetely on lawful reasonable suspicion. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------

DonGlock26 (04-13-2016)

----------


## DonGlock26

> 1st part - he has lawful reasonable suspicion, so he can stop them. 
> 
> 2nd part - if he has lawful reasonable suspicion to stop he can,  and because the stop is lawful, he can use investigatory techniques, such as deception, while engaged in a stop based comlpetely on lawful reasonable suspicion. 
> 
> Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk


He's got nothing and he knows it. That's the best part.

----------


## squidward

> Where does he get reasonable suspicion of a crime?
> 
> He can't take it from thin air.


the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion.

Apparently thin air is fine

----------


## pinqy

> the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion


As long as there was a ground that was supported by reasonable suspicion. 

Again...in this particular case, the officer had reasonable suspicion.  He didn't want the suspect to know the real, legitimate reason, and so lied.  He didn't make up a reason, he didn't stop the car for some made up reason.

----------


## michaelr

> 1st part - he has lawful reasonable suspicion, so he can stop them. 
> 
> 2nd part - if he has lawful reasonable suspicion to stop he can,  and because the stop is lawful, he can use investigatory techniques, such as deception, while engaged in a stop based comlpetely on lawful reasonable suspicion. 
> 
> Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk


Liar, or you can't read. Reasonable suspicion can be fabricated! 

_ the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion.

_Your inability to read usually isn't an issue with me, it's actually expected, but you're not going to be able to rely on it all the time. You know what this says, and that's why you accused me of conjecture stating it wasn't in the ruling. Two faced liar comes to mind here!

----------


## michaelr

> As long as there was a ground that was supported by reasonable suspicion. 
> 
> Again...in this particular case, the officer had reasonable suspicion.  He didn't want the suspect to know the real, legitimate reason, and so lied.  He didn't make up a reason, he didn't stop the car for some made up reason.


And reasonable suspicion can be fabricated. You and these other liberals know that, but liberals aren't very honest.

----------


## michaelr

> He's got nothing and he knows it. That's the best part.


Really? You said it didn't exist, then you said it was abour phone taps, now you're just supporting your lying tag team partner because you know you're both wrong, but not man enough to admit it!

----------


## michaelr

> the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion.
> 
> Apparently thin air is fine


Yup. It clearly state that they can lie about reasonable suspicion, but these statist wont admit it.

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2016)

----------


## TBO

Michael you can't have the 2nd part (fabrication of RS told to stoppie) without the first part (valid RS for the stop). 

They go hand in hand, they are a package deal. You can't have the 2nd part without the first, period. 

All this ruling says is you don't have to tell the person you stopped the real reason for the stop, immediately, if there's a valid investigatory reason for the deception. 

The court reviewed and found they has reasonable suspicion for the stop. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------

DonGlock26 (04-13-2016),patrickt (04-13-2016)

----------


## patrickt

I lied to some crooks one day and when we went to court the very, very liberal judge screamed at me. He called me names. I was, according to the liberal judge, disgusting, reprehensible, horrible. He demanded the attorneys submit briefs. Two weeks later I'm called into court again and again he calls me names. Then he said, "But, it appears to be legal."

Liberals, like that judge and MichaelR don't want to change the laws. They want liberals to rule as dictators.

If you're interested, neighbors heard the two burglars discussing how they could get rid of over 15,000 pills they'd stolen in drugstore burglaries. A young woman living with the burglars had been arrested earlier that morning. I tried to get a warrant to search the apartment based on what the neighbors had heard but, in our state, the legislators had seen fit to make eavesdropping a felony so the DA said I should arrest the neighbors who overheard the burglars and called the police. I suspect MichaelR would like that.

So, I called the apartment, said a young woman was being processed into jail as I was being processed out and she asked me to call and tell them the police were getting a warrant.

Five minutes later, the two burglars came running out of the building. Each had a large garbage bag. Two police officers stepped out and identified themselves. One burglar threw his bag over a fence into a neighbor's year. Aha! Abandoned. We could legally look in the bag. The second burglar sat down and proceeded to try to eat the evidence in his bag. He was stopped, taken to the hospital for a stomach pumping, and the inventory of his bag still included over 5000 pills.

The two men plead guilty to numerous burglaries and went to prison.

The next year the state legislature repealed the eavesdropping law.

----------


## michaelr

> I lied to some crooks one day and when we went to court the very, very liberal judge screamed at me. He called me names. I was, according to the liberal judge, disgusting, reprehensible, horrible. He demanded the attorneys submit briefs. Two weeks later I'm called into court again and again he calls me names. Then he said, "But, it appears to be legal."
> 
> Liberals, like that judge and MichaelR don't want to change the laws. They want liberals to rule as dictators.
> 
> If you're interested, neighbors heard the two burglars discussing how they could get rid of over 15,000 pills they'd stolen in drugstore burglaries. A young woman living with the burglars had been arrested earlier that morning. I tried to get a warrant to search the apartment based on what the neighbors had heard but, in our state, the legislators had seen fit to make eavesdropping a felony so the DA said I should arrest the neighbors who overheard the burglars and called the police. I suspect MichaelR would like that.
> 
> So, I called the apartment, said a young woman was being processed into jail as I was being processed out and she asked me to call and tell them the police were getting a warrant.
> 
> Five minutes later, the two burglars came running out of the building. Each had a large garbage bag. Two police officers stepped out and identified themselves. One burglar threw his bag over a fence into a neighbor's year. Aha! Abandoned. We could legally look in the bag. The second burglar sat down and proceeded to try to eat the evidence in his bag. He was stopped, taken to the hospital for a stomach pumping, and the inventory of his bag still included over 5000 pills.
> ...


I see, because I believe in the constitution, I'm a liberal.

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> Michael you can't have the 2nd part (fabrication of RS told to stoppie) without the first part (valid RS for the stop). 
> 
> They go hand in hand, they are a package deal. You can't have the 2nd part without the first, period. 
> 
> All this ruling says is you don't have to tell the person you stopped the real reason for the stop, immediately, if there's a valid investigatory reason for the deception. 
> 
> The court reviewed and found they has reasonable suspicion for the stop. 
> 
> Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk


No. You need reasonable suspicion, or fabricated reasonable suspicion. That coma is a ''this, or that''! The 'that' is saying the ground for reasonable suspicion needs no facts.

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

We're like frogs in the pot. Probable Cause was downgraded to Reasonable Suspicion, but that still required facts to support suspicion. So from Probable Cause, to Reasonable Suspicion, to Reasonable Suspicion without facts. That literally states that for no reason whatsoever, you can be pulled over, searched, questioned, detained, and anything else. 

Now, the heart of fascism is Statism and Liberalism with a heaping helping of Authoritarianism! This is fascist, yet, because I'm fooling enough to think we can still salvage our Bill Of Rights, I'm called a liberal. Because I can read, I'm called a liar.

Damn man, damn!

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2016)

----------


## TBO

You are lying. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------


## michaelr

> You are lying. 
> 
> Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk


You're trolling, and lying, well that just defines you!

Do you still have that last word fetish tag teamer?

----------


## TBO

> No. You need reasonable suspicion, or fabricated reasonable suspicion. *That coma* is a ''this, or that''! The 'that' is saying the ground for reasonable suspicion needs no facts.


More lying from  you.

The important part of the coma is that you can't have the 2nd part (misleading) without the first part (valid Reasonable Suspicion). 

To say otherwise is a lie.

----------


## michaelr

> More lying from  you.
> 
> The important part of the coma is that you can't have the 2nd part (misleading) without the first part (valid Reasonable Suspicion). 
> 
> To say otherwise is a lie.


Right, separate, this or that. The second part is from the ruling, how in the fuck can it be misleading. It's what it says. 

You're really doing a lousy job trying to appear more intelligent than you are.

It's on page 2 of the summary. Copy and pasted. 

Damn man. We're done rather you want to be or not. I'll gladly, honorably, and proudly stand behind my posts!!

----------


## TBO

> Right, separate, this or that. The second part is from the ruling, how in the fuck can it be misleading. It's what it says. 
> 
> You're really doing a lousy job trying to appear more intelligent than you are.
> 
> It's on page 2 of the summary. Copy and pasted. 
> 
> Damn man. We're done rather you want to be or not. I'll gladly, honorably, and proudly stand behind my posts!!


Michael you are lying, yet again. 

If the court was going to rule that Cops can falsely and lie, period, they would have just said that. 
They wouldn't have said a thing about the Cops having valid Reasonable Suspicion, but they did, because that's what this court case was all about, the validity of the stop. 

The court ruled the stop was valid because the Cops had valid Reasonable Suspicion prior to the stop. 

Quit lying. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------

DonGlock26 (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

I said we're done. I don't have for pitty!

----------


## TBO

If you are done lying we are done. 

Enjoy your day. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------

DonGlock26 (04-13-2016)

----------


## Midgardian

Free Thought Project? LOL!

Why not just link to the actual opinion and let people decide for themselves?

----------


## michaelr

> Free Thought Project? LOL!
> 
> Why not just link to the actual opinion and let people decide for themselves?


The link to the ruling, and those words and things, are there. 

But you're into that deflection thing. Wimp!

----------


## Midgardian

> The link to the ruling, and those words and things, are there.


It may be, but it is surrounded by propaganda.

It doesn't appear that either yourself of the "Free Thought Project" want people to think freely.

----------


## michaelr

> It may be, but it is surrounded by propaganda.
> 
> It doesn't appear that either yourself of the "Free Thought Project" want people to think freely.


It's a court document genius, no propaganda. Good grief your an id......you ain't brilliant.

----------


## Midgardian

> It's a court document genius, no propaganda. Good grief your an id......you ain't brilliant.


Uh, the article by the Free Thought Project is_ not_ a legal document.

----------


## michaelr

> Uh, the article by the Free Thought Project is_ not_ a legal document.


Hey liar, is from the government.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...1/14-30249.pdf


https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto.../14-30249....I left off only the .pdf thing!

Scu....

Man, I'm suppose to tolerate this all day, from these people!!??

----------


## Midgardian

So, the way I read this is that the cops had reasonable suspicion that the driver was transporting meth. They executed a traffic stop based on that information, but weren't entirely honest about their motives.

 @michaelr seems to be upset because the court has ruled that the cop can lie.

So, what's new? Cops always lie. You know that they are because their mouths are moving. That is why you don't talk to them.

----------


## michaelr

> So, the way I read this is that the cops had reasonable suspicion that the driver was transporting meth. They executed a traffic stop based on that information, but weren't entirely honest about their motives.
> 
>  @michaelr seems to be upset because the court has ruled that the cop can lie.
> 
> So, what's new? Cops always lie. You know that they are because their mouths are moving. That is why you don't talk to them.


Whats new, and degrading, is now they don't need a reason, it's legal for them to make one up. Remember that when one of yours gets pulled over, and searched, because they were out trying to enjoy themselves. It's your fault. Your probably used to that.

----------


## TBO

Michael stop lying. 

The Court ruled it was okay BECAUSE they had Reasonable Suspicion. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------

DonGlock26 (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> Michael stop lying. 
> 
> The Court ruled it was okay BECAUSE they had Reasonable Suspicion. 
> 
> Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk


Listen liberal, I'm not lying and you know it......you just want to be excused when you treasonly use this. You're biased!!

----------


## michaelr

An alleged cop arguing to destroy the fourth, and people are buying it like it was free trade.

Really?!???!!

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2016)

----------


## TBO

> An alleged cop arguing to destroy the fourth, and people are buying it like it was free trade.
> 
> Really?!???!!


Strawman. 

You get nasty when confronted with your lies. 

The court ruled in the favor of the Cops because they had Reasonable Suspicion. Period. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------


## Knightkore

> An alleged cop arguing to destroy the fourth, and people are buying it like it was free trade.
> 
> Really?!???!!


That is the current atmosphere.....the elites have so brainwashed the populace as to fight against their own freedoms.....it is insane.....

----------


## michaelr

> That is the current atmosphere.....the elites have so brainwashed the populace as to fight against their own freedoms.....it is insane.....


No shit. What these idiot cowards are pushing, the can have. They're more progressive than your womens libber. 

I hate the statist, especially when they play conservative.

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2016)

----------


## Midgardian

> Whats new, and degrading, is now they don't need a reason, it's legal for them to make one up.


They had a reason, they just didn't state it truthfully.

The court acknowledged that they don't have to be honest in that area, so long as they do have an reasonable suspicion.

It helps to look at this with a clear mind.

It also helps to keep your mouth shut around cops, precisely because they can lie and twist about anything you say.

----------


## squidward

> All this ruling says is you don't have to tell the person you stopped the real reason for the stop, immediately, if there's a valid investigatory reason for the deception.


I see your point. I also see the verb "cite" but it doesn't specify to whom he cites his reason for stoppage,  or when. It needs to be added.
It should read "falsely cites to the stoppie immediately upon stopping him"

----------


## michaelr

Only an idiot can't decipher an illegal act from a precedent!

----------


## TBO

There you go. 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

----------


## DonGlock26

> Really? You said it didn't exist,


Quote?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Only an idiot can't decipher an illegal act from a precedent!


Let yourself down gently.

----------


## michaelr

> Quote?





> Let yourself down gently.


Troll.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Troll.


Michael, you have nothing except your hate. I ask for actual, specific proof that backs up your assertions and you cannot produce it.
So, you grow angry and lash out.

----------

TBO (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> Michael, you have nothing except your hate. I ask for actual, specific proof that backs up your assertions and you cannot produce it.
> So, you grow angry and lash out.


I'm not angry, sorry. I only hate anti American statist fuck copsucking liars. 

Anything else Glock?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm not angry, sorry. I only hate anti American statist fuck copsucking liars. 
> 
> Anything else Glock?


Yes, why won't you man up and admit that you can't back up your assertions?

----------

TBO (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> Yes, why won't you man up and admit that you can't back up your assertions?


I backed everything up. You're lying and baiting. I usually take care of shit myself, but if you and your sweetheart keep it up, I'm gunna lay on the report button.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I backed everything up.


No, you haven't and it's pathetic.

----------

TBO (04-13-2016)

----------


## michaelr

> No, you haven't and it's pathetic.


Why, because you can't read. Some cops are idiots, dumb fuck idiots! Up the chain, wow, super stupid!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why, because you can't read. Some cops are idiots, dumb fuck idiots! Up the chain, wow, super stupid!!


You've posted no actual, specific proof to read. You've reached the wrong conclusion because you are ignorant of the subject matter.
You've been corrected by several forum member who do know the subject matter, so you are just throwing a 
hissy fit over it.

----------

TBO (04-13-2016)

----------

